Updated with more transcription. See the bottom of the post,
—
More than a little drama at the Newton City Council’s Land Use Committee meeting on Tuesday night. It looked like it would be a fairly routine approval of a special permit petition for the conversion of a portion of 275 Grove St., the Riverside Center, to life sciences. The Riverside Center life-sciences space is linked to the planned life-science space in the approved Riverside Station project. The Riverside Center owner, Alexandria Properties, envisions a life-sciences cluster between the two properties. (Alexendria will also manage the Riverside Station life-sciences building.)
But, members of Green Newton, a highly respected environmental organization in Newton, and other climate advocates urged the committee to reject the petition. The life-sciences uses, according to Green Newton and allies, would intensify the demand for heating and cooling, making the building more of source of carbon emissions. And, they say, the project doesn’t have sufficient enhancements to offset the increase to Riverside Center’s carbon footprint.
Green Newton asked that the special permit include a commitment to use heat pumps, which would be significantly less energy intensive. After about 45 minutes of discussion about the extent the petitioner would have to commit itself to higher standards, Ward 4 Ward Councilor Chris Markiewicz stood tall for sustainability:
We just went through an election, and I think everybody, whether or not they had a race or not, I think everybody came up and stood hard on we’re gonna implement the Climate Action Plan. So, we put ourselves in that position. Now we have to deliver. And, this, to me, is a delivery opportunity.
Councilor Markiewicz’s comment comes at about 1:06:30 in the meeting video (from NewTV).
Sounds pretty clear. Climate change is an existential threat and we need to do everything we can, which, in this case, means using heat pumps. Except, …
About an hour later (at 2:02:54 of the video, transcription below), Councilor Markiewicz refused to provide the petitioner an additional 7′ to 10′ of building height to accommodate the very heat pumps that Green Newton demanded. He insisted that the petitioner come back to the council if heat pump equipment would exceed what height was already allowed. Why? So that the council could strike a balance between the sustainability of heat pumps and neighborhood concerns about building height.
Huh? I thought this was a climate delivery opportunity.
Some background. Riverside Center is comprised of three buildings, separated by a T-shaped atrium. Buildings 2 and 3 are on the south side of the the cluster, closest to Riverside Station. Building 1, is the long building that runs along the north side of the property.
The proposed changes are to Building 3. The abutters live next to Building 1, meaning that they are at least 175 feet from Building 3 with the four-story Building 1 between them and Building 3. (There is a 1963 apartment complex across Grove street, some of which is closer to and directly facing Building 3. The neighbors at the public hearing did not appear to be speaking for those renters.)
All but three of the abutters and near abutters on Central St., Oakwood Rd., Williston Rd., and Norumbega Ct. purchased their properties after the 2000 conversion of the former Jordan Marsh warehouse into an office complex. Many of the abutters purchased their homes in the last few years.
The city wants and needs the tax revenue from life sciences. Consistent with the city’s Climate Action Plan, the property owner is willing to install heat pumps, to offset the increased energy consumption of the life-science uses. But, the city councilor who promised to deliver on climate action wasn’t willing to commit to a little more height to accommodate the necessary equipment without allowing the neighbors a right to object.
That’s the balance: neighborhood aesthetic concerns and climate action.
Our land-use processes are badly broken.
—
This is the discussion at 2:02:54 of the video:
City Attorney Jonah Temple: Is there a maximum height you want to set in the event that the heat pump is feasible and they install it? Are we comfortable saying that they can go to the 96 if that’s as high as it goes?
Councilor Markiewicz: No. I would not propose any changes beyond what the envelope already has already provided for it, Mr. Temple. Attorney Temple.
Temple: What I think we heard tonight is that if a heat pump would be installed it would almost certainly go above the existing envelope.
Markiewicz: I do not believe actually, that that is the only way you can do it. I think it can be done internally. There are other .. it gets very complex as how you would actually put it … Again, I’m not an engineer. But what I’ve learned is that there’s a lot more to it. But, I think.
We tip a balance there, that was already cited by one of my colleagues. We would have to come back and discuss that.
And, if it isn’t totally what Councilor Markiewicz means by balance, Land Use Chair Rick Lipof clears that up:
That’s why we can’t cap it. We have to leave the flexibility. Because, the question is going to be do you want the building to be as ultimately green as possible, but, it may mean exceeding the feet. So, that’s something that the neighborhood, that us as a council is going to have to decide when Alexandria comes back and says this is how I can do it but this is what it’s going to take.
Councilor Lipof is literally saying that the neighborhood needs to have a say about whether or not the building is going to be “as ultimately green as possible.”
It seems odd that the including heat pumps would increase the building height. One can assume that the building would include some amount of rooftop HVAC/R equipment. Natural gas-fired rooftop air handling units, or at a minimum energy recovery rooftop air handling units to compliment a gas-fired hydronic system. Even the presence of rooftop exhaust fans would yield some minor increase in height. Any way you slice it, the building would almost assuredly have rooftop HVAC/R equipment independent of using fossil fuels or not. There’s also the consideration that heat pump technology for a large commercial building provides multiple solutions. Heat pumps could be in the form of a condensing unit serving several head units in a series of offices or labs, a central heat pump in an air handling unit that serves a wing or floor, or even a central heat pump chiller, or chillers, that could be housed on the roof or within a mechanical room inside the building. If for whatever crazy reason they planned on having all equipment located within the building, which is almost completely unheard of, then allow for the increased height for mechanical equipment only, and have them pull it back from the edge of the roof so that it can’t be seen from the ground.
@Sean
This is where your black-and-white uncompromising views get in the way of lucid thinking.
If it was theoretically only possible to use heat pumps by increasing the height, then your strawman forced-choice of neighborhood aesthetics vs climate change would be valid. But it’s hard to believe that’s actually the case, and I’m sure there are solutions that satisfy both concerns.
As an aside, I think going after the life science sector and slowing down plans because of climate change concerns is sort of losing the plot. While climate change is an “existential” issue, what’s as pressing are the tens of millions of patients without treatments for some pretty horrible diseases. While Sean highlights the city’s desire for tax revenue, the much more important concern should be the moral imperative to find treatments for patients in desperate need. It’s dismaying to see life science progress bogged down by politics and bureaucracy.
It’s not as if these four heat pumps actually will make a difference, whereas biotech companies literally don’t have enough lab space to move as quickly as they can.
Alec,
We agree. We want life more sciences. For the tax revenue, as I’ve raised. For the humanitarian benefit that you’ve raised, to your credit. And, I think we agree that Green Newton’s insistence on better, greener technology for heating and air-conditioning is important.
What I’m trying to say (and this wasn’t my best written post): given the very important city goals and the larger global goals, why are we even entertaining neighbors concerns about a few feet, give or take, of equipment on the roof of a building that doesn’t even directly abut their homes?
Do the neighbors really believe that they have a reasonable expectation that the four-story office building that was there when the moved in 2006, 2015, 2020, 2021, was not going to change?
I saw & listened to the recording, the entire segment, and I didn’t interpret the conversation or the committee’s conclusion that way at all. You’ll have to listen for yourself and see what conclusions you draw.
Jane,
I’ve transcribed the relevant portion in an update to the post. Rick Lipof literally summarized Councilor Markiewicz as allowing the neighborhood to have a say in deciding whether or not to make the building “as ultimately green as possible.”
I’m in total agreement with Alec Wilson’s “As an aside…”.
“Our land-use processes are badly broken” – because the appearance of the neighborhood is weighed carefully against a possibly unnecessary measure that will anyway have a negligible impact on the world’s climate? I would say this is working exactly right. The project was approved unanimously by a bitterly polarized council. Are you seriously suggesting increasing the building’s height just like that, without further discussion?
Newtoner,
If Councilor Markiewicz had expressed skepticism about the need for or the efficacy of heat pumps, that would be a different discussion. But, he said we need to take climate change seriously. And, he joined Green Newton’s call for heat pumps. Then, he undermined his commitment to combatting global climate change by suggesting that heat pumps might add too much height for the neighborhood to have to put up with.
Yes, I think the committee, as Councilor Deb Crossley said, should just have allowed the developer to put the necessary equipment on the roof. There was plenty of discussion about the need for the heat pumps and their feasibility. Green Newton did important work to make a significant, meaningful change to the special permit conditions.
“Then, he undermined his commitment to combatting global climate change by suggesting that heat pumps might add too much height for the neighborhood to have to put up with”
That wasn’t what he said. He said that he didn’t want to give “blanket relief” unless the developer came back and (this is key) having explored all option (i.e. placing heat pumps elsewhere ) they said the needed it. And I will point out that Chair Lipof seemed to agree when he said they shouldn’t “cap the relief” and should leave it flexible
MaryLee,
Yes, but …
It all boils down to height of equipment on the roof. Councilor Markiewicz wasn’t interested in other options, except as the related to moving the equipment off the roof. If he wants to retain the ability to withhold relief, it means he imagines a scenario under which the developer committed to heat pumps, but the committee would recommend against the special permit. Okay, fine. But, what that means is that there are aesthetic issues that are more important than climate change. Or, it means that life sciences delivered with aggressive investment to limit carbon emissions is less important than aesthetic issues.
This was a simple issue. Green Newton made the case for heat pumps. The developer said they’ll do heat pumps. The committee could have — and should have — said, “You’re free to go as high as required to meet this important climate objective. We’re not going to impose additional constraints.
Yes, Rick seem to agree with Councilor Markiewicz. And, Rick made Councilor Markiewicz’s (and his own) calculus blindingly clear: any concern about feet is at the expense of not making the building “as ultimately green as possible.”
Again, Councilors Markiewicz (and Lipof) are certainly entitled to put neighborhood concerns above global concerns, but please don’t get on a soapbox about delivering on climate objectives.
The Land use process is not broken. In fact, the longer than expected deliberation on Tuesday was the quintessential example of fairness and balance in our process. We strive for going greener at every turn and Green Newton is there to educate and hold us accountable and we appreciate and thank them for their participation and advocacy. At the same time we represent abutters, neighbors and the entire city and take that responsibility seriously. Balance is what we do on land use and we passed the petition with a statement pushing for heat pumps with the flexibility of considering additional height with the neighbors interests to be revisited if additional height is an outcome. It’s fair to all involved. What is not ever fair is an all or nothing approach on either side of an issue. It was a tough one but i think we moved forward with a reasonable approach. My job as Chair is often to find a path in the middle. Councilor Markiewicz was also doing the same. And Sean, it’s great to advocate for things you are passionate about but you have to combine that with a sensitivity to the process and to those who will be effected by change. Its complicated but necessary.
Councilor Lipof,
Thanks for joining the conversation.
From a process perspective, yes, it’s important to hear from all sides. But, the outcome should reflect weighted priorities.
Newton has an important need to participate in the life-sciences economy. Life-science space is premium space to add to our commercial tax base. Riverside Center and Riverside Station can become an important hub for life sciences, attracting more life-science space.
Newton has an overwhelming, critical need to contribute positively to the climate crisis, which means that we should do everything we can to make our buildings carbon neutral.
With those two priorities, it is puzzling, to put it mildly, that the neighbors’ concern about an extra 7-10 feet of height to accommodate heat pumps is still an open item. The neighbors live at least 150 ft. away. And, their view of Building 3 is blocked by the four-story Building 1 and the atrium between the buildings.
I would have expected the committee to say, “Sorry, folks. Our zoning allows up to 96′ of height. Green Newton has convinced the developer to pursue heat pumps. If the developer can make it work, we’re going to give them the height to do it.”
“Weighted priorities” is where there appears to be a difference of opinion. I’m just glad Councilors Markiewicz and Lipof are prioritizing the wishes and desires of the abutters and people of Newton, where Sean has them (us) much lower in this prioritization. Worst case scenario, the developer has to trim a foot and a half of ceiling height from each floor or spend a little more on creative architecture. Not crying a river for them.
When I hear “life sciences” with absolutely no specific end user attached to that term, I think about both the Wuhan Clinic and the US military. While the City Council is focused on things like heat pumps, I wonder if they’ve contemplated who the end users might be for the Riverside laboratory, and the variety of threats they might pose to Newton and beyond?
The revised Special Permit should include prohibitions on military use of the lab, and the developer should be required to pay for a full time life sciences monitor who works for the City of Newton and is exclusively dedicated to issues of safety.
Councilor Crossley also pointed out that heat pumps and other roof-top items don’t require a height addition; unless they are screened, they are considered temporary, so there would not BE a need to add addl building height to the permit. She pointed to the need for a tight building envelope, without which any heating or cooling could just exit the building. There was a lot of sensible and knowledgeable conversation on both sides, and and a good faith attempt to address these and satisfy Newton’s CAP, which this blog post excludes.
@Mike – you’ve voiced something I’ve also been thinking about. Ask the folks in Nonantum about the contaminated ground water.
Would a life sciences building do something similar? We tend to think no, but that might be naive.
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/health-human-services/environmental-health/nonantum-groundwater-investigation-and-remediation
Jane H.
Absolutely right that Councilor Crossley was typically thoughtful and well-informed. And, also correct that my post doesn’t do justice to the thoughtful discussion among most of the parties.