I attempted to cook while my husband was out of town and made a giant mess in my kitchen so I'm a little frazzled. Yeah
well, I enjoyed your presentation your MMA presentation a couple of weeks ago. Oh
I felt like I was blathering but it went faster than I was expected I was does does build time and no, not at all
I'm gonna like shut things off your get a little organized. I'll be I'll be right back.
Emily Do you have a mobile for Jim
not sure that I do
just sent a text to Terry but I don't think I have one for Jim No, I
just have his email
Good evening okay.
Okay, looks like we have a quorum
okay
okay, so Good evening. This is Mark Sandeen Chair of the Hanscom area towns committee permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me when I call your name please respond in the affirmative. Emily Mitchell. Terry Ackerman, present. Jim Hutchinson present. Charles Hornick President Gary Taylor from Flint, Steven Hagan Margaret Kopi as Jessica Casserly
present, like Ivana laro
Michael, can you unmute? I'm here. Sorry.
I'm looking.
Okay. Fantastic. Simone monta Leone. Present. Thank you. So the time is now 702 On Wednesday, July 10 2024, and I call this Open Meeting of the Hanscom area towns Committee to order. Please note that this meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with Massachusetts state law allowing public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely. For this meeting the Hanscom area towns committee is convened by video conference via the application zoom as posted on all four town websites identifying how the public may join some reminders before we begin this meeting was being recorded. So please be aware that others may see you and anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you're not speaking. And each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by a roll call vote. So before we get started, I'd like to confirm that Emily Mitchell will be taking the meeting minutes for the meeting this evening.
Yes, sir. Thank
you, Emily. I'd also like to want to do acknowledge that Terry Ackerman, the town of Concord Select Board member has been appointed to the town of Concord, has been appointed to be the town of Concord hats COMMITTEE MEMBER And Terry is very familiar with hats, and has been a regular attendee at many hats meetings in the past. So thank you, Terry, for your willingness to serve both the town of Concord and the hats community.
Looking forward to it, thanks.
Okay, excellent. So we will have an opportunity for community updates. This evening on MBTA zoning on affordable housing, Energy Code adoption town meeting votes, or other major initiatives. We will then have an opportunity to discuss Secretary tempers determination regarding the Hanscom field, North airfield development project and draft environmental impact report. We will then the next agenda item will be to discuss mass ports draft, environmental ESPs PR, and whether the hats committee should draft a comment letter. Finally, we will then we will have a discussion of the Senate Bill 2829 which has proposed some changes to mass sports charter. Following that we will have updates from Hanscom Air Force Base and mass support. But with that, I'd like to proceed with the first item on our agenda which is approving the meeting minutes from April 25 and may 23 meetings. Unless there are any comments. I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for April 25 and 23rd. I
move we approve them as submitted.
Thank you do we have a second? I'll second. Okay by a roll call vote. Jim. I Emily. Hi
Terry.
Hi.
Thank you. And yes, the meeting minutes are approved as submitted. Thank you so much. So with that, I'd like to proceed to the second item on our agenda, which is the Hanscom field North airfield development project and the EIR for an update and a discussion. So on June 21, Secretary tapper determined that the proposed d e ir does not adequately and properly comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations. And the Secretary asked the proponent to prepare a supplemental dir to address the issues addressed by the Secretary raised by the Secretary and asked the proponent to propose appropriate measures to avoid impacts or if that is not possible to mitigate impacts. The STE IR is required to explore fundamental issues that affect the assessment of the project's impact and mitigation. I'd like to suggest that at the hands meeting tonight that the hats committee members discuss the these next steps and how hats can most effectively engage with the proponent with Massport and the administration during the STE IR period. I'd also like to discuss what fundamental issues HanSe thinks must be resolved to adequately address it community concerns. And finally, I'd like to have us think about whether it makes sense for some or all of the hat's members to request a meeting with the proponent directly to discuss these issues. And so with that, I just sort of teeing things up a little bit, I'd like to open it up for discussion among the hat's members as to what you think are the next steps and how we can most effectively engage.
I'll tee it off. I assume that when we get a supplemental EIR filed, if and when we got one filed, that we would try to make a joint comment letter on such filing? Okay, I don't think we know do we don't have any real knowledge of when they might submit that correct. There
wasn't any deadline presented or proposed.
So I think we're you have to just sort of watch and wait, in terms of the timing of it. But I would propose that we as soon as we get something from them, we make sure we have a meeting on the agenda to around that a calendar to review, discuss it and probably do a joint comment letter. So
I agree with Emily that there were no deadlines for when that supplemental would be needed to be submitted. But it did appear to me from reading the determination that the requested supplemental information was fairly extensive and could take a while to prepare. Bar. Oops,
sorry. Go ahead. Sorry.
Well, I like your suggestion, Mark. Maybe the House members requesting meeting with the developer in and I thought you were suggesting that we need before they submit the supplemental, so that we could discuss our most pressing issues, whether it's very polite or whatever. I'm not sure when you were suggesting this meeting?
Well, that I just wanted to put it out there as a possibility and see whether there was interest or not.
So would the goal of this meeting be to emphasize our most important points to them? Because they may not have read all the 1500 comment letters that got submitted? Correct? Is that is that the goal to make sure they heard our points
and and maybe to establish a relationship? You know, I think oftentimes a face to face relationship is is better than than a than a at letter relationship. Okay. The other thing that the Secretary said is that she is expecting the supplemental to respond substantively to each of the comments in the comment letters. So there might be some benefit for both hats and the proponent to have a discussion about what we would consider substantively responding to our comments.
So let me play devil's at the kid for a second, if I may. Traditionally, our activity around Handscomb development projects has been to when we oppose them is to try to slow down the process as much as possible. And to me meeting with the proponent of the project, before they submit the supplemental EIR is not in our interest. If our goal is to make them do the work, not help them figure out what work to do. I don't think it's on our advantage to be meeting with them and giving them cliff notes on what they need to do to satisfy us. I don't see how that helps our hats communities to do that, to help them in that way.
Emily, do you have any thoughts?
I think I'm inclined to agree a bit with Jim. I think also, many of the concerns that we've had, and many of the
contacts that Massport and their tenants typically have with our towns are with staff, and not necessarily with electeds. And I agree that meeting with us, it really depends what we're going to try to do. You know, if we say we're going to go in, and we're going to, you know, tell them face to face, what we really don't like, that's one thing. But if we're going there, because we are accepting the likelihood that this is going to go forward in one way or another. And so we're trying to be like, Okay, let's sit at a table and figure something out like that it's going to be received a little differently. And maybe not positively.
Yeah, those are really good points. I think it depends on what's going to happen with the supplemental DVIR. I mean, eventually, the DVIR itself could not stop the project. So at some point, I guess MibA has to, at some point accept it, or can they keep rejecting it for years? Or? I don't know.
It certainly seems possible that they that that there is an option for the Secretary to make a determination that the supplemental is also not adequate.
Okay, then I agree with Jim and I believe in and I think we don't want to help them. Maybe it'll keep getting delayed.
I mean, honestly, Terry, I think it depends on whether the proponent takes the MIPA request seriously, and actually gives truthful answers to the questions that we've raised, or whether they continue to try to spin things in a way that kind of covers up what is likely to happen in terms of growth of operations and traffic at the airport, and carbon impact of those activities. So it kind of depends on how what their response is, but I my knee jerk reaction is, why would we help them steer that process?
Does that make sense to you, Mark?
So I had asked a question of not just meat potentially, how do we most effectively engage with the proponent but also most effectively engage with Massport? And the administration? So we're, we're hearing some responses to the question about how whether we should or should not engage with the proponent, I'd ask, is there anything that you think we should be doing with Massport or the administration, or to Emily's point with town staff? In this supplemental period,
I'd be interested in meeting with Massport staff or maybe requested this to be a topic of discussion with them about the charter issue, which we're going to get to later. I think that what we're really asking for, most importantly, is some balancing of environmental considerations with infrastructure needs of Massport and the airport. And there's no such requirement in their charter currently, and so Massport can't really do what we want them to do. They're not empowered to do what we want them to do. Alright,
why don't we wait for that? So
I'm more interested in talking about that meeting with them on that topic than I am about the PIR personally.
So we've heard from the the Select Board members from hats, open it up to other members, other attendees. If you have any comments about the DVIR process. Raise your hand if you would like to make it Amen. Margaret Margaret Yeah, yes.
I was trained. Yes. I've been asking a track to do this. And I they gotta I'm gonna ask you to. They're getting mass sports getting a new CEO.
Rick Davey, right.
Is that his name? Yeah. I think that he should you guys should be sending an invitation for him to meet with Pat's. And I don't know what the discussion would be. But I think that would go somewhat to a way to at least making him aware of who we are. And what you know. And you could talk to him about the role of hats and whatever. I don't know what you what he knows, but I still think that he should be coming to one of our meetings.
Okay.
Bob clenching.
Yeah, thanks for a chance to just say a couple things. First, the comment started by Jim Hutchinson, I agree with 100%, I don't think one should start giving Massport the information that they might need to counter hats. So that seems very straightforward to me. One other comment, though, that I'd like to make. After the previous environmental statement was submitted to the secretary. I spent a little bit of time focusing my attention on the health issues. I know, there's been some work done on that. And there is some continuing work done on that. But I found some papers, Technic, scientific papers in the literature that address that question fairly well. And I wrote something to the Secretary about that, because I felt that health issue needs to be enhanced in any future discussions. And the health issue goes right to the possibility of the nanoparticles being related to lung cancer, among other health issues. And although I think it was mentioned in the previous document a little bit, I think that issue needs to be followed up and made more important in any future response that might be made. Thank you. That's it.
Thank you. Thank you. Our letter, as you mentioned, did raise the issue of ultra fine particulate matter and fine particulate matter and the health consequences of that. And so I do believe that is one of our key concerns. And I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the study that the hat's teams have funded. So when that data becomes available, we'll ask Professor Huda and her team to come back and give us the results of that study and any recommendations regarding health. We also, our letter didn't mention noise, although many other letters mentioned noise, but we are seeing study after study linking noise to health concerns as well. So I do think you're right to be raising health issues, and they come in multiple forms. Thank you. Tricia O'Hagan.
Hi, I'm sorry, I'm not on video. I'm Trisha Hagen, I live in Lincoln, I guess I'd have a little bit of a different take. I would love it if you would meet with the proponents because they really hate interacting with any of us. I don't know if any of you went to their open meetings, but they were very. They just they couldn't have cared less, right, like the Open Meeting. And then to the fact that we're to the point where we had a second meeting with them, which was mandated they use these sort of vaguely, or while they were total lies about that it didn't feel safe or whatever. And so they did it on Zoom because they didn't want to be face to face with us. So I guess my take would be if you could get them to have a face to face meeting with you, or even a zoom intimate meeting where you can all speak and you can say your concerns to them not trying to solve their problems, but the more they know that this is not going to work for them, and we're going to slow it down as long as possible. I think the better it is for airside just Thought Thank you.
Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments on dir topics?
Okay. Oh, so Trisha, your hand is still up, I assume you're done. Okay. So thank you for that discussion. That's, that's very interesting. Let me consider those thoughts. I appreciate the the the sort of consensus of the room about how we should be engaging with proponent as well as mass support and and with on the fundamental and in focusing on the fundamental issues that we have already addressed. Regarding the Massport ESP er,
Mark, before we go on, can I say one more thing about EIR? Sure, sure, Jim. I'm just thinking about Trish his comment, and I have some sympathy for having a let's call it tough public meeting with the proponents. Perhaps in the fall, I wouldn't mind putting it on. I don't know our next agenda to discuss it one more time, about the possibility of having a proponent meeting with a proponent. But I certainly wouldn't want to do it soon. I want if we did such a meeting, I would want it to be something that the public was aware of and maybe could join in. I think Trish is right, that those public forums are one of the most one of the strongest tools we have for pushing back on the proponent to make sure they understand we're not kidding.
So So Jim, you should know that I have invited the proponent to come to these meetings in the past, they have not chosen to go. Okay.
What how would we do it differently to convince them to come if we want to, you know, we were serious about getting them? Is there are we just
I'm sure there are ways if we really wanted them to come that we could make that clear to them. But you know, gotcha level of invitation right now is has been just, you know, an email saying, you know, we're having a meeting and you're welcome to come. It's a very, it could be a very different thing if we seriously wanted to put some effort into making sure they do come. I'm sure that will be possible. If that is something we desired to have wanted to have happen. I'd
be open to discussing that again in the fall. Okay.
Okay, Ms. Dowd.
If you're trying to speak, we can't hear you. It looks like you're still muted.
Brian, I think you're frozen. Okay.
All right. So we'll move on. And to the to the next topic, the next agenda item which is to discuss the MAS portee SPR updates and consider what whether we would want to draft a comment letter on the SPR. So just to tee things up a little bit. The the environmental status and planning report was released in May. And originally Massport requested public comments be submitted by July 19. So that would have meant that this meeting was the decision time for us to make. Clear to settle in on what we felt were the critical issues that needed to be addressed in the comment letter. But one week ago Massport sent out a notice announcing that the comment period had been extended until September 12. So with that sort of slight reprieve here, I'd like the hats members to discuss whether the hats committee should submit comments on the SPR. And if you believe we should submit comments on the SPR, what topics are most important that hats cover? And then finally, if you can comment on the process by which we could do this, you know, do we bring back a draft comment letter based on the discussion today and then review that prior to and try to improve that prior to September 12. So with that, let me just run to the had some members and ask what you think about the SPR and whether we should be somebody in public comment. Emily, do you want to lead us off?
Sure. I
think I may be the only person on how to read the whole thing, though. I don't know Margaret might have. Actually Barbara has to. I have read it, I've prepared a response for the town of Bedford, I have sort of my bullet points. Of the things that I'm concerned about it. My initial response that it was, is it's kind of it's kind of a nothing burger, there weren't substantive changes. Either in the forecasts, or in just sort of the overall assessment from the 2017 ESP AR to the 2022 is ESP AR and that in itself was a concern. And the ESP er does not mentioned does not incorporate the North Deerfield development in its forecasts. And I felt like that was a real miss. And I understand that they're, you know, developed by different people, they're on a different timeline. But I think I think the impacts are clear, and the integration is obvious. So it just seemed it was notable that it was not included in any of the, in any of the forecasts. And I think that's something that others have expressed as well. So, you know, in terms of whether hatch should prepare a response, I think that's always a good idea. I think more public comments are better. And in terms of what it should cover, you know, I imagine each of us is going to be preparing some kind of response for our respective towns. So it may just be, you know, sending over our individual bullet points and drafting from there.
So can we talk about some of the topics that you think might we want to address like airport activity levels, at least for me, you mentioned our activity at airport activity levels, at least for me, one of the things that I'm concerned about is that oftentimes, the report is projecting a decrease in aircraft activity, but that's primarily GA activity, you know, 170, twos flying overhead are less, but at the same time, we're seeing more G fives flying in and out. So to me, a concern would be to ensure that the focus is on the rising jet traffic and how, how much that impacts the neighboring towns.
Yeah, I mean, that was certainly one of the one of the things that I had called out was the forecast for productivity levels and the change and the the fleet, essentially the type of aircraft, statements about the number of based aircraft and how that those might change. There are some sloppiness in definitions, which I know Barbara had pointed out, as she was working on the H fac response, you know, what's the business jet? What's a corporate jet? What's jet aviation? They're all kind of used interchangeably and they're not quite the same thing. Let's see. What else did I call
already mentioned tonight? Air quality. Yeah. Right. And so we've we've, we've sent a note on the D IR about air quality and health. It seems like that might be something we want to cover in this
another thing that sort of red flagged me it's not so much an issue for the town of Lexington, but there was a comment in the SPR that the National Park was a buffer zone for residential and the great waters was a buffer zone. So I don't know, Simone, if you have any comments about that.
So the National Park Service we will be providing a comment in response to the USB SPR. At this point, Emily is way ahead of me. I have not had the chance to really dive in but I did. I did catch that. We do not consider ourselves a buffer, we are a national park. So we will be strongly pushing back on that characterization.
The other thing that we commented on in our dir response was the appropriate the appropriate inclusion of of criteria pollutants and currently, the DIR has decided that they, in the DIR, the proponent in the DIR references the 2017 E SPR, as their way of determining what criteria pollutants should be considered, and the 2017, ESP IR references and EPA document from the 70s. Where co2 is not even included as one of the criteria pollutants. So one of the things that I'm concerned about is if, if we are looking at impacts from operations at the field that we include as criteria pollutants, co2, and also to the point we were making earlier today. The ultra fine particulate matter which we're finding is significantly more impactful for health issues than sub it's in the larger particulate matter. So those are, those are themes that we have from the DIR they come essentially from the SPR. So it seems to me that one of the comments, we need to be making an ESP RS or that other people are basing their decisions on your ESP or grounding your fundamental basis. And that that is not adequate in our perspective.
Right. And also, that's a pretty good list. And I would add noise levels, which might not have been in that hats letter for the EIR but should certainly be one of the things it's come up of HF AC, I don't know if I really understand the noise reports. And then I found out that a lot of people don't understand them, they're kind of using an out of date, way of measuring things. And and I have a limited understanding of this new but I think we should request that they not just use an average. But you know, use the latest available technology to measure noise, if they want to make a claim that there is no harmful effects because they're below 65 or whatever. But I don't want to get into weeds with this whole thing. But I think that we need to put our concern about noise as one of the topics.
Yeah. And just to add an element, the the metrics that Massport uses and that they report to H fac those are the metrics that FAA requires. So they're not going to change those. Yet. FAA has been exploring different metrics, other ways to measure things. You know, there have been public comment periods on that, but they haven't. They haven't flipped a switch yet. So we can suggest we can encourage, we can say hey, we think this is a really great thing that FAA is trying to do. You should do it.
Okay, Jim, do you have any thoughts?
As usual, my biggest one is always on the Sustainable Development angle of it. And trying to if there's some way in the SPR or our comments on the SPR that we can push them to try to take a more active role in reducing emissions considering all sources of emissions, not just their buildings. I think that's what we're driving for. Right.
And, and when we're looking at aircraft emissions, we're looking at aircraft emissions for the entire flight rather than for the first 3000 feet.
Right? Correct.
Okay, are there any other comments from Select Board to hats members? Okay, Margaret. Margaret, you're muted. Margaret, we can't hear you.
I mute myself when I'm not talking and they forget
it Oh, Chris Elliott, chair of a track came up with a document with 58 comments on ESP er, did he send it to you, Mark?
Yes, I've read it. Oh,
okay. And it's pretty detailed. And I think that
it's worth it's worth incorporating,
probably some of them could be clumped together. But I think, you know, they raise a lot. And that's the kind of thing that in the past when the when, when Massport would have meetings where people could bring things up, they, you know, this is where that this kind of stuff would be brought up. And you would see whether they would listen to it or not, or whether they would change anything based on that.
Okay, for Margaret, I talked to Chris about that. You're right, he's very detailed and made a lot of good points. But my strategy for hats, if other selects agree, is to try to winnow down to a handful of the biggest points for our comment letter. Think that makes it the easiest for the four towns to approve it, the selects to approve it. And it also brings the attention to the things that we think are most important, rather than letting Massport go on to some of the more nitpicky points and say they've done something. Okay. I like to stick to the high level points that we really care about, that are not so easy for them to just do some cosmetic change that satisfies the request.
So what we've been discussing today, just to follow up on that, Jim, we're talking about aircraft activity levels, we're talking about criteria pollutants. We're talking about noise and health. Great. Am I missing anything? Sustainable
Development? Okay.
All right. So Barbara,
I would add also that comment about the buffer zone. It's not just that one comment, which I totally agree with Simone. And I think the fisheries and wildlife should also be involved because they were listed as another buffer zone. But it's the tone. I don't know how we get this point across, but there's sort of this whole tone of like, well, we can just fly over those areas, because there's no resonances, there,
I would be I would be supportive of, of making a statement in support of our neighbors. That they have every much as right to these concerns as as the town's do.
Well, it also directly affects the town's for example. Well, Concord is where the these two areas are and the wildlife areas, the very big recreation area and tourist area, also the 2/50 celebrations could be drowned out by noise and on and on. So it's, it's not just some open space where nothing happens. Yeah.
So let's go back to Barbara since we we teased her with letting her talk and we didn't.
No, no worries. So I'm the Lexington representative to H fac. And I sort of was tasked with trying to consolidate the comments that Christopher and Emily and I had a number of comments myself. And I think the approach we're taking is sort of like what Jim said, we're going to try to have a sort of a simple set of points. And then we'll probably have an appendix that has some of the detail that Christopher enumerated, but have it as a sort of a separate part of the document. The one thing that is in the document that I've been working on that hasn't been mentioned yet that I thought was important, was basically the forecasting methodology that Massport is using. So they have this very, I think loosey goosey kind of way of talking about on this one just want to say that there's a commonly accepted relationship between the local economy and GA activity at Hanscom fields, and they they really sort of go from there to sort of say A, you know, basically to have a curve of growth, that doesn't really take into account other variables or things that might happen in the world, you know, for example, just changes in the regulatory environment, or the taxation environment. So, you know, my, my point, there was just that, that, and the reason it's important is, of course, the DIR is using this projection, which they, you know, which they say, is just a projection and is, you know, it's only a guess, they're kind of using it as the basis for saying, This is why we need all this infrastructure. So, you know, I, I think it's reasonable for them to present more than one scenario of growth, and possibly even to explain why, you know, there might be a decline in the amount of aviation based on things that happened in the world. So I just thought that, you know, they, they inherited this model from the FAA again, but they really could do a better job of just even being a lot crisper and justifying this growth curve, or explaining it's very, you know, explaining its limitations.
What would success look like to you or in your mind?
You mean, as far as the document went? Right? Yeah. I mean, I think even even if they enumerated the types of changes on the horizon, that could result in a decline in aviation. So just, you know, right now, you have a situation where you have climate change, and fossil fuel usage is kind of filtering into certain areas in policy and regulation in the federal and state government. But it hasn't filtered into the FAA and Massport. Yet, that's, but that there's not that's not to say, this is really a question of, you know, kind of political will and kind of the way the, you know, how strongly people hold their elected officials to making changes, and we, you know, their their prediction is going out to 2040. I sure as heck expect that by 2040, there's going to be a different point of view from the standpoint of our representatives and by an end voters in terms of what we accept.
Okay. Barbara, was there anything in the comments about COVID work from home kind of trend towards more tele meetings and less travel? Yeah, I mean, I think, justification for scenario of no growth or maybe even negative growth.
Yeah, I mean, what I wrote was the factors that I kind of enumerated as being worthy of review, we're increasing public demand for government policies to enact climate change, taxation policies that target the use of private jets for personal use, I mean, that's been mentioned already this year. immaturity of the aviation industry and offering offerings using alternate fuel sources and stable or increased use of virtual meetings in place of business travel, so that, you know, you know, they're just things that should be, that could be factors, basically.
And what you arguing for my side? Thank you.
Okay, Trisha.
Hi, just when you were speaking about the noise issues, and I think it's becoming more and more important, from a public health standpoint, just Jamie banks are quiet communities, a local leader and noise. She'd be a great resource for you guys to, you know, get you all the information and you know, that you need. That's it.
Yes. She She has commented on our past letters. Okay. Are there any other other people that would like to mark, should
we get back to talking about logistics of how we might? Oh,
that's correct. Right. Proceed. Jim, why don't you make some suggestions about how we might go through this because? Well, we have a relief in terms of when we need to do it. Have our comments. And it's not a it's not a long way away. Yeah.
And unfortunately, it's not really helping that much because it's relief over the traditional holiday period for us, right, where we would have liked to have gone off and gone to the beach. Or let's put it this way, I'm still going to the beach. So I think what we need probably need to do is we probably need to schedule a meeting for early September, unfortunately. Right? And maybe some of us can work offline to get a draft together. We could review and approve at such meeting. Okay. How does that I would I would propose that we when we get to the future meeting scheduling agenda item that we pick something that's before the SPR comment deadline?
Yes.
And if at all possible.
That's September. Is that even possible? If we are we signing on behalf of our boards? Are we needed to get something in front of our boards? Before that September hats meeting? Yes.
Yeah. Okay. It's tough. I agree. I know that last time, right. I know that my board has agreed to a special meeting just for purposes of approving such a letter. Okay, because you could do that in a 10 minute meeting.
Well, would it be possible to have a draft ready, in middle or late of late August? Like I do agree with Jim, that, if we just put our top priorities in, I'm just listening to everyone tonight, I wrote down eight priorities that we listed. And Emily, you probably have listened to your take minutes. But I'd be happy to, you know, make that list. And that's, that could be some bullet points. And then I know when Jim was talking, I start visualizing this letter as only maybe two pages long, that maybe we could be ready by the middle or the end of August to
Okay, all right. Well, that sounds like a reasonable land and try to draft something that that can then be distributed in advance for other select boards to look at if they need to.
I mean, I'll get these minutes out tonight. So that can be a starting place in terms of just capturing what we've discussed. Sure. And
we did you say you have a draft letter that you wrote for you,
but the Bedford select board hasn't discussed it yet. I keep trying to get an on an agenda and it keeps getting pushed off. So I don't want to share it with other boards until my board has read. And
Emily's less likely to be a lot longer than our letter.
I know. But it's easier to cut than it is to add. I'm wondering if Yeah, so if you'd be willing to after your board approves it? Would you be willing to share it with us?
I will absolutely share it with everybody. After it is approved with whatever amendments, I'm hoping that that'll be done by July 22. That's our next meeting. But I haven't gotten confirmation that it's going to be on that agenda. Okay.
So I would propose that like the DIR comment letter, that we're probably going to be doing something that's a subset. And more focused on. And I know Terry said eight comments, I'm more thinking three or four is really I don't know what everybody else is thinking I would try at least my gut feel is we can't get a two page letter done with a bullet Senate, we can get a two page letter done with three or four bullets in it. And that's sort of the way I
think we can consolidate some of these eight, like reduce emissions is one of them and air quality co2 UfP isn't is another? Those could be one board together. Right? I think. Okay, you know, can I ask a question? Is each town going to submit their own ESP er, and then also hats, is going to submit a joint letter? Is that Emily? Is that what that's
that's what we've done in the past for other things. I can't remember. Now, I don't want to say this if it's not true, but I think that's what we did in 2019 for the 2017. And then, for the for the North airfield project. We all each town submitted a comment and then had said he likes a bit of their own comments.
Yeah.
I would propose we follow the model that we went through on the DIR where in that particular case, we we had each town sent things out that was actually a superset of what hats sent out. And you And in, in Lexington situation. There was a Select Board letter, there was a town manager letter. And then and then a bunch of the board pals got together and sent a different letter. So there there's opportunities for other other comments. But I would, I would think that if we focus on the three or four if that's a reasonable consensus from the group. Does that make sense to you, Emily, Terry.
Just say it one more time.
What I'm what I'm thinking is that that the hands comment letter would focus on three or four issues that are really highly related to the the issues that we raised on the DVIR. Adding noise and aircraft? Not coming up. activity levels?
Yeah, I don't I'm not going to be religious on three and four. I just want to keep it short and on the highest level points. All right.
Are you comfortable with that, Emily? Yeah. Sorry.
Okay. And to be clear, Mark, you're drafting and we're reviewing?
Sounds good. Okay. All right. Okay, so that's that agenda item. So then the next agenda item we have is that the Senate climate bill S 2829. Has a couple sections in the in the bill that address the Massport charter and say words along the lines of the mass port authority shall dot with respect to itself and the entities with which it contracts or does business dot dot dot. undertake such activities and promulgate such rules and regulations to promote Commerce, Economic prosperity, safety and security in and for the Commonwealth? Well, and this is the new language well prioritizing environmental resilience and equity and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. So the proposed language in the Senate climate bill would amend the mass Port Authority Charter, which was written in 1956. To in large, their objectives from focusing only on commerce and economic prosperity, to also focusing on Commerce, Economic prosperity, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So I'd be interested in the thoughts of the hat's members here about that particular suggestion that perhaps one of the better ways that we can be achieving our goals Massport is, is to actually have a legislative change to their charter. Now, Jim, you said you wanted to talk about this earlier in the meet? I do.
I love this idea. I think it's incumbent on the state to achieve its climate change goals, and I don't see how they can do it unless the state agencies that enact policies and do development work in the state don't toe the line on the climate change goals that the state has. So to me, it's imperative that Massport adopt something like this. I don't know that the exact language is exactly what we need, or, or is the best language, but it is the language that's in the bill. And I presume that Mike Barrett or somebody drafted this or his aides. And my question to the group is, do we have any intelligence from Mike or other Senate reps about what's the best strategy for getting this adopted? I could see two different paths. I can see the path of us pounding our shoe on the table saying how important it is. I can also see the path of mums the better strategy because this is line 436 in the bill. And if we keep our mouth shut Maybe the bill will pass without the people who might oppose this amendment noticing it.
So Jim, let me just sort of divide these questions into two pieces here. Sure. Let's, let's, let's stick with the first part, which is, you said, you're very supportive of this change in charter. So let me bring that to Emily, and then to Terry, and just write us that. Thank you. Question.
And just to be clear, the sections that we're talking about, I was skimming through the bill this morning, I think are 82 and 83. Correct. Okay. I'm going to append them to the minutes just so everybody's able to look at the same
things. Yes, those are the two sections.
I do think that one of the, one of the pain points that we have with Massport is Massport is doing exactly what it has to. It's doing exactly what's in its charter. It's doing exactly what FAA tells us. These are not bad actors. They're taking the actions that they are required to take. So if we want them to take different actions, they need to have they need someone with authority over them to tell them to take those actions. And this seems to be the mechanism to do that.
Yep. So I,
I don't know how likely it is to go through I really do not understand how the legislature works and why there's always this mad July dash and how everything feels like it's it's always crunch time. I don't get that.
away before we get into the legislative part of this thing. So let me be clear. Are you supportive of this type of change to the charter? Yes, I am. Okay, Terry.
Yeah, so very supportive. People up with our representative, Simon Cataldo, because it's made it through the Senate. So now, how will it get through the house? And Jim mentioned those two strategies. And when Simon and I first talk, and Mark and I talked, it did seem like the hush hush strategy might be best. But then it appeared on the I think front page of the globe, it's out now. So I think that we probably do have to tell our house reps, and probably all of our house reps are going to support it. But still, we can tell them how important this is because I do agree with them. We, we I've heard many times that amber or somebody from Massport says, Well, this is what we're required to do. So let's change the requirements and update them. Okay.
So just to be clear, I I also am supportive of having mass ports charter changed from its original status of 1956 of supporting Commerce and Economic Development, also considering a climate change. So I think that's a very important thing to do. So to Jim's question, let me just raise a couple of thoughts. to Jim's question about process at the legislative level. We were expecting to see this week, but it has not happened the house to submit their own climate bill. We're now hearing that that will occur on Monday. The thought, though, is that the house is focused only on a small, a much smaller number of issues that are in the Senate Bill. Particularly citing I don't know that we need to talk through that. But there's a possibility that the House bill will be released with a very, very short list of things. And then what happens is the House bill and the Senate bill are looked at together and where there are differences. There's a conference committee. So there's an opportunity so that the House will so what happens in these bills is that they the bill is introduced, and then there's a flurry of amendments. So somebody, so there's a couple of opportunities here. One is if the House bill is submitted, and it doesn't have a section 282 and 83. And it we could ask one of our legislative delegation to submit a section 82 and 83 as an amendment to the House bill. And then if that passed, then you would have both the Senate bill and the House bill saying the same thing, and you would be in fairly good shape. If however, The baseline Senate House bill does not have section 82 and 83 in it or it does not get amended to have 82 and 83. In it, then what will happen is there will be a conference committee, where there will be three senators and three house representatives who go in a room together and come out, only agreeing on what should be the final bill. So, those are the those three are mark, they will not tell you until the House bill has actually been voted. But typically, one of one will be Senator Barrett, and one will be representative Roy, they're both joint chairs of the TV committee. And at least for the last few bills, they have been the sort of always in the committee group. So the other two, you know, know who will be appointed until the President and Speaker make that decision?
Does anyone know? Are there some reps? who are opposed to putting to doing this legislation?
The only thing that matters is is the speaker in favor or not? Really in Massachusetts?
Do we know where what he thinks? Okay, because one thing that Simon Cataldo was talking about was, he seemed to think that that brief, this was a week ago that the brief House Bill would be more likely, and then we'd have maybe a better chance at the conference committee.
So let me let me sort of try to circle around here with with proposal. So what I'm hearing is unanimous consent that we do believe that the Massport charter should be changed to reflect climate considerations. to I can't remember Jim or Emily's point, language may change, but the intent is what we care about. And so my question would be, would this group be willing to send a letter to our legislative delegation saying that we would support this type of change to the charter? We would have to do that tonight, because we're not going to meet again before the conference committee is going to be over. So my question to you is do we send a short note that says Hanscom area town's committee supports changing the Massport charter, similarly to what is incorporated in Section 82 and 83 of us 2829.
I'm comfortable with that, as long as it's clear that we are speaking in our capacity as hat's members and we are not speaking for individual boards or towns. Because we haven't discussed this, any of us with our select boards. Yeah,
I would be comfortable if we drafted that if we drafted that way. Also, Mark. Okay.
And how about you, Terry?
Right. I agree. Is there any downside? I mean, why not do it?
I think I, I personally don't see a downside to your point very, it we're not under the radar anymore.
You know, if we're not going to be able to play Hush, hush, let's go for it. And so this would be addressed to all the
same native delegation, the legislative delegation of the four tabs,
and it's just gonna say, We want shorter, right, 82 and a three added into the House bill, or we're just gonna say we're supportive of the concept of 82 and 83.
I think, I think the latter is more what I feel comfortable with myself. But okay,
and we're not getting into the mechanism of how they should make that happen. We're just saying, we want this to happen somehow.
Right. Are you comfortable with that Emily? Yeah. So Emily, could you make a motion that would be consistent with what you said earlier?
Sure.
So I move that chair Sandeen draft and send a letter to our state representatives expressing that Hatz members are in favor of including in the house climate bill language similar to sections 82 and 83, similar to or equal to language in sections 82 and 83 of Senate Bill S to a to nine.
And I would just change that to say that would also be copying our Senate legislative delegation as well. Because, okay, they should know that we're supporting the Senate as well.
I'll second that motion. That amended motion.
Okay. All right. So roll call vote. Emily. Hi, Terry. Hi, Jim. I, and I'm Yes, as well. Thank you. Okay. So I think that concludes our third item on the agenda. And now we're into municipal updates. So let me suggest that what Emily, why don't you go first with your municipal update?
Right. Um, the main thing in Bedford, we had our extra special town meeting on June 11, at which, tell me you approved $32 million in construction funding for the new fire station at 139. Great roads. So that was fantastic. And it was a really, it was an overwhelming response, we needed two thirds. And it was we didn't even have to count. It was it was clear. So that was great. We also approved at that meeting a TIF agreement for a company called str, which is a defense contractor. I'm currently in Woburn and they were growing, they needed to expand, so they're planning to relocate there. So that's a good long term economic benefit helps us diversify our business base. So that was good. And the other thing of note recently is that we just received a $500,000 state grant, to it's a bottleneck grant or a bottleneck reduction grant. And mainly, it's going to be used to improve signalization along the great road corridor. So ideally, it'll be like going down and Avenue in New York, where you get the green wave, and you just sort of go the whole way. So we definitely have a couple traffic signals lights that are just, they're outdated, we're gonna get a new master arm for a couple of them, which is gonna, it should help. So we're very much looking forward to that.
And fantastic. Terry, how about your first update?
Sorry, I was on mute. Okay, um, so, Concord voted at our town meeting to do the MBTA zoning. And we've been in the process of getting final approval. And I was just looking through my emails a minute ago to find out the terminologies because I don't remember it. Um, there was some kind of preview where the state people come out, and they're going to give us a pre approval or something. I got forgotten the exact name, but you guys know. It's not my area. So. So anyway, things are moving along really well. We have a very positive vote for the MBTA and zoning and we expect it to be approved by the state. Now, the big issue was a 250. We were working on that. And we have a big event coming up on August 11, which is called the countdown. It's the official launch because it's 250 days before April 19 2025. And what are the things that may come up at haps is the Select Board and the 250 Youth Committee are going to be requesting a no fly zone during I've talked with Simone about this too, after the national park at the bridge during the ceremony, April 19. And we may be asking perhaps support on that letter
just mentioned to you that the town of Lexington received from the army a request to fly over the event and drop parachuters on right. Right it would be there's conflicting there's conflicting numbers. Question. All
right. All right. I should have mentioned that there are two possible exceptions to the no fly. The reason we haven't written the letter yet is because we keep we know now two exceptions, that being one, and the other would be at the if the President or Vice President arrived, they would probably fly in the hands come. So we haven't been able to write the draft letter yet because things are in flux. But thank you for reminding me of that. Jim.
Right. So Lincoln's a bit a little bit quieter. We have town meeting way before you all so
if Boris was extra special, it wasn't your
extra special sorry, Emily. extra special spicy sauce
in the fall. So this is extra special.
Anyway, news in Lincoln is just two days ago, we got the Attorney General's approval for our MBTA community's plans. We have not yet heard from EO H. L. C, and have no idea when they're gonna get back to us but we presume they will approve it as well. So making progress on HCA. And then other big thing in Lincoln is our $25 million Community Center which we approved in March. And we've we've picked an architect and a owners property, what do you call it? Owners project manager, OPM. OPM, and that was that project is steaming forward and hopefully will be constructed by the end of next year. That's I think the big ones in Lincoln. Okay.
So I've got a few updates for Lexington. So the Lexington Select Board has released an RFP to build approximately 40 units of 100% affordable housing at 60% Ami on about three acres of town on property. The Select Board and the Affordable Housing Trust expect to select a developer in the fall. And some mentioned previously the town of Lexington held a ribbon cutting for the police station two weeks ago the police have moved into the new facility and the Lexington Select Board held our Select Board meeting in the new community conference room at the police station on Monday. And other Lexington news Lexington town manager Jim Malloy has announced he's retiring as of September, and the Select Board is conducting a search and currently has received about two dozen applicants and we hope to have a new town manager on board at the start of October. And our last hats meeting Charles already presented an update on the MBTA community zoning and at that time he presented that town staff had reviewed three proposals totaling about 99 units. We're now at a very different stage right now town staff has now had developers present plans for three additional housing proposals bringing the total to 760 units, including 101 affordable housing units. So pardon me,
what was that total again
760 units including 101 affordable housing units. So those six proposals are on 24 acres of property out of the 277 acres that were included in the MBTA zone. And for those of you in Bedford 460 of those units are being proposed near the Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue intersection. The massive difference hoppecke Massachusetts legislature has approved reorganizing Lex hab the Lexington housing assistance board as an independent 501 C three organization and one of the goals was to encourage donations to support affordable housing in Lexington. And Lex AB has already received a donation of an entire condo from the estate of a longtime resident. So this seems to be working. And finally, Lexington is conducting a networked geothermal feasibility study to determine whether both technical and commercial feasibility is feasible for connecting lab and life science buildings to the large multifamily housing, the ground source heat pump loop that would be installed in the public right away. This would be similar to the pilot project that's being done in Framingham. So those are the updates from Lexington. Since I've mentioned, Charles name, do you have any other comments that you'd like to make?
Well, I'll just add that the ISOs. I can't speak to what the staff has reviewed. There have been four projects submitted to the planning board.
Right so far, right. One of the projects I mentioned has just gone to DRT on Monday or Tuesday this week. So the
projects in the north of Lexington have not yet been filed with the planning board.
Right. Okay. But it's it's heady times right now in the MBTA zoning land. The other interesting thing is, as you folks have heard us say before, Lexington is a specialized code community. So what that means is that all of these units will be developed a Passivhaus standards. Any other comments from Planning Board members of other towns? Okay, seen nothing. See, no one raised their hand. Then I think, Jim, you had also said that you wanted to discuss when we would have our next meeting. So I think, oh, excuse me that I'm going out of order that the next thing we need to do is have an update from Hanscom Air Force Base, Jessica has been waiting patiently along here. So sorry about that just got last but not least,
that's okay. Thank you for the opportunity. So I just have one update, and it's a pretty significant one. So it was a big week at the base for us. We had a change of responsibility yesterday, where our installation Command Chief who is our senior enlisted leader on the base changed over. So chief Larry is going to retire and we now have Chief Master Sergeant Jason Vollmer. He came to us from Eglin Air Force Base, which is down in Florida. So he's our new senior enlisted member on the base, and part of our leadership team. And then earlier today, we had our change of command. So we have a new base commander. Colonel Jorge Jimenez comes to us from Hawaii actually is where he was stationed last. And he has a comptroller background. So he's in the finance side of things. So he's very excited him and his family to be here. He had an opportunity to meet a lot of folks from the community who came to the retirement ceremony and we're hoping once he gets settled, and we get him up to speed on the mission and meeting the people on base. We will start bringing him out and having him connect more with our local officials and all of our external partners but just wanted to make sure you are all aware that we have a new brand new command team and look forward to introducing you to them very soon.
Sounds like a Can you spell? Check Master Sergeant Omar and Commander Jimenez names for me.
Absolutely. So, first name for the chief is Jason spelled traditionally, okay. And then his last name is V as in Victor. O L L M E R. And then Colonel Jimenez, first name, J O R. G. Yep. And then his last name is J I M. e n. Easy.
I got that perfectly. Awesome.
And I should mention, we have bios for both of them on the base website as well as coverage of the ceremonies if anyone is interested in learning more about them.
Jessica, can I thank you for that update. Could I could I ask you just to say a word. And maybe you don't have anything to say about this, but I just received about three o'clock this afternoon. Letter from Hanscom Air Force Base from from Charles Strickland on a National Environmental Policy Act. Impact Report is Is there something that you would like to say about that or should I just highlight to the Hanse members that that this letter has been received this afternoon and they should take a look at it. I haven't read it myself yet.
Absolutely. I would say the latter and I apologize only because I have been out of the office for the last time We'll deal with these ceremonies. So I am not tracking as well. But let me let me look into that. And if there are any specific things to point out or any any additional comments, I will absolutely reach back to the committee in the next day or two.
Okay. Well, thank you. Because like I said, we got it around three o'clock this afternoon. So I haven't had a chance to look at it. I'm not really sure what, what what action is being requested the hats, communities, but I just wanted to highlight that we had received something today,
right? Just ask because I saw that letter. And I was confused. What is the difference between this report and the ESP er? If we know?
That is a great question. Let me find out because I am not smart enough on that in this moment to answer so I want to make sure I give you an accurate answer.
Okay, thank you.
Absolutely. Okay,
Simone, did you have anything you want to say about that?
No, I was just gonna say that the Park received the notification as well. So it's for their environmental assessment related to their natural resources plan. So it's sort of the notification that EA is going to be coming out. So I'm assuming it's the same notification that that the town's had gotten as well.
Well, thank you. So, hats, members, Amber Goodspeed notified me that she would not be able to attend the meeting. Today, Mike Valero has been attending in in in her stead. But my understanding, could you just confirm like, do you have an update? Or do you not have an update tonight?
Yes, Mark, thank you. No update. Everything you guys mentioned, you guys are extremely informed. You have all the correct information. I don't have an update at this point.
Okay, well, thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate you coming to the meeting and sticking with us for the whole time.
Anytime, anytime. Okay, thank
you so much. Okay. So I think the final issue on our agenda is to set a meeting time for the next for the next meeting. And so I'm a little bit confused of what was being suggested. I heard some folks suggesting that we meet right at, you know, right before the September 12, deadline for submission. And I thought I heard some folks suggesting maybe we meet in the middle of August sometimes. So what what what makes I'll
be more specific Mark, I think we can do the draft offline. And I think we can meet on September 4, or fifth, which is the week before the deadline for submission. And at least for my purposes, that will give me enough time to get the final approval from my board before September 12. So I'm proposing September 4 or fifth for our next meeting.
September 5 would be better for me, I'm likely to have another meeting on the fourth.
Okay, let me know, the only thing I worry about is when we did the DIR, we went back to each Select Board. Some boards had comments, and then we had to change it again. So that would be the only issue that could come up.
Yeah, my issue Terry is I don't have any Select Board meetings on the agenda until September 9. This is our traditional vacation.
I mean, this, this may be a case where like we're gonna present this as the draft. Take it or leave a thumbs up thumbs down.
Okay. All right. I'm fine with that.
Okay. Terry, are you okay with the September 5?
I have to, I'm going to say yes, but I don't remember right now our Select Board dates. What is which date is Labor Day? Labor
Day is the second. Okay, Thursday,
probably meet the knife. So I would be on the same schedule as Jim
neato mice select boards meeting on the ninth also which makes the fifth Great timing All right. All
right. So we will we will settle in on September 5 then.
Okay. If
there is, is there anything else that we need to discuss this evening? seen nobody else raising their hand I will take a motion to We'll adjourn.
So moved. Second.
Okay,
Emily. Hi, Terry. Hi, Jim. I, and I'm uh, yes, we are adjourned at 8:27pm. Thank you.
