Are we all set? >> We should be all set. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. I'm calling this public uh hearing to order. Uh in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, MGLC 131 section 40 in the Boston Wetlands Ordinance, Boston City Code
Ordinances Chapter 7-1.4, before the Boston Conservation Commission will hold this uh virtual public hearing uh this evening on October 15th, 2025. Uh tonight uh we will be holding a special public hearing regarding the
phase 3 regulations uh public comment period. In accordance with chapter 107 of the acts of 2022, we are conducting this meeting online to ensure public access to the deliberations of the conservation commission. The public may access this call through telephone and video conferencing. Additionally, the meeting
is being recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, please turn off your video. Members of the public may have an opportunity to ask questions and provide public comment on applications and discussions. To do so, please raise your hand or type in the chat in the application via the
Zoom meeting platform. If you're calling in and cannot use the platform, you can raise your hand by pressing star9 and star six to unmute yourself or send your questions to staff via email at cc@boston.gov. For the record, I am Michael Parker, chair of the commission. Could staff please identify themselves.
>> Alice Brown. I'm the director of environmental quality at the Environment Department. >> Alena Edmary, Environment Department. >> DD Hernandez, Environment Department. >> Max Harlage, Environment Department. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, I'll go down
the role of commissioners present. Commissioner Len, >> Amy Len, >> Commissioner Wilson. Mike Wilson, >> Commissioner Conan, >> Conan Wenger, >> Commissioner Ests Smartazi, >> Steve SD Sariosi, >> Commissioner Herpst,
>> and Herp. >> Okay, great. Thank you. The uh agenda item for tonight is discussion and vote to open public comment period on the proposed regulations and performance standards for climate change adaptation and resilience environmental justice
coastal flood resilience zone inland flood resilience zone and extended riverfront area drafted under the Boston wetlands ordinance Boston city code ordinances uh chapter 7-1.4. So staff is going to be providing a
presentation on the draft um regulations. I believe Alice uh this is you're going to be presenting. >> Correct. >> Okay. The floor is all yours. >> Thank you, Chair Parker, and thank you members of the commission and the many
people who are gathered here tonight. Um, I'm grateful that several of you have been heavily involved in past iterations of this regulation development process, either recently or more historically. Uh for those of you unfamiliar with the process or who would benefit from a refresher, in December of
2019, the Boston Wetlands Ordinance was adopted by the Boston City Council, which gave the Conservation Commission the ability to create a new set of regulations that would go above and beyond the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, which will hereto for often be referred to as 310 CMR, which
you'll also see in the draft regulations. Um, in August of 2020, phase one regulations were adopted by this commission. And in February of 2022, phase two of those wetland regulations was adopted. The first phase explained how to file under the new
ordinance primarily. And the second was designed to help folks um file new performance standards for things like land subject to coastal storm flowage and vernal pools, which are recognized in the state regulations, but did not have performance standards.
Um, for a wide of reasons, phase three rags were put on hold and have now been restarted. In January of 2025, the process restarted to develop the regulations you're going to see tonight. Tonight, we are doing this special public hearing in which we hope the
commission will vote to open a public comment period. Um, we will then have a public meeting to provide additional information with a real focus on the environmental justice regulation on October 29th that we encourage people to come to as well or to tell their
friends. Um, comments will be due in November and then in December we will have a subsequent hearing where the commission will vote to either adopt the amended regulations based on the comments or open a second public comment period. The folks involved in drafting these
regulations include conservation commission staff. I would say present and past. I see a couple people who've been involved in the past who've helped us get to where we are. um they for this particular phase um staff has been focused on project management and doing
regulation drafting whereas we've had an incredible consultant team led by Siler Climate Consulting with Star Luna and Noble Worker Shaman Hart who've helped us do the um types of stakeholder engagement equity framework policy deli which I'll explain in a moment and regulatory review. Um, we're also really
grateful to members of our equity council which come from environmental justice communities around the city. They're local residents, their advocates. They have different types of experience with regulatory processes with wetlands etc. The technical working group is primarily made up of folks who
work in um water equity or environmental justice, environment broadly or um state agencies related to all of those things. So it's a combination of folks in nonprofit and public sector who have experience with the regulations in some
and or climate resilience in some capacity. And finally the inter agency working group is colleagues in other city departments primarily parks the office of climate resilience and planning. Um if you were to look process in a more
linear way while also considering um the types of inputs I'm going to show you two different versions of this diagram. So taking the past timeline and changing it into this there are those three groups that are coming together that are rotating through phases of
feedback. Um they've taken the previously drafted rags and they've been able to give us iterative feedback on things like values, goals, outcomes. That's all been translated into the an environmental justice framework as well as the broader wetland regulations and performance standards that happen mostly
through the summer and early fall. And we're now here in this place where we hope that you can help us refine um the final details of these regulations and standards. Oops, I thought that would work. Another way to look at the planning process is with this diagram, which I know has lots
of circles and bubbles, but the equity council, as I mentioned, was doing a set of cycles through understanding how they were going to work together. What are the purposes? What are they trying to solve for relative to the conservation commission? They co-created values. They developed goals and outcomes. And they
went through that process and considered the different stages and drafts that we provided them with through these three lenses. There was also an iterative process with what we called the policy deli which sounds super wonky but it is an online survey that enabled members of the technical working group an inter
agency advisory group to consider different types of strategies. So if the equity council proposed a strategy or goal the people in the technical working group could say yes or no this is something I would support or not support and here's why. And then based on their feedback we were able to go back to the
equity council and then return again to those technical folks to give another iteration. do I still feel the same way with more information? Um, do I want to change my answer, etc. So, it's a very cyclical iterative process um that I would really thank our consultants for managing and providing the feedback that
they have for us. Ellena, is there anything you need me to know? Okay. Um, the equity council developed these shared values around accountability, respect, environmental justice, community health and well-being, a transparency of process. We heard a lot
that there's things about many city processes, but obviously the conservation commission that are just not as clear to members of the public. So, we're thinking through that and then really thinking about community power. And this will come out in various things that you'll see later, but I wanted to share these shared goals that they
developed early in the process. And now, let me talk to you about the regulatory sections themselves. There is a new definition section there and the other five are listed in the ordinance. So there's a climate change adaptation and resilience section, an environmental
justice section, a coastal flood resilience zone or CFRZ, an inland flood resilience zone or IFRZ, and a riverfront area. In this slide presentation, they do have Roman numerals, but because they haven't been finalized for the regulations, they
haven't been given Roman numerals consistently in the document. We didn't want to have to find and adjust like actually which section is going. So you will see in the draft regulations that they are simply section some color and then whatever their subsection is after that. Um and so these colors are used in
this presentation and they're used in the feedback forum and we're trying to make it as consistent as possible. They mean nothing other than to fill in for a Roman numeral but I wanted to flag that here. The definitions um we have tried in creating definitions to be as consistent
as possible with other places these are used in either our own ordinance or with other similar regulations primarily those of the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act office or MEPA and then with the state wetland regulations 310 CMR. We've tried not to invent new
definitions that would be at odds with other regulatory processes, but we recognize that many of the terms we use here are often used in other contexts. And so we're really trying to be clear if something is in capital letters like impact of climate change, we are referring to the definition provided in
the ordinance that we have reiterated here. Some examples of those definitions are list actually all the definitions are listed here. Um we define things like adaptation and resilience. We define an environmental burden and an environmental justice population. There
are three types of trees depending on their diameter at breast height which is a standard measure used by arborists. Um we refer to the climate resiliency checklist. I would prefer it be resilience but the official term is resiliency and we've updated it to say that it's the planning department that
is operating it. We define freeboard which is sort of a distance above flooding a extreme weather event green infrastructure. I mentioned the impacts of climate change, um, impervious surfaces, improved public ways, and it will appear in various iterations, invasive species, um, and finally, storm
water management system. I wish John Sullivan was here to tell me how he what he thought of that definition. I'm sure he will comment later. Um, the first section of real substance is the climate change adaptation and resilience section. Again, the impacts of climate change are outlined for the next 50
years. We'll see things like extreme heat. We'll see changes in water and storms based on the timing, frequency, and intensity of precipitation. We'll also see a frequency of storm events and extreme weather events. And then the frequency, intensity, and duration of
droughts. These are all things that we will see sort of at face value and then there will be ripple effects along it for how those different things or those things in combination affect wetlands. Um, overall we want to look at how these changes to a site in a project
application contribute to the resilience of wetland resource areas. It's something that the commission has been considering since the ordinance, but hopefully this provides further guidance for exactly what additional information can be provided to the commission and how the commission will evaluate that
information. Um, when you read through the sections, it starts with a preamble as they all do. The change resilience standards describe what to include in the NOI or notice of intent, how you should describe climate resilience measures, and then specific considerations. If
you're on the coast, what are considerations for sea level rise? What are considerations for extreme precipitation, extreme heat, and vegetation for each project that is coming through before the commission? We also ask specifically about alignment with city planning documents
particularly those produced by the office of climate resilience or previous versions you might have heard of climate ready Boston and we also want to understand how work in land subject to coastal storm flowage and the coastal flood and inland flood resilience zones are part of larger adaptation measures
also the ordinance references enabling recreation and so as a important co- benefit of many climate resilience solutions we want to ensure that that is a piece of it. The climate resiliency checklist is something that is organized by the Boston Planning Department under
article 37. We recognize that there are nonbuilding projects that may not be relevant to the climate resilience checklist, but projects of all sizes should fill out the relevant sections and the commission staff will provide additional guidance on that. The last two sections are pretty straightforward
about compliance and the effective date. In particular, I want to highlight items B7 and B8. Both of these are designed to help projects that are already trying to sort of do the right thing for climate change. They're either projects that are
specifically coming out of the office of climate resilience or other city departments for the sole purpose of creating better resilience and adaptation measures and or they're part of a larger project that is in line with city planning efforts. Again, you might have seen the climate ready Boston plans
for each neighborhood or the current US Army Corps study. Being aligned with the work of those should help make a project clearer for the commission and should be accordingly. The next section is on environmental justice. The ordinance directed the
commission staff to create guidance on climate equity and environmental justice. Again, this is where the equity council provided the most input. The goal here is to ensure that the EJ communities are appropriately protected, informed, and empowered to be decision
makers. Like I said, there was a tremendous amount of feedback that went into both the work of the equity council and the work through the policy deli with the other two groups to outline specific goals for community outreach and engagement so that more people would be
aware of projects. There was specific work around equity centered processes and procedures so that we're considering how people are finding out about things, how they're engaged throughout the process and how we're communicating to them. Um decision- making and outcomes, giving them a voice and then finally
evaluation and monitoring. Um the items that are summarized here all here in the preamble of this section. If you were to read through the section, you would of course come first to the preamble and then applicability. There are filing requirements for most
projects. Um, those filing requirements require that applicants create a project site map that identifies EJ populations within one mile. I'll talk about that in a second. Description of those EJ populations based on demographic characteristics as well as recognizing
languages other than English that are spoken by populations there and then consider the effects of the project on EJ populations. There are additional public engagement requirements for projects that are of a certain scale but have not for various reasons gone through other public processes that
would give the public a voice in shaping the project. Those then require additional public outreach including outreach to community- based organizations and Native American tribes modeled in part after MEPA requirements. Again, a MEPA project would not have to do this, but projects that haven't gone
through public process would. Um, it's also about providing additional community meetings upon request, providing better signage at project sites, and documenting community input prior to concom. Um, pre-filing consultations are available, and then we have a discussion
of exemptions and an effective date. The exemptions in particular, we are open to additional feedback on. It's truly a part where we hope to get comments in the comments. If you're unfamiliar with the term environmental justice communities or you're not exactly sure what it means
for Boston, this screenshot of the Massachusetts map of this that it covers the entire Commonwealth outlines how different census block groups are identified. Things in yellow have a specific minority population threshold.
So you can see that much of the city meets that requirement. other populations are identified based on income, language isolation, or various combinations. So, this information is what is asked for as a supplement to just pointing them out on a map.
We also talked a lot about the kinds of information that needs to get evaluated and who like the levels of um how projects might need to do additional outreach. Um we've worked on this shot this with the equity council to try to understand based on filings over the
past two years or a year and a half the kinds of things that come to the commission and the level of relevance for doing additional outreach. So what we called minimal impact NOI this is not a technical term includes many maintenance and research type projects
um that we believe can be decided by the comm while considering EJ regulations but don't require any kind of additional outreach for them projects that have gone through a community process already whether that's a city process like article 80 a state process like MEPA
something like a park design whether that's at the city parks level or DCR any of these processes ies presumably there's been a public outreach time and we want to learn about it in the filing so we can share that with any people who weren't following along who are part of EJ communities who are tapping into the
process but we're not asking that they do any additional public engagement we're trusting that that's been completed however there are projects that we consider relatively significant but that have not been through a public process for various reasons and those are the ones where we're asking for
additional public outreach at the outset of the project. The next section is the coastal flood resilient zone. We want this to integrate with seafood, which is the zoning overlay district created by the planning department. Um, we also want to
ensure that it is aligned with the Boston Water and Sewer Commission and our colleagues at the Office of Climate Resilience. We want to be sure it's aligned with state work, including a lot of work that's being led by the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the State Parks Department.
Um, ideally this would lead to an increase in pvious surfaces, um, expansion of green infrastructure and in areas where you might not think about coastal flooding, but you might need to be preparing for coastal flooding in the event that actual detailed along the coast work is not completed in time,
these considerations should be included. This section, surprisingly, unsurprisingly, has a preamble. Um, it also has, as will the next two sections as well, these definitions, critical characteristics, and boundaries. The CFRZ starts inland of the existing
demarcation for land subject to coastal storm flowage and then goes inland for what we say is approximately 50 years. Given the current maps available, we imagine that those are differentiated as places that would flood in 2030, in
2050, and then in the commission has the opportunity to assess these boundaries every 5 years or less depending on new mapping that becomes available. As I mentioned, we have three zones that we've demarcated. Um, and we have decided that it will be co-terminus with
the boundaries of the coastal flood resilience overlay district. This is a really important distinction to make and we'll talk more about that on the map in a moment. There are presumptions, performance standards, um, special decision, special processes for redevelopment within previously
developed areas. So, if it's already entirely impervious, there's a different pathway than if you have an currently pvious area. Um, a process for administrative review that will hopefully facilitate some of the medium-term and long-term zone projects and an effective date.
These maps, I know they're very small, from Climate Ready Boston show how far inland flooding will go in 2030, 2050, and 2070. And the 2070 map you'll see on the right was adopted as the seaf fraud
or coastal flood resilience overlay district map as well. So that's the extent of 2070. I want to note here that there is a newer map called the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Flood Risk Model or MCFRM, which if you were actually planning a
project that may be subject to coastal flooding in the future, it provides really nuanced information about how deep the water might be depending on the type of storm, the distance in the future, the amount of sea level rise, etc. From a planning standpoint, that is
the map that I would recommend and we point to that in the regulations. However, it makes the assumption that we will not be improving the Charles River Dam, which would mean that a huge amount of the Back Bay and other areas along the Charles River would be inundated. It seemed irresponsible for us to begin to
permit differently than the planning department by adding that additional zone when we expect that the Charles River Dam will be supplemented with additional elevation so that that area can be protected. So we are recommending that the C fraud map and not MCFRM be used to
define the CFRZ and I can answer more questions about that later. I also want to note that there are the section subsections D10 and sections E and F are really designed to facilitate projects that are in the mid long-term
CFRZ to make them go faster. So they are getting checked by the conservation commission but not with the full level of scrutiny of newer projects that are more likely to flood. The IFRZ is complex in that we have written regulations with the hopes that
there would be a map that still does not fully exist. The Boston Water and Sewer Commission is doing really complex modeling on inland flood risk and they have not completed that model. We expect it not to be out for another year. If the commission decides that this is something that they're not prepared to
fully adopt at this time, we leave that up to the commission. But we did want to have draft regulations for this hypothetical inland zone that will be based on this future map of model. Um, it too is designed to
lead to an increase in pvious surfaces, green infrastructure, and hopefully additional storm water capture that will be prepared to address increased precipitation. This section has a preamble. The definition as noted is about land that is inland um that is subject to
precipitation flooding that is going beyond land subject to flowage and there are some pretty clear determinations of how much water an area must contain in order to fall into this category. Um again the commission can assess the boundaries in 5 years or less or waiting
for the model. Um, we have additional presumptions, performance standards, an administrative review process, and an effective date. The riverfront area is based on changing the existing state regulations
that provide 200 ft of buffer um from the edge of the river from the meanhigh water line inland. Um, the state regs specifically call out a select number of communities and reduce the riverfront area to only 25 ft. and these
regulations are re-extending it in areas of the city that have not yet been developed but are along the waterfront. The language in this section pulls heavily from the existing state wetland regulations 310 CMR um 10.58. So if
there's something in it that you um are confused by or you wonder like where did that come from, it's probably in 10.58. And if it's not, that's what we can quibble over. We're just trying to be consistent with larger regulations. Um and we have a series of maps that we've developed to understand which projects
may be impacted. Some of our maps were giving us a sense of where um there would be changes. So is this affecting mostly commercial spaces or park parcels or etc. Um and we cannot access any of those maps today because a tool called access Boston that gives us
access to all sorts of really incredible tools at the city is not working today. So, we had some more zoning information for you that we will share in the future. We wished we had it for you today. Um, this section includes a
preamble. It defines far inland the riverfront goes from being simply 25 ft to up to 200 f feet. It applies to all of Boston's named streams and rivers as well as many brooks and other smaller bodies of
water. It is based on the distance from mean annual high water. Um we have clarified the ex designation of extended riverfront provided presumptions performance standards. Um ways to evaluate practicable alternatives. Ways to presume that there will be no
significant adverse impact. We have exceptions um for redevelopment within previously developed and degraded areas so that those areas can remain less riverfronty. Um a set of exceptions an administrative review process for
recreational projects and an effective state. Um a couple things to highlight here. Um imagine this is a section view. So we've cut into the earth. If you can imagine that this is the mean annual high water line for the river itself. Um the 25 ft
or the 200 ft is measured straight across and not up the slope. This is a question that we get in lots of other contexts with existing areas and so we have carefully diagrammed it here for you as a differentiator and it's spelled out in the regulations.
Um there's also specific rules for certain areas in the city. Um if a river or stream goes into a culvert for more than 200 ft, rather than trying to figure out which bubbly overlap of riverfront there is, it simply terminates at either end of the culvert.
Um, where a river or stream contains an island, the island also has riverfront on it. So, it goes 200 feet inland in either direction. I don't think there is an island that is more than 400 ft wide within a river within the city of Boston that we would have to worry about. Um,
this diagram is a piece of the esplanade on the Charles River. Um, and then the last special case is a set of things related to the mouth coastal rivers. There's an official map that says this is the mouth of coastal river line for each of the major rivers in Boston, the
Neponit, the Charles, and the Mystic. Um, and so at the line, the riverfront ends at that place. Again, this is um the riverfront up to the Charles River Dam, which is the mouth of river line for the Charles. Um, next up, we tried to clarify the
distance. Um we are still working to finalize where the waterfront the extra 25 feet sits if it's within the 200 feet but at a specific distance. So that is something we are continuing to work through but in general we now the
riverfront in 200 ft the buffer to bank buffer to the riverbank isn't 100 ft that is the same thing they don't extend one beyond the other. Um where there is an improved public right ofway, we measure that distance from the river's edge, get a perpendicular angle straight
out. Um you'll see here that if it is 25 ft, it would go into the river into the improved public rightway, but otherwise the riverfront line stops at the public right ofway. That's an overview of the regulations. Um, we're going to pause to take
questions here in just a moment, but I will note on this list that we have our public comment period hopefully opening soon. The community information session coming up on the 29th and public comments will be due on November 14th. Um, if all goes according to plan, that
would put us with a special hearing on the 17th. And the dates in gray are potential dates if the commission votes to open a second public comment period at that time. I'll pause there and return it to Chair Parker. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, a lot of
information, uh, and you went over it very quickly. Um, first question is, um, where can we find these regulations? >> Dee is going to drop a link in the chat with a PDF and they will be published online tomorrow morning when hopefully
Access Boston will be restored. >> Okay, fantastic. Um I uh hard to ask a lot of questions uh without looking at the rigs. So um one thing I will ask if we can go back to the um uh the mapping
of the uh CF the CFRZ zone. Um I think you said that it would be consistent with the um zone uh in article 25A. Is that correct? Yes, that should be correct.
>> Okay. Um, you mentioned um I think it was the Massachusetts model um as well. So, I think you said your thought process was we should be consistent with um the planning department as opposed to outside sources.
>> Correct. The MCFRM has details because it's a newer model. It's a more complex model for reasons I'm not going to elaborate for an hour here, but um there's a lot of benefit to it if you are planning an actual project to understand water depths and types of
risk, but in order to be consistent with other permitting processes, we thought it best. It has very few changes from the 2070 model, just a few little along the edge, but there's a big change in that it would cover a lot of the backb. So rather than having something that doesn't apply to seaf fraud, but
suddenly applies to us because it assumes that the dam is over topped, then we decided to be consistent with seaf fraud so that our permitting would be consistent citywide. >> Okay, understood. Um so um but there's also the option for the conservation
commission to assess um the delineation uh within five years uh or every 5 years. So, how would that play into keeping it consistent with um the seaf fraud? What's the thought process there?
>> I think if seaf fraud is updated, the commission should vote on whether or not they want to continue to remain in lock step with seaf fraud. >> But do we have the um discretion to um based on available information to um
delineate differently than the C fraud? Absolutely. Okay. >> Our recommendation is to start aligned with seaf fraud and if there are reasons to change, the commission can make that determination down the road. >> Okay. Okay. I think I'll let other commissioners take a crack at this and
um obviously uh the next meeting will be more more robust and we'll provide comments. So um uh actually uh Elena, did you have anything you wanted to say about this before we go to commissioners? >> Not at this point. No, I'm hoping to cover um just a reiteration of next
steps and I can drop a link to the form where people can uh submit their comments, but I'll wait until we have gotten through the rest of the questions for now. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Len. >> Um I guess I'm curious. I think you spoke pretty thoroughly about the the
community outreach piece. Um, but I wanted to make sure I understood that if if a project is already subject to a community engagement process through other means, it wouldn't necessarily impact the outreach um related to this.
I think I asked because sometimes when we get more attendance from the public um at a hearing and people have comments that maybe aren't relevant to our jurisdiction, then it feels to them like they may have missed an opportunity to um to provide comments on the project at
an earlier stage. So could you talk a little bit more about that? >> Absolutely. I'm going to skip back to the slide of oops relevant. Um so I will also note that one thing that came out of the sort of iterative
process and the policy deli was a question of whether private development should be scrutinized differently than public projects public versus private projects. And I think this diagram tries to convey that it isn't about the applicant being public or private. It's
really a question of whether there's been publicies that makes the difference. So the goal here is that if say the parks department has done a public process that um there's no need to do any additional public process other than simply file
with the commission and have that hearing. It is our hope in guidance that we're going to provide along with this that if you have a contact list of people who've already been engaged that you can let them know that you're at this next chapter. This is where we are. We're hoping to get this permitted so people who are coming to the hearing may
already know about the project that they've been following along and they can be engaged and that people who um haven't found out about it can also just go to the project website because that's also like clear in the filing. more information is here in this place and so
we can direct people to learn more about the project then and be really clear that decisions about this whole list of things that aren't relative to the commission have already been decided through this other public process and we can point to it clearly. >> Okay. No, that's helpful. And I think
are there any sort of recommendations like in terms of really um trying to get maybe the word out about the project um to a wider I guess the I guess when I think what I'm what I'm getting at maybe too is
sometimes in our butter mailings for um for NOI is that's when people are hearing about the project for the first time because that's not always required in like say you know a parks project. Um, and I just wonder if there's if there would be then recommendations
to do that earlier on as part of a community outreach process to ensure that people are hearing about it in that earlier stage. It's just a thought. I don't you don't have to answer that, but um I wonder if that would would actually help just with that outreach piece.
>> We've thought a lot about it and I guess that's there's two layers here. So, one is just thinking about EJ populations, which we want most projects to do, and then there's the people who haven't gone through the process, any process yet. The guidelines for that that we're going to put out will hopefully be useful for
many types of projects. One of the things we recognize is that a butter's notices only reach owners and many projects are surrounded by renters who would like to learn more. Um, so for the projects that have had no community outreach, we are proposing to have a sign that's put up even before you would
put up a D file number that has some basic information and contact so that you can get sort of the information that would be in an NOI available before the meeting and can people can learn basic things about the project. That guidance though will be out there for any so um
any project could then post similar information and maybe aspects of the sign could be adopted by more projects around the city as a tool. >> Yeah. No, that's great. No, I think it's it's helpful for me to hear this too. Just always looking for um ways that we
can do better on outreach. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And Alice, to um uh put a finer point on that, when you talk about um project signage, are we talking about something like uh the ZBA notices you'll see on a house that is um filed
for a variance with the zoning board of appeals? Um, I think we're imagining like a poster board size sign that will eventually have a D file number on it as well, but at the beginning basically says a project has filed with and the
language is even in the draft regiled for a notice of intent. We want to do these things. These wetland resources are impacted. But if you want to learn more about there's a website and I think for that won't be required for projects that for certain projects but we recommend it as a best practice for any
applicant. >> Okay, understood. Um before I go on I just want to um I realize we have some people uh from the public here who may not have been to a um uh concom hearing before. So what we do is we uh take comments from commissioners first then
we go to the public. As I explained earlier, uh if you would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand or type in the chat in the application via the Zoom meeting platform. If you're calling in and um cannot access the platform, you can uh raise your hand by
pressing star9 and star six to unmute yourself or send your questions to staffy email at ccboston.gov. Um Commissioner Wilson. >> Yeah. No, thanks um Alice for this presentation. that this has like made it
fairly digestible given the amount of work that you guys have put into it and framed it really well I think in terms of the sort of big issues that people should you know sort of focus their attention on and stuff like that. Um I guess yeah so very much appreciate all
the efforts. Um, one thing that I just kind of wanted to and having not read the draft stuff in terms of applicability, I know we were talking about sort of like not like exactly low-level versus highle review, but just that there's maybe two
different pathways where it's like, okay, this is a triple decker renovation. You know, what's the extent of impact? Some relative calculation versus like, no, no, no, we're transforming a city block. Um, I guess for some of these things that depending
especially where that city block is, this could increase the number of people you're trying to communicate with and how that's going to happen. I was just curious um sort of how that might how you guys are thinking about applying. >> Sorry, which part of the applying are
you asking here? >> Oh, sorry. just in terms of especially for like environmental justice like reaching out to folks within a mile or something like that like could be a lot given a certain scale of a project versus you know another scale of the
project where that would absolutely be very reasonable and 5 miles probably wouldn't be enough. So in terms of notice and distance um the 300 foot a butter's notice will
continue to be the core outreach principle. We haven't come up with a differentiated system for that except that again some of the CFRZ projects that are further inland will be subject to administrative review and because of that they won't be filing a
full NOI that would require the full of butters notice. Um in terms of communication to environmental justice groups we're modeling it off of NEPA. So, we're hoping to have an outreach list of community- based organizations and tribal groups who are notified um of
projects in the neighborhood or in the relevant environmental justice populations nearby. And we encourage applicants to find other groups who are very close to the project site who might be impacted, who might still not want to be on that list, but like they would care about that project, and we're saying, "Who else might you reach out
to?" Um, again, that's a pretty specific set of people who would need to have that kind of outreach. Um, though it is a best practice we can use for any project. And then the signage again is something another layer of communication that is available. Um, if you have any
EJ populations within a mile and you're doing what we're like significant NOI that hasn't done a public process, then that would be required for you. Does that differentiation make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think I think I'll have to read the language sort of
on that because I think there is a happy medium that it's very hard to strike that you know any yeah you know how development works in this city and in other cities. >> Um and yeah just don't want to set up something for us to trip over. Um
>> we would look forward to your comments on that. >> Yeah. Um, I I'll have to brush up on and like Chair Parker was starting to allude to some of it, but I'll have to brush up on my sort of like land use law 101 or something like that in terms of like how we connect ourselves to model results
and other standards maintained by other agencies and stuff like where sort of the it's convenient and sensible versus that then sort of hamstrings us in different ways because we might have slightly different understandings. And I mean I
think that you know I I applaud you for sort of bringing up the glaring sort of I don't know issue of the Backbay Dam and the New Charles River Dam and the sense that like it I think it's one assumption to assume it's maintained
um which is frankly a big assumption um but b that it's then improved whereas other places to be improved um and I think that makes a big difference in longer term development
patterns and stuff like that. Um, you know, and and obviously that there's been lots of work that has gone into establishing those CFRZs. Um, and I think that might be something that if you guys can point us to
what BPDA sort of where they got themselves to on that when they were looking at the um, Mass Coastal model. that would be helpful. Um, and just sort of, you know, in a way that we're following some sort of curve, there's
going to be ratchety increases and thinking about just how that works and trying to stay in sync so different folks don't have different standards. Um, but yeah, this is where the rubber meets
the road and I feel like you guys laid really good groundwork in phases one and two to set us up for success in phase three and um it's exciting to see it all happening. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner Conan.
>> Thank you, Chair Barker. Thank you, Alice. Clearly, a lot has gone into this. It must have been um a lot to also go through various parties including the consultants and paying special attention
to the fact that this is about EJ. Well, thank you for doing all that. Are we the first city to accomplish something like this? Do you know? >> I can't say definitively, but I think the EJ regs are probably
cutting edge. Some of the other climate things I think have been adopted by smaller communities because we are certainly not the first community by a long shot to have a local ordinance. So I think >> Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I just meant the EJ part which which is you know I I
believe is cutting edge and and the reason I thought of it is because um as you said in the beginning in December 2019 the ordinance was signed by Mayor Walsh I believe and in a couple of months it's
going to be six years since that was signed. So it's been a while since this was signed and we're starting to work on the last set of regulations and then there's the common period as you said and there may be a second common period if warranted. So before we this is
actually part of how we conduct our operations before the development and the commission and the city as a whole benefits from this. It's well over 6 years since it'll be well over six years since the ordinance was signed. So one of the reasons perhaps was I'm just
guessing here that this kind of cutting edge works is is is hard. Without going into a lot of detail, could you say what lesson can be learned from this? I I can't find a different word for it. Delay.
>> I think one delay was simply a change in staffing. So um there was a pause when there was no conservation commissioner or conservation agent at all and then a new one was hired who didn't have an assistant and then the assistant was
hired and then I was hired and so it took many stages to get to a place where we had the staff capacity to take it back up. So I think two years of the delay is simply like people change jobs and life happens and um that's that's a
real challenge. Um I think the other four is probably a reflection of or another like the first year was probably just focus on the other regs. So maybe there's three years of real challenges in there. Um but yeah, it takes it takes work and I'm
really grateful um that we had the filer and Star Luna teams to help us think through these processes. Um I don't know that everyone is equipped to to have these conversations or to you know even kind of form the multilingual
equity council that we worked with um to be able to provide translated materials and have an like live inter um simultaneous interpretation at all of the six or seven meetings we had with them. You know there was a real like it took an extra oomph. Um we also
started out hybrid and discovered that to really build the trust we needed we had to have we had to meet in person. So then um that was a factor. So >> I see. Thank you. Yeah. >> Let's not uh Commissioner Conan, let's not forget the 150 or so hearings that
we conduct every year that staff has to prepare for. So >> right. Yeah. Keeping them busy. Yes. Good point, Cher Parker. So I I I appreciate all that insight. It is helpful to know that this is a reality when we try to develop these regulations and as well meaning as they are it takes
time to bring them into effect. So I appreciate the insight there. Um on the definitions um I don't know if I saw mitigation in there. Is that something you'd consider adding? I think it may be that mitigation
doesn't appear as a technical term in the rest of the regs and that's why there's not a definition up front but we can absolutely find if it's used and if we have a consistent definition we can add that. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So you
said 50 years starting when sorry my unmute was having problems. Um 50 it says the ordinance says about 50 years. So I think the challenge we have now is that we're not going to get a new model that is 50 years out of every single year that we're in. So today, the
best models, even the MCFRM, go out to 2070 as the 50-year time horizon, but recognizing that that's not truly 50 years from today. I think as a new round of models are created at the city and state level, we'll have a 2080 map that will hopefully be available before 2030,
but then that will sort of be the map for a little while. Um, if there are specific edge cases where the commission feels a project hasn't properly considered 50 years, I think that, you know, if there's other available science out there that the commissioner could point to or that we can point to in our filing guidelines or that we want to
adopt additional guidance for, but I think it's going to be an approximately 50 years most of the time, >> meaning starting from 2020. So for now I think a 2070 map which is right >> actually 45 years right now is what
we're going to rely on and then we'll hit a point when a new model or a new set of climate projections that are being used again by our colleagues and other city and state agencies becomes the norm. So you know maybe in 2028 we get this new map and then we were at 52 years and then we're back to 48 years.
You know like it sort of will bounce down. >> Yeah, I understand the complexity there. I guess we have to recognize that we're saying 45 years when buildings come up uh for discussion they may have a design life of 50 years or longer. So we may
not be able to look at their full design life when we're giving advice or guidance on the development there. So that to the extent that we can stay up to date which may be the biggest challenge here because climate change is a change and it's a constant change to be um adapting to it constantly is going
to be our challenge here but uh thanks for that and in terms of impacts um I mean we obviously after reading the draft we're probably going to have a longer discussion so we can keep this very brief in terms of impacts
um I feel like there compound impacts that we should consider Sometimes there'll be rainfall and coastal storm surge at the same time, which means that if you're trying somebody's trying to pump water out, they there may not be a place for them to pump it out too. And
so would wouldn't that shouldn't that be one of the considerations as well under impacts? >> I think compound issues are absolutely important to consider and that's why the NOI will need to consider each of these things. Some projects may not need to
consider sea level rise if they're in an inland area where it's not going to be relevant. But I think if you are on a coastal area and you're not considering how sea level rise and extreme precipitation fit together, that would be a flag that the commission could raise in the NOI review process. Yeah,
on that point I also think the ordinance uh uh allows us to consider cumulative impacts which I think uh is another word for compound >> cumulative impacts. Yeah, thank you ch Parker. Um
so I had something about externalities and impacts from externalities say like um we have EJ population here know people this is sort of like a people centric regulation is is how I'm seeing this um as displacement happens then the EJ
population itself is getting displaced that's not something that the commission um has any control over but how does respond because if the EJ population has been displaced in an extreme case then what do we do then doesn't matter we just
move right ahead without this part of the regulation it's an extreme case for sure I'm just maybe I can bring it up another time when we're when we're discussing this in more detail but as people are getting displaced since this is about people I
wonder how that will impact how we do outreach and um how we do engagement just something if you have a response I'll take otherwise I'll move on to my next few questions >> I'm not sure I have a formal response in how the commission will address
a form of a displaced population um I think I do know that there are city studies on um neighborhood change and displacement that actually show that from a demographic perspective not as many subsections of communities ities
are changing as you would think. Maybe individual people do but not like the population statistics are relatively stable. So I can't go into any more detail on that. I don't know enough to say. But um to the extent that it's relevant, I think we also want to think
about how environmental justice populations are not only impacted in where they live but also like the spaces they have access to. So, you know, if there is a park, for example, like a waterfront park that we know is being heavily used by a minority population or
non-native English speakers who have limited English access and the commission wants to think about either how outreach happens differently or any other like environmental relevant things for that. I think some of it is just about what the commissioners know about place. All of
you are Boston residents. All of you are out experiencing these places firsthand. So I think there's there's nuance that you can bring as the individuals you are. Um but I'm not sure that we can provide further regulatory guidance at this time.
>> Thank you. I think my maybe I'll just go my last question here. Um you mentioned the state regulation 10 58 right? That was with reference to riverfront area I think. So one of the
reasons we we did this local wetlands ordinance is to add stringency to the regulations when we take from the state are we sort of taking it as is or are are we adding any more teeth to it or
additional uh substance to it? >> One of the biggest things we're doing here is we're extending the distance. So in Boston today riverfront is only 25 ft and we are absorbing a significant new resource area by extending it to 200 feet. So in that way alone we are
much stricter than the state or like than what the state says because the state says Boston shall only be 25 ft and we are saying nope we're going to go back to 200 feet. What is required in that 200 feet is mostly consistent with the state but again it's layered on with
other aspects of our local ordinance. It's layered on with environmental justice considerations. It's layered on with additional climate considerations. So in that way there is there are some additions to the riverfront language itself where there's small deviations from 10.58. But I think the bigger change is that it's all part of both a
geographic expansion and the other layers in other parts of this phase three regulation. >> Great. Thank you. That's all the questions I have and thank you and thank thanks Parker. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Essa Sargi,
>> I have a couple of questions and and looking forward to to reading the material in some detail. Um, I I'll make one observation in in response to uh um your your somewhat defensive response to
uh a six-year um time to get this out the door. Um, I've been working on some federal regulations that I started on in 2004. Um, and they'll be in effect in a couple more years. So, um, you're doing pretty
well. It's pretty looks pretty complex to get done in that amount of time given everything else that all the other things that happened in our lives between 2019 and now. Um, as well as the the the the regular workload. Um, so I I
do share a little concern um if if this portion of if if our mandate includes a lot more outreach than many other processes that we will have um folks coming to hearings and being disappointed. I think that's a that's
always a um it leaves a sour taste in our constituents minds. Um so to the extent to which um one we can push some of those ideas out to encourage others to do better outreach early um for their
processes so they're not coming to us with concerns that are more appropriately uh raised in other venues that'd be great. Um I do think the kind of guidance that you'll need to write
around that and also around what which pathways through the regs work for different scale projects and different projects with different degrees of uh former outreach is going to be important because I I I feel like the reggg itself
is going to be fairly daunting um to get through. So that that that I think will help us in not being the the uh agency at the end that says no, you can't talk about that. Um that that that's that's always a bad a bad bad look and a bad
feel on both sides of the the table. Um when I work on federal regulations, I'm often advocating for a better evaluation of the level of effort necessary to comply. And I'm wondering to what extent
you've thought about um how much more we're layering on with some of these requirements beyond what people are seeing already. >> That's a great question, Steve. I think um the largest project have already done
90% of this work in order to get through the largerness like they've been through article 80 etc. So that the largest projects have done so much of this that they're just maybe pulling from some other filings and then they're scanning through and they're saying these three
more things need to get completed. um the very smallest projects I think we're trying to make it so that a lot of this like they're just you're doing borings you're maintaining a pier like we want this to be smoother in that like that
should just also be pretty smooth like do a little bit of climate checking of yourself and then you're good to go I think it's the middle projects where again we're looking for feedback from the commission from folks who are doing this kind of work now to say what is
that level of effort and then to also consider like the level of effort versus the larger benefits. We've definitely been um we were asked once about the 300 bullet notice of a butters rule by a community group that was trying to plant
trees in a pretty dense area. And I guess I recognize that that is a definite cost to get those abutters notices out but they seemed really not to want their neighbors to know that they were planting trees. And I'm like I I would like you to tell your neighbors and I would want you to tell your neighbors that you're planting trees.
So, I think there's this balance of, you know, which of these things do you not want? Do you not want to plan for climate change? Do you do you not want to consider the needs of people who are part of environmental justice communities and may have an unfair burden of climate change impacts
already? like there's like oh there is definitely more to do but I think it's pretty com the kinds of things we're preparing for >> that that's helpful um you may find it worthwhile I think that you had a very nice slide with the kind of comparison
of different projects along a couple different axes it may be worthwhile um for some of the public conversation building that out a little bit with some more concrete examples that would help people sort out are are these projects
off on the left um or are they more on the right and then some more conversation about what the delta is for those in the middle? >> Yeah, we would absolutely love feedback in the public comment period on this. Um I see in the chat people are asking about the slides. I think we can post
the slides in addition to the meeting recording and people can provide feedback. Like I said, all of the things here we have de we've taken out all the identifying specific information from these individual projects, but they are all representative projects from the last 18 months.
>> Yeah, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um just want to I don't see any hands up, so just want to um let the public know if you do want to make a public comment, uh feel free to raise your hand now and we'll take you in order. Um, Commissioner Herpst.
>> Uh, thank you. Um, thank you Alice for the presentation. This was this was helpful. Um, I don't I don't I'm not going to try and ask questions now having not actually seen the regulations. Um, one thing I know from the last goround is that it is really
timeconuming to review them. And one thing that would be helpful um would be if you could provide a highlighted um version that identifies this language came from the state or this language came from somewhere else. Um because
if we're having to think about every word, is this like something we've made up or is it something that's existed for 20 years? It it it will just be a lot easier to do. Um I I hopefully that's not too much of a ownorous task but I think it would be helpful
>> Ann that um having served on the technical working group you have seen something very similar to the final draft and we've incorporated 80% of your edits. We are still considering how to respond to the last two. So you should have seen it be like you are have some
access to it. Um, and I will note that the riverfront section largely draws from 310 CMR. Other things are from drafts that we have inherited that I cannot give you the origin for. And
>> that's totally fine. If if you know things are from 310 CMR >> and where we reference 310 CMR, we have links to it. But that's like I can't give you a more annotated version than that short summary. Um,
okay. I'll I'll I mean I I haven't looked at it in any detail. I just know like when I'm reading the whole riverfront, I'm it would just be helpful if I knew this whole thing comes direct directly from it. Um or or something is is
different. Um so if that's possible, uh if it's already there, that's fine. Uh but it it just would be helpful. I don't I don't have anything else now. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So just a couple quick
questions. Um I did actually now I'm looking at the regs. Um so just to clarify um the 200 foot uh 200 foot um riverfront area is uh extends to all riverfront area in the city. Right.
Okay. Um, did we uh how are we resolving the waterfront area um issue? Uh there there you go. That's the slide I wanted to see. So the the ordinance um designates the
25- ft um waterfront area as um starting at the edge of the resource area, which the riverfront area is a resource area. So looking at this, are we looking at a 200 foot uh riverfront area with uh 25
additional 25 ft waterfront area? >> This is truly something we would like your input on because at some point it feels a little absurd to say the waterfront is 200 ft inland of the riverbank
and then is an additional 25 ft. but is the literal definition of what the ordinance says. So if we want to find a way to say actually the waterfront extends past buffer to bank as opposed to the edge of the 200 foot riverfront I
think you know that's a that's definitely a discussion and feedback we would like because >> it seems if if the commission says yes let's go 225 ft in with the waterfront we are fully supportive and if you say we want to make it >> overlap with the riverfront and just end
extender to bank that's also we look to your guidance you're fully supportive, but you're on record as saying that's absurd. >> So, >> I mean, I I'm not um debating that at all. It does
seem absurd. Um so, I guess um the problem that we have uh and when I look through the regs, um obviously I'll be looking for this is what's prescribed in the ordinance. And I read you the definition of the waterfront area in the
ordinance. Um we can't change by regulation. Uh we'd have to change the ordinance. So um maybe we should be um m this is a great exercise to see if we can pick out anything in the ordinance uh that uh is a likely candidate for
change. And this one pops up at me. Um just a very quick question. Um I'm looking through the regs themselves right now. Uh, and to Commissioner Herp's um comment about what's coming out of um the WPA regs and what is local, what I noticed was the
alternatives analysis uh here and the regs uh and I believe it's in the riverfront area um says something like uh the alternatives analysis shall not include interior design specs um and talks about um number of rooms,
bedrooms, etc. within a building. So, um the only comment I would have there, just want to put this in your head, um is that uh an alternatives analysis, let's say, of a housing development, um
it seems to me would uh need to talk about the interior unit count um because of the way that they have to configure it. We've had this issue uh over by uh Mother's Brook and Canterbury Brook um
with projects that have had to reconfigure and change units and things like that. So um I'm not sure um if that works. It's something I picked out. Um but I'm sure there'll be others. Um okay. So uh Elena, after listening to
all that, did you have anything else? I did not have anything to add at this point, but um I'm happy to help with the the order of hands raised if that is helpful. >> Uh no, I think I have it. I think uh firsthand here is uh Ms. Baxter from
East Boston. >> Thank you very much. Um this was really a very impressive presentation. Thank you so much and I really look forward to looking through all the details. I have three questions that are really focused at an overview level and not necessarily
to be answered in detail tonight, but just things that I'm thinking about before I see the actual regulations. The first one is regarding currently permitted projects. Um, and I and I think about that in terms of the
comments that have already been made in terms of delay and and it takes a long time to do good work like you've done. And we have projects in flow that have gone through the commission, but they're
going to take years years in many cases um to be um executed. And and my thought is um is there some way again not necessarily to be answered for tonight but to think about um it would be great
to think about how can what we know now because climate change is so dynamic. How can we um ensure that these projects don't get grandfathered when in fact they should be considered um for work? And and I have two other questions so
I'm just going to read through them. So that's the one question. The other question is regarding also it's it's a a practical question on empower what I consider to be empowering the commission which is for me a process review. Today
my limited view of how the procedure or how the process works is I wish the conservation commission came a lot earlier in the process so that you know the Boston planning um agency could think about what the conservation
commission is considering and have that knowledge that you guys were more upfront with things and and and that that was considered that you would have the results. of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission reports um before having to render a
decision. So my my um my request there is that um could the process in line with the phase three regulations also be reviewed as you finish those phase three regulations to say where
could the conservation commission best fit in to take full example or full advantage of these new um regulations. And then the last one that I have um is
is very tactical regarding the OC. When all is said and done, it would be great for this phase to also update the standard order of conditions. So that once again
as projects come in ev everything that you've done all this hard work that you've done um is fully um vetted as a requirement for each and every project that comes through. Um so that's my list of three questions. Thank you so much.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, uh next hand is uh Mr. Moreno from Rosal. >> Chair Parker, apologies. I think Alana Feaster had um included a question in the chat and had maybe had her hand up earlier regarding the 200 foot expanded riverfront analysis.
>> Okay, >> thank you. Um thank you. Um so I did want to just get clarity and Allison team this was a really great presentation and thank you for it. Um but in the presentation I believe I saw something that said that the expanded riverfront is going from 25 ft up to 200
feet. Is that giving discretion or are we saying that we're proposing going just strictly from the 25 ft to the 200 ft um expanded riverfront area? I just want to understand whether there's discretion in there or we're make we're proposing to make that change in the
riverfront expansion. >> Yeah. Um so the proposal is that in general like the um because we have have had other conversations about this I'm going to like take one step back and say 90% of the regs that I've reviewed both drafts
of this state regs etc go through like all the rules and then they say here are all the exceptions to the rules and so this is similarly saying the riverfront is going out 200 feet >> and then we're backing up to the If there's an impervious surface on an improved public roadway, that that
becomes the boundary. And then the on the slide I have up here, G about previously developed and degraded areas again means that if you have something where there's, you know, been an industrial use for a century, that is essentially exempted from the
regulations even if it's within that 200 ft. So you sort of like inch the riverfront back depending on the particular project. So that overall you the zone looks like it's going you don't you don't you start 100 ft you map it so that you come inland or come closer to
the water depending on roads and other infrastructure and then specific projects can also be effectively exempt from going through the full process because they fall into these other categories where there's existing pvious surfaces where there's vegetation
particularly a native non-invasive vegetation um that and there's not a roadway like that 200 feet is absolutely there. That's like what the tool is there for. >> That's perfect. >> To your specific question, um, yes, there is an alternatives analysis
outlined in subsection E. >> Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Sure. >> Parker, do you want me to respond to Cindy's comments or just keep going? >> Oh, I thought that she was just throwing him out there for consideration. Um,
okay. Um, Mr. Moreno from Roslandale. >> Thank you, Chair Parker. Commissioners, um, I appreciate the presentation this evening. Look forward to reviewing the regulations. I am going to go back to what Commissioner Wilson had to say earlier and and I will take some credit
for setting us up for success for phases one and two. Uh but that aside, I I did just want to for the commission's consideration, given the um the importance of these regulations, given the length of time that is taken to
develop these cons these regulations in consideration with the equity council and all of the other input that's been provided to date, I would request the commission consider maybe an extended comment period, 45 or 60-day comment period for this set of regulations. Um, I think it warrants the additional time
to really dig in and allow folks to review in detail and provide really thoughtful comments for the commission's consideration, especially if the intention at the next hearing on these regs is to, you know, potentially review and adopt something at that point. So,
that would be my only comment to the commission. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Ellena, I don't see any other hands. Do you? >> I don't see anything either. Anything in the chat? >> Uh, nothing in the chat. I believe we've
addressed all of the questions uh that were included there. >> How about your email? >> Nothing in my inbox either. >> Okay. >> Can I note just that each section that we've gone through tonight has an effective date and projects it is only
effective for projects that file 90 days after these regulations are adopted. So to questions about that, there is not a retroactive application of these. Um, however, there may be amendments to projects that have
previously come that would then be subject to the regulations. >> Okay, that was one of Cindy's questions, correct? >> Yeah. Got it. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um, Elellanena, you said you had something um
a summary of um further activities here that you wanted to go through. Okay, here we go. >> Uh yes. So, just to highlight the upcoming dates and deadlines which Alice mentioned at the beginning of her presentation. Again, today we are at the October 15th uh specialcom hearing. The
next uh event is going to be on October 29th, which is 2 weeks from today. It's a community information session that's going to be an opportunity um for other folks who maybe weren't able to make it to this um presentation to learn more about the process. And we will also have
a Q&A on the new regs with a focus on the environmental justice uh regulations as they are currently proposed. Currently the deadline for public comments uh is November 14th due at 5:00 p.m. Uh that might be subject to change. If anything, it will be uh a little bit
later than that. Again, um there have been some technical difficulties uh on the city's end with Access Boston. So, if if we are delayed in getting information out to people, we will take that into account. Uh we currently have a another special hearing scheduled for December 17th. Uh and that is looking at
the revised draft regulations, presenting them to the commission, and uh asking for a vote to either adopt them uh as is or with minor revisions or to potentially open a second public comment period. Again, uh the dates that are in a lighter color, January 16th and
February 18th, um these are dates that will become relevant if there is a second uh public comment period. And the last thing that I just wanted to flag is that I am going to include a link in the chat to a uh Google form which people
can use to um submit their comments. It's a relatively straightforward form, but if anybody does run into any questions, uh you can reach out to commission staff and I will include our contact information in the uh in the chat in case folks don't have it. >> Okay. So, my question on that though,
isn't it a little unusual to close the public comment period, then we 33 days later um consider the comments and then adopt a second public comment period? But I don't I don't remember ever seeing
a gap like that. The the um as I think Nick was suggesting 60 days would run from today. Um that seems um I I'm just I I don't know how that works logistically. >> Parker, the dates on this slide can be
updated if the commission wants a 60-day com public comment period instead of a 30-day. And then we're allowing 30 days for the 30 days plus like >> actually getting to a Wednesday um to
then have materials so that you would um the idea right now again you can vote to open a comment period or not and decide how long that should be. That is at the commission's discretion. We're giving ourselves a week to accumulate the
comments, a week to make edits and review internally or two a week to make edits, a week to get legal input internally, and then a week for the commission to review all the comments and changes. Um, but again, we're open to either the window of public comment
or the window of um preparation for a hearing. And then also if you would like to both extend the public comment period and have a hearing in the middle where you as a commission then discusses sort of where you know
having reviewed this and you want to have further discussion before you close public comment. You know we are absolutely this is a proposed schedule. We can change it if you would like. >> No understood understood. Um, so I think
uh looking at this schedule, I think what I would propose, and I'm interested in other commissioners, is that um we open a public comment period tonight that lasts 60 days. Um I'm a little uncomfortable with doing 30 days, waiting another 30 days, and extending
another 30 days. That seems like we are. Um and then actually not approving the regs until the middle of February. I think it's a um uh maybe a more streamlined process if we just did 60 days um tonight
uh and allow for the um comments to come in as opposed to the staggered schedule. So uh just quickly I'll just go around. Commissioner Len, what do you think about that? >> I think that makes sense. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
>> Yeah, I'll agree with that. It's a yeah, tight timeline and tough time of year, but I think we can thread the needle this way. >> Okay, Commissioner Conan, >> I do like that idea. Chair Parker, tonight though sounds like a little early because we're just getting the
draft and the form. We just a few minutes ago got cut got the form and when people don't know how to provide the feedback, how can they do that? >> Sure. Yeah. So, I think that um uh we could start the public comment period
tonight for 60 days, right? Um that's not to say we wouldn't extend it after 60 days uh because as Commissioner Wilson u points out, we have um holidays uh and all of that. So,
um I don't know if we really want to I think what you're suggesting is wait a few days and if the public comment periods start, I don't know what are we at now? October 15th, October 18th for 60 days. Um, >> right. Once once the form is out, once
the draft is out. >> Yeah. I mean, I have it right now. Um, I think it is out. So, I mean, just to keep it simple, maybe we just >> Yeah, >> it's a it's a thought, but >> Cher Parker. Oh, apologies. >> Yeah. Commissioner um Essiazi.
>> I say my only concern. I'd like the idea of a 60day comment period. I thought part of the intention of the possibly reopening was if the comments received result in moderately substantial changes to the draft rag that you might want to
receive comments on the changes subsequent to getting the the draft rag. So, um I I'm I'm open open to 60 days now, but I'm also uh cognizant that if there's substantial changes, we may want
to open a second comment period to ensure that the public's aware of those changes and gets a chance to comment on them. >> Yeah, that's a great point. That's what we did last time. we ended up um extending another 30 days, I believe, um
to consider the revised draft regulations. And I'm I'm not particularly worried, you know, 6 years after the ordinance was passed with adding another 30 or 60 days onto the calendar if we get the job
done right and the public feels like they had input. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um I just feel like as you're you're alluding to that um going through this process takes longer um the comment
period takes longer than um than you may be optimistically uh hoping for. So I mean there is a lot here. I I do think the 60 days now makes sense. Um Commissioner Herps, what are you
thinking? I I think yeah I I think the 60 days makes sense and I I do know last time I think we did at least two comment periods and and had multiple commission meetings. I guess I'm a little um
not sure. Do you do you want commissioners to follow the same process of filling out the form or how are you or are you wanting us to wait till a public meeting for feedback? I I I think there's going to be a lot. So just
trying to understand how you're thinking about it. We tried to match the timeline to the previous process. I think the difference in the previous process is that something was brought to the commission during a regular hearing and the commission asked that there be a special
hearing to better go through things. So um we did not take it to a regular hearing in that sense. Um, I think that the commission again could decide to use either a date in November or a
date in se in December prior to or around the same time as the public comment period closes to have another one of these discussions. Right? So, we could still use the December 17th hearing as approximately the comment deadline cutoff, but also just a chance for the commissioners themselves to have
this kind of discussion about the regs rather than submitting formal comments. So, we could, you know, keep the meeting but use it differently. Um, I'm, you know, I'm I'm open to whatever you think would work best for you. I think there is value in the commissioners having a discussion. Um,
and we can, you can tell us what would be best for having for setting that up. The info session is really designed to be info sessiony and EJ focused. So, I think it would be a special hearing of this commission at your discretion or preference.
>> Okay. Um, Commissioner Herbs, to your point, I mean, anything that any one of us, if we I I'm trying to think this through. I mean, we are subject to the open meeting law. So, it feels like good practice would be if we submitted a
written comment, which would be helpful to staff to prepare, and I believe we did this at the last uh set of hearings. Uh, if you submit a written comment, then you also um publicly should state what your written comment was. should be readily available to the public, right?
Um, so I think we'd have to do both. >> That's fine. I guess I didn't I I think you I would assume commissioners are going to have a lot of comments and it seems not helpful for us to wait 60 days to give them to you. >> Exactly. >> That's So maybe it's written and we
summarize them or or or just report them at a at a meeting. Is that what you're >> Yeah, I think that's what we did last time. I think um Okay. comments and then at the meeting we just each one of us quickly went over what our comments were. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry, I don't remember how that
all worked. >> That's what we did. But I mean again, you know, your comments and I guess that's another question for staff is um uh are you keeping a compendium so you know the public can see comments as they're coming in? Mhm.
>> We won't have a live compendium, but certainly everything gathered by the close of the public comment period will be listed out in a and this is what was done last time. There was a list of all the comments. So again, if someone wrote like a seven-page letter, but there were
six paragraphs that were like really like this is the comment that then there was a response either that there was a change made as a result of this comment or clarification around it or like a sort of like a no response. Um, and so I think in that way, even if a
commissioner submitted a written comment, it would be included in that as a matter of public record. Um, there wouldn't Yeah. >> Okay. >> In fact, all of the previous comments are available as a matter of public
record on the developing rags website that's been linked in the chat. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um so with that uh I would entertain a motion to open the um public comment period for the phase 3 regulations for a period of 60
days. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Great. Thank you. And um I think I need to amend I'm sorry um amend that the draft regulations. Just want to make that clear. So I have
a um uh move and a second. So um Commissioner Len >> I >> Commissioner Wilson >> I >> Commissioner Conan >> I. >> Commissioner Essiazi >> I. >> Commissioner Herpst
>> I. >> And I vote I. So that car is 6 nothing. Okay. Um thank you very much Alice. Uh thank you staff. uh and to all the uh advocates and working groups that you assembled uh to put all of this
together. This is uh this is amazing uh and we have a lot of work in front of us uh and I think we're all looking forward to it. So uh again our extreme thanks here uh for all your work with that uh I would accept a motion to adjourn.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. Commissioner Len. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Wilson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Conan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Essarialazi. Hi.
>> Commissioner Herpst. I. >> And I vote I. Okay. Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you. Thanks everyone.