the distillery redevelopment - Boston Redevelopment Authority

THE DISTILLERY 

REDEVELOPMENT 

516-524 East Second Street and 2 Dorchester Street 

Boston MA 02127 

Article 80 Submission 

21 May 2007 

Submitted to Boston Redevelopment Authority Boston MA 

Submitted by Second Street Associates LLC

THE DISTILLERY REDEVELOPMENT 

516-524 East Second Street / 2 Dorchester Street, Boston MA 02127 

Article 80 Submission 21 May 2007 

Submitted to Boston Redevelopment Authority 

Submitted by Second Street Associates LLC 

Project Team Frederick M. Gordon Proponent 

Second Street Associates LLC 

516 East Second Street, 

South Boston, MA 02127 

617-269-8430 following page…

617-1776 

The Distillery Redevelopment | East Second Street | South Boston 

Hubert Murray Architect + Planner Architecture / Planning 

204 Erie Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 

617-354-9555 

The Hickory Consortium Energy Consultant 

Mark Kelly PE LEED AP. 

1 Jeefe Rd, Acton MA 01720 

978-895-0988 

The Office of David Neilson Urban Design. 

17 Powderhouse St., #316, 


617-268-0816 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. Transportation / Infrastructure 

Susan Sloan Rossiter, Principal, 

99 High Street, Boston, 02110 

617-728-7777 

Weidlinger Associates Inc. Geotechnical / Structural 

Stephen Lew.PhD, PE, NIST 

201 Broadway, 4th Floor, 

Cambridge, MA 02139-1955 

617-374-0000 

Dr. Nancy Seasholes, PhD Site History 

1 Field Rd., Lexington, 

MA 02421-8014 

781-863-8085 

Apex. Environmental Soils Analysis 

Geoffrey May, LSP 

374 Congress Street., 

Boston, MA Suite 508 02210 

617-728-0070 x 114 

Goulston and Storrs Legal 

Matthew Kiefer LLB, 

400 Atlantic Avenue, 

Boston, MA 02110-3333 

0.0 Table of Contents 0-2

Executive Summary 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Project Objectives 

1.2. Housing and Urban Design Objectives 

1.3. Environmental and Energy Objectives 

1.4. Article 37 

2. PROGRAM 

2.1. Existing Program 

2.2. Proposed Development 

2.3. Construction Sequencing 

2.4. Program Summary 

2.5. Parking 

3. ZONING ANALYSIS 

3.1. Article 80 Large Project Review 

3.2. Article 37 Green Buildings 

3.3. Article 27P South Boston IPOD 

3.4. Project Dimensions 

3.5. Space Allocation 

3.6. Other Permits 

4. SITE CONDITIONS 

4.1. Tidelands 

4.2. Flood Hazard 

4.3. Environmental Site History 

5. HISTORIC RESOURCES 

5.1. Neighborhood Historic Resources 

5.2. Site Land Use History 

6. URBAN DESIGN 

6.1. Site Context 

6.2. Site Development and Massing 

6.3. Space Allocation 

6.4. Access and Circulation 

7. ARCHITECTURE 

7.1. Architectural Expression 

7.2. H Street Elevation 

7.3. East First Street Elevation 

7.4. Dorchester Street Elevation 

7.5. East Second Street Elevation 

7.6. Roofscape 

Architectural Drawings 1 through 16 



8. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 

8.1. Street Landscape 

8.2. The Courtyard 

8.3. The Roof 


9. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PLAN COMPONENT 

9.1. Introduction 

9.1.1. Project Description 

9.1.2. Study Area 

9.1.3. Study Methodology 

9.1.4. Summary of Findings 

9.2. Existing Conditions 

9.2.1. Existing Roadway Conditions 

9.2.2. Study Area Intersections 

9.2.3. Existing Traffic Volumes 

9.2.4. Parking 

9.2.5. Crash History 

9.2.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions 

9.2.7. Public Transportation 

9.2.8. Vehicular Site Access 

9.2.9. Adjacent Land Uses 

9.3. Evaluation of Future Transportation Conditions 

9.3.1. No Build Condition 

9.3.2. 2011 Build Condition 

9.4. Traffic Operations Analysis 

9.5. Access to Parking 

9.5.1. Assessment of Alternatives 

9.5.2. Lower Level Access 

9.5.3. Upper Level Access 

9.5.4. Service Vehicles and Emergency Services 

9.6. Transportation Mitigation and Improvement Plan 

9.6.1. Project Improvements 

9.6.2. Transportation Demand Management 

9.6.3. Loading and Service Management Actions 

9.6.4. Construction Management 

9.7. Transportation Access Plan Agreement and Construction Management Plan 

10. INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS 

10.1. Introduction 

10.1.1. Regulatory Framework 

10.2. Wastewater 

10.2.1. Existing Wastewater 

10.2.2. Demand / Use 

10.2.3. Proposed Connection 

10.3. Domestic Water and Fire Protection 



10.3.1. Existing Water Supply System 

10.3.2. Proposed Connection 

10.4. Stormwater Management 

10.4.1. Existing Conditions 

10.4.2. Proposed Conditions 

10.4.3. Compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Policy 

10.5. Anticipated Energy Needs 

10.5.1. Electrical Service 

10.5.2. Natural Gas 

10.5.3. Telecommunications 

10.6. Protection of Utilities 

10.7. Sustainable Design / Energy Conservation 

10.8. Conclusion 

11. GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT 

11.1. Project Description 

11.2. Subsurface Exploration Program 

11.3. Subsurface Conditions 

11.4. Groundwater 

11.5. Foundation Design Recommendations 

11.6. Seismic Design 

11.7. Construction Considerations 

Figures and Tables 

12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

12.1. Article 37 

12.2. Wind 

12.3. Shadow 

12.4. Daylight 

12.5. Solar Glare 

12.6. Air Quality 

12.7. Water Quality 

13. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

13.1. Traffic 

13.2. Air Quality 

13.3. Noise 

13.4. Rodent Control 

13.5. Wildlife Habitat 

13.6. Construction Management 

13.7. Monitoring 

14. DESIGN REVIEW 

14.1. Community Meetings 

14.2. Boston Civic Design Commission 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


Second Street Associates owns a property in South Boston, the site of a former rum 

distillery. The Distillery site is a 1.74 acre site bounded by East First Street, East Second 

Street, H Street and Dorchester Street. 

There are three main buildings on the site, totaling 105,667 gross square feet providing a 

total of 30 live-work units and 42 work-only units for artists and small manufacturers: 

• the former distillery, (consisting of the Distillery Building on East Second Street 

and the Warehouse on H Street) was built in the period 1862 - 1874, providing 30 

live-work and 38 work-only spaces. 

• a former distillery company bottling plant built in 1966 currently being used as a 

laydown area and warehouse by Fishbach and Moore, an electrical contractor. 

• a one-story masonry building, a former cooper shop built in the 1930’s, currently 

with three commercial tenancies. 

The aim of the owner is to redevelop the property, preserving the older, architecturally 

distinguished, Distillery Building while demolishing the other buildings on site. These 

will be replaced with 124,996 gross square feet of residential space, artists’ work and 

live-work units, workshops, offices, retail stores, and 123 parking spaces. The new 

building complex will be designed and constructed to reduce fossil fuel in the 

construction materials used, the method of construction and day to day operation, 

achieving a high benchmark in terms of life cycle energy costs. The building will also 

seek to minimize non-energy related negative environmental impacts and to promote and 

sustain a healthy living environment. 

It is also the goal of the owner to attract to the property more artists, and small-scale 

entrepreneurs involved in green technology so that the place becomes a destination not 

only for its design and construction but also for the technologically progressive and 

creative community that will live and work in this part of South Boston. 

1.0 Executive Summary | Introduction 1-1


The proposed development will retain 30 artists’ live-work units and 37 commercial units 

(losing one from the current count of 38) in the existing historic building on the eastern 

half of the site and add 44 new residential units, 25 new live-work units, art galleries, a 

café, greenhouse, and small-scale retail spaces with associated off-street parking. The 

development will produce all of its electricity on site using a renewable and almost 

carbon-neutral fuel. The waste heat from this process will carry all heat, hot water and 

air conditioning loads. 

Project Description 

Landowner: Second Street Associates LLC 

Developer: Second Street Associates LLC 

The proposed development involves the construction of two wings of four-storey 

residential and commercial accommodation over two basement stories of structured 

parking. In order to prepare this part of the site for the proposed development, two singlestorey 

industrial buildings will be demolished. 

The residential development on East First Street consists of 25 live-work studios totaling 

28,755 net square feet. Pedestrian access to these units is from East First Street and an 

inner court, elevation +34’. Street access to the inner court is at the corner of East First 

and Dorchester Streets (elevation +16’) via elevator and stairs. There is also direct, atgrade 

access to the courtyard from East Second Street at elevation +32’. 

The 44-unit residential accommodation (58,751 net square feet) on Dorchester Street is 

accessible from five street level front doors leading to five stair and elevator cores 

serving residential units clustered around a shared atrium. The units are also accessible 

via stairs from the courtyard. 

There are two levels of parking. The lower level parking (59 spaces) is served by twoway 

access from H Street, extending along East First Street and Dorchester Street at 

elevation +16’. The upper level parking (capacity 64 spaces) is served by two-way access 

from Dorchester Street at elevation +25’, extending to Dorchester Street and First Street 



with a short spur adjacent to East Second Street. The upper level parking has a small 

truck loading area to serve the retail store on East Second Street. On H Street there is a 

40-ft. truck loading dock that can serve, via dock and large elevator, all buildings in the 

development, existing and proposed. 

The project is designed to be served by two 45 kw diesel generators powered by 

vegetable oil. The system will be grid-integrated for backup purposes, but otherwise will 

draw no net electricity during each monthly billing cycle. All heating and cooling loads 

will be met by the waste heat from the electric generation. In addition to serving the 

buildings, excess electrical capacity will be available to provide electrical charging for 

plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles. 

Zoning and Project Dimensions 

The site is located in the South Boston Interim Planning Overlay District under the terms 

of Article 27P of the Zoning Ordinance. Map 4 (South Boston) shows the site to be 

designated L, allowing a building height of 35 feet and an FAR of 2.0. 

The proposed building roof height is the same as the existing adjacent buildings 

established as +83’ above sea level. The grade varies from +16.5’ at the corner of First 

and Dorchester, to +32’ on East Second Street. The roof heights in the table below are 

established as height above mean grade for each of the four frontages on the block. 

Proposed Building Height above mean grade Existing Roof Height 

First Street 61.59’ n.a. 

H Street 53.47’ 60’-6” 

Second Street 48.32’ 52’-0” 

Dorchester Street 65.30’ n.a. 

The FAR of the new and existing buildings combined on the site is 3.05. 

Setbacks: the new buildings are built to the property line at Dorchester Street and East 

Second Street. On East First Street the building will be set back from the property line to 

allow a 5’-6” sidewalk. An open courtyard (26,322 sf) faces south onto East Second 

Street. 


1.0 INTRODUCTION 


Second Street Associates owns a property in South Boston, the site of a former 

rum distillery. The Distillery site is a 1.74 acre site bounded by East First Street, 

East Second Street, H Street and Dorchester Street. 

There are three main buildings on the site, totaling 105,667 gross square feet 

providing a total of 30 live-work units and 42 work-only units for artists and small 

manufacturers: 

• the former distillery, (consisting of the Distillery Building on East Second 

Street and the Warehouse on H Street) was built in the period 1862 - 1874, 

providing 30 live-work and 38 work-only spaces. 

• a former distillery company bottling plant built in 1966 currently being 

used as a laydown area and warehouse by Fishbach and Moore, an 

electrical contractor. 

• a one-story masonry building, a former cooper shop built in the 1930’s, 

currently with three commercial tenancies. 

The aim of the owner is to redevelop the property, preserving the older, 

architecturally distinguished, Distillery Building while demolishing the other 

buildings on site. These will be replaced with 124,996 gross square feet of 

residential space, artists’ work and live-work units, workshops, offices, retail 

stores, and 123 parking spaces. The new building complex will be designed and 

constructed to reduce fossil fuel in the construction materials used, the method of 

construction and day to day operation, achieving a high benchmark in terms of 

life cycle energy costs. The building will also seek to minimize non-energy 

related negative environmental impacts and to promote and sustain a healthy 

living environment. 



It is also the goal of the owner to attract to the property more artists, and smallscale 

entrepreneurs involved in green technology so that the place becomes a 

destination not only for its design and construction but also for the technologically 

progressive and creative community that will live and work in this part of South 

Boston. 

The proposed development will retain 30 artists’ live-work units and 37 

commercial units (losing one from the current count of 38) in the existing historic 

building on the eastern half of the site and add 44 new residential units, 25 new 

live-work units, art galleries, a café, greenhouse, and small-scale retail spaces 

with associated off-street parking. The development will produce all of its 

electricity on site using a renewable and almost carbon-neutral fuel. The waste 

heat from this process will carry all heat, hot water and air conditioning loads. 

1.1 Project Objectives 

The objectives that the proponent has set for the project is to create an energy 

efficient development minimizing dependency on fossil fuels and non-renewable 

resources and at the same time maintain and expand accommodation for the artists 

and creative entrepreneurs as well as providing new high quality conventional 

residences. 

In addition to specific studies of materials, design, and materials, the development 

team generated at the very outset of its work a prioritized schedule of values 

which this project is to realize. These are: 

1. Energy 

This project is a live social, political and technological experiment in the 

economics of energy use in residential construction. The goal is to reduce 

dependence on outside sources of fossil fuel energy and otherwise nonrenewable 

resources. These goals are to be quantified in terms of 



1.1. Embodied energy contained in materials 

1.2. Energy used in construction 

1.3. Energy in use 

1.4. Cycles of renewability for both materials and fuels 

2. Environment 

The project is designed to minimize its environmental footprint in terms 

of: 

2.1. The use of renewable resources 

2.2. The minimization of exposure to and creation of toxins and 

destructive residuals 

2.3. Minimizing damage to the surrounding environment and ecology, 

including air and water quality and the condition of the upper 

atmosphere 

3. Technology 

The technology employed in pursuit of these objectives must be: 

3.1. State-of-the-Shelf - established and up-to-date 

3.2. Experimental – technologies may be tested and demonstrated 

within this residential configuration 

3.3. Robust and Redundant – durable, either duplicative or non-critical 

and user-friendly 

3.4. Transferable – technologies and configurations should serve as a 

standard and be transferable to comparable projects elsewhere. 


4. Profitability 


4.1. The project has to make a profit for the Owner. Considerations that 

may affect the degree of profit may be the terms of ownership 

(condominium or leased rental) which may be affected by the 

terms of liability and the degree of test-bed experimentation 

required in use. 

4.2. The residences, studios, offices and retail locations have to be 

marketable. 

5. Comfort 

5.1. The design of the residences will provide visual, auditory and 

thermal comfort. 

6. Community 

6.1. Within the context of profitability the project will incorporate a 

number of affordable units for artists, small sustainable 

development firms and non-profits in the field of sustainable 

development. 

6.2. Affordable units within the complex will be indistinguishable in 

quality from other accommodation. They will accommodate a full 

spectrum of qualifying candidates with accommodation sizes 

ranging from single room studios to 3-bedroom family units. 

6.3. It is important that this development contribute to, and enhance the 

potential of, the community of artists already on site and to the 

neighborhood and community of South Boston. The design process 

will fully involve members of these communities. 


7. Health 


6.4. The development of live-work space for artists and technological 

innovators will create a new questing and creative community at 

the cusp of an existing residential and former industrial area. 

7.1. The aim of the project is to promote a healthy environment during 

construction and in the living and working environment 

accommodated in the development. Healthy materials and 

processes as well as Indoor Air Quality will be particularly 

important not only as a good in itself but as an attractive marketing 

characteristic. 

7.2. Natural organic fruit and vegetables will be grown on site and sold 

to provide healthy produce to residents and neighbors. 

7.3. Issues to be address will focus on maximizing indoor air quality 

and the minimization of toxins in the structure and systems. 

7.4. The maintenance and operation of the building will adhere to 

protocols on the use of non-toxic cleaning agents, fertilizers, 

sprays, packaging etc. 

8. Liability 

9. Waste 

8.1. While this is an innovative project engaging financial, 

technological and social risk, it calls for risk management to 

reduce the liability of participating parties. 

9.1. The development should engage ‘cradle-to-cradle’ thinking in the 

use of resources and materiel including construction waste, food 

waste, and production waste. 


10. Attractiveness 


10.1. The residences must be attractive places to live in. This may be 

interpreted as aesthetically pleasing and as ethically and 

technologically attractive. In addition to creating an attractive 

architecture that reflects the values of the project and makes a 

positive contribution to the neighborhood, the building will capture 

views of the city and the neighborhood. A close relationship to 

natural vegetation will be important. 

10.2. Open space and landscaped roof areas within the project will 

embody principles of sustainability, incorporating areas for homegrown 

fruit and vegetables and employing recycled water for 

irrigation. 

11. Transportation 

12. Water 

11.1. The development will address the issues of urban transportation 

opening up possibilities of links to the neighborhood and city that 

reduce dependency on private automobiles. Options will include 

alternative fuels, shared ownership, alternative modes (such as 

buses, shuttles, taxis, battery driven scooters and bicycles) and 

walking. 

12.1. Water will be valued and managed as an increasingly scarce and 

valuable resource to be used and re-used. As an element 

fundamental to human life, water will also be expressed as part of 

the architecture and landscape. 

13. Defiance 



13.1. This project is a bold act of defiance. Reflecting the nature of 

many of the resident artists and innovators, the aim is to create a 

healthy, innovative, and attractive living and working environment 

in an urban neighborhood of a northern city in defiance of climate, 

the changing economy, dependence on non-renewable resources 

and acceptance of the status quo. 

14. Demonstration 

14.1. The Distillery project aims to act as a demonstration and as a 

standard for comparable projects throughout the country. The 

project will employ methods that are reproducible elsewhere and 

will diffuse the innovations in technology, construction, project 

management and community involvement through documentation 

and publication. 

By these standards the Distillery will measure its own success and will become a 

standard for others. 

1.2 Housing and Urban Design Objectives 

The existing buildings on the Distillery site include 30 residential live-work units 

for artists and 42 commercial units for artists, small manufacturers and service 

operations. The larger of the two one-storey buildings on Dorchester Street is 

currently occupied by an electrical contractor who uses the space as a warehouse. 

This is a temporary location for the contractor, Fishbach and Moore, for their 

work on the “Big Dig;” it will soon be completed and that building will be vacant. 

The smaller of the two buildings, a former cooper shop, has three small-scale 

tenants. 

As proposed, the new development will consist of 25 live-work units on the East 

First Street frontage and 44 residential units on the Dorchester Street frontage. 

The new development will also include small commercial and retail spaces at 



street level. At courtyard level there will be a café and two small galleries 

(included in the commercial / retail category below). 

Table 1-1 NET NEW UNITS 

Units 

Existing Lost Gained Total 

Commercial / Retail 42 -1 6 47 

Live-Work 30 0 25 55 

Residential 0 0 44 44 

Total 72 -1 75 146 

The aim of the development is to retain existing tenancies as affordable units for 

artists and small businesses. It is envisioned that the existing Distillery building 

will not be improved and will remain a relatively low-cost rental location for its 

artist and commercial tenants. The new development is designed to attract more 

of the same type of enterprise, with an emphasis on small-scale entrepreneurs 

engaged in ‘green technology’ so that the site will become a destination for those 

interested in this field. 

This project will be developed in accordance with the Executive Order of Mayor 

Thomas M. Menino dated May 16th 2006 relative to the Inclusionary 

Development Policy of the City of Boston. The number of affordable units in the 

project will be not less than 15% of the total market rate units, i.e. 15% of 69 units 

= 10 units. 

The intention is to retain the residential units as rental apartments at least for the 

first five years after completion so that any wrinkles in the new technology can be 

ironed out. Finishes will be kept very simple allowing residents to complete the 

units according to their own taste and budgets. 

1.3 Environmental and Energy Objectives 

The proposed buildings will use a unique engineering approach to achieve 

reduction in energy use and environmental impact which until now has been 

achievable only by small-scale experimental architecture. This approach 

involves three main factors: building geometry, cogeneration of electricity with 



renewable fuel, and energy efficient shell and floor slabs. Other techniques, 

passive solar heat gain, heliostats, daylighting, natural venting and heat recovery 

venting are included in our design, but play a lesser role in the energy 

performance. Integration of electrical cogeneration, plug-in hybrid vehicles and 

other innovative transportation initiatives also contribute to benchmark setting 

reductions in the total energy and environmental impact of the site. 

The conceptualization of the energy profile of the project was facilitated by a 

grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The report, The 

Feasibility Study of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Options for a 79unit 

Condominium Development in South Boston (May 2005), is available from 

the MTC or from the developer. This study defined the building’s energy 

efficient building morphology, and did a broad survey of the energy efficiency 

technologies which the project will implement. A second grant from MTC for 

$40,000, A Feasibility study for Vegetable Oil CHP, was awarded in October, 

2006, and is focused more specifically on establishing the feasibility of using 

virgin vegetable oil as an energy source for a combined heat and power system. 

Work under this grant commenced on Dec. 13 th , and should be completed May 1, 

2007. 

1.4 Construction 

In addition to complying with the pertinent regulations, it is an objective of the 

proponent to incorporate into the construction process healthful and 

environmentally responsible principles insofar as this is practicable. In order to 

maintain as much normal use of the property as possible, the construction will be 

sequenced so that the vacant north sector of the lot will be developed first – the 

live-work studios facing East First Street – to be followed by the development of 

the residential units on Dorchester Street. 


2.0 PROGRAM 

2.1 Existing Program 


Currently there are three main buildings on the 1.74-acre site: 

• the Distillery / Warehouse, containing 30 live-work and 38 work-only 

units; 

• the Honeywell Building / former bottling plant , currently accommodating 

one commercial tenant using the building as light manufacturing and 

warehousing; 

• the Cooper Shop, currently accommodating 3 small-scale commercial 

tenants. 

The existing disposition of buildings on the site is shown in Figure 2-1: 

HONEYWELL BUILDING 

Figure 2-1: Existing Buildings 

COOPER SHOP 

WAREHOUSE 

DISTILLERY 

2.0 Program 2-1

The existing program is summarized in Table 2-1: 


Table 2-1 PROGRAM IN EXISTING BUILDINGS (Distillery / Warehouse / Honeywell / Cooper Shop) 

Program Use Gp NSF # units 

Residential Units (Live-Work units) R-2 42,798 30 

Studio non-live Work Units (Commercial) B 31,812 41 

Industrial / Light Manufacturing F-2 21,950 1 

Total Units 96,560 72 

Gross Area (GSF) 105,667 

Parking 

Parking available to residential and commercial units 45 

Other parking rented to Fishbach and Moore 21 

Total Parking 66 

2.2 Proposed Development 

The aim of the owner is to redevelop the property, preserving the older Distillery 

building while demolishing the other buildings on site, replacing them with 

apartments, artists’ studios and studio apartments, workshops, offices and retail 

stores. The overall layout is shown in Figure 2-2: 

Figure 2-2: Proposed Development 

2.0 Program 2-2


The proposed development will retain the artists’ live-work units and commercial 

units in the existing historic building on the eastern half of the site and on the 

north and west edges of the site add new residential units, new live-work units; 

and a mix of galleries, a café, greenhouse, and small-scale retail spaces with 

associated off-street parking. Where the proposed new building and the existing 

building join (at the corner of H Street and First) there is a reconfiguration of livework 

studios on six floors (with no reduction) and the loss of one existing workonly 

unit (in the basement) to accommodate that junction and the vertical 

circulation. The net total of existing and proposed units is summarized in Table 

2-2: 

Table 2-2 EXISTING AND NEW UNITS 

Units 

Existing Lost Gained Total 

Commercial / Retail 42 -5 6 43 

Live-Work 30 0 25 55 

Residential 0 0 44 44 

Total 72 -1 75 142 

The residential accommodation on East First Street consists of 25 live-work 

studios on four floors. There is direct pedestrian access to these units from East 

First Street and from the inner court, two levels up at elevation +34’. Street access 

to the inner court is at the corner of East First and Dorchester Streets (elevation 

+16’) via elevator and stairs. There is also direct, at-grade access to the court from 

East Second Street. 

The residential accommodation on Dorchester Street consists of 44 new 

residential units on four floors, arranged in five cores centered on stairs, elevators 

and an enclosed atrium. The units are also accessible via stairs from the courtyard. 

There are two levels of parking. The lower level parking (59 spaces) is served by 

two-way access from H Street, extending along East First Street and Dorchester 

Street at elevation +16’. The upper level parking (64 spaces) is served by two-way 

access from Dorchester Street at elevation +25’, extending to Dorchester Street 

2.0 Program 2-3


and First Street with a short spur adjacent to East Second Street. The upper level 

parking has a small truck loading area to serve the retail store on East Second 

Street. On H Street there is a large truck loading dock that can serve all buildings 

in the development, existing and proposed. 

2.3 Construction Sequencing 

In order to maintain revenue while construction proceeds the proposed sequencing 

of the work will be split into two phases. Phase 1 will be built on largely vacant 

land demolishing only the Cooper Shop, leaving the Honeywell Building in place. 

Phase 1 will be completed and occupied as construction proceeds into Phase 2, 

entailing the demolition of the Honeywell Building to make way for the 

residential units on Dorchester Street. This is illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.1, 

2.4.2, and 2.4.3 below. 

PHASE 2 

Figure 2-3: Construction Sequencing 

PHASE 1 

2.0 Program 2-4

Figure 2.4.1 Phase 1 Construction – Level 1 




2.0 Program 2-5


The development and disposition of new units and the net totals through Phases 1 

and 2 is shown in Table 2-3: 

Table 2-3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING BY PHASE 

EXISTING Commercial Live/ Work Residential Total Parking 

Distillery / Warehouse 38 30 68 

Honeywell 1 1 

Cooper 3 3 

Total Occupancies 42 30 0 72 

Parking Surface 66 

Parking Structured 0 

Parking Total 66 

PHASE ONE Commercial Live/ Work Residential Total Parking 


Honeywell 1 1 

Phase One Building 3 25 12 40 





PHASE TWO Commercial Live/ Work Residential Total Parking 


Phase One Building 3 25 12 40 

Phase Two Building 3 32 35 





2.4 Program Summary 

A summary of the program (for new construction) by Use Group in total and by 

phase is shown in Table 2-4 on the following pages. 

2.0 Program 2-6

Table 2-4 PROPOSED PROGRAM BY USE GROUP AND PHASE 


PHASE 1 PHASE 2 TOTAL 

Commercial Unit Use Gp nsf units nsf units nsf units 

COM 1.1 - store at Dorchester L1 M 472 1 626 626 1 

COM 3.1 - Dorchester and Second L3 M - - 1,500 1 1,500 1 

COM 3.2 - café L3 A-3 1,584 1 1,584 1 

COM 4.1 - greenhouse L4 B - - 1,319 1 1,319 1 

GAL 2.1 - Gallery (in courtyard) L2 A-3 - - 1,324 1 1,324 1 

GAL 3.1 - Gallery L3 A-3 868 1 868 1 

Total 2,924 3 4,769 3 7,221 6 


Residential - Live Work Studios Unit Use Gp nsf units nsf units nsf units 

LWS 3.01 R-2 1,014 1 - - 1,014 1 

LWS 3.02 R-2 1,006 1 - - 1,006 1 

LWS 3.03 R-2 1,030 1 - - 1,030 1 

LWS 3.04 R-2 1,249 1 - - 1,249 1 

LWS 4.01 R-2 1,121 1 - - 1,121 1 

LWS 4.02 R-2 1,445 1 - - 1,445 1 

LWS 4.03 R-2 1,127 1 - - 1,127 1 

LWS 4.04 R-2 1,050 1 - - 1,050 1 

LWS 4.05 R-2 1,160 1 - - 1,160 1 

LWS 4.06 R-2 1,000 1 - - 1,000 1 

LWS 4.07 R-2 1,249 1 - - 1,249 1 

LWS 5.01 R-2 1,121 1 - - 1,121 1 

LWS 5.02 R-2 1,445 1 - - 1,445 1 

LWS 5.03 R-2 1,127 1 - - 1,127 1 

LWS 5.04 R-2 1,050 1 - - 1,050 1 

LWS 5.05 R-2 1,160 1 - - 1,160 1 

LWS 5.06 R-2 1,000 1 - - 1,000 1 

LWS 5.07 R-2 1,249 1 - - 1,249 1 

LWS 6.01 R-2 1,121 1 - - 1,121 1 

LWS 6.02 R-2 1,445 1 - - 1,445 1 

LWS 6.03 R-2 1,127 1 - - 1,127 1 

LWS 6.04 R-2 1,050 1 - - 1,050 1 

LWS 6.05 R-2 1,160 1 - - 1,160 1 

LWS 6.06 R-2 1,000 1 - - 1,000 1 

LWS 6.07 R-2 1,249 1 - - 1,249 1 

- - 

Total 28,755 25 - - 28,755 25 

2.0 Program 2-7



Residential Units Unit Use Gp nsf units nsf units nsf units 

APT 3.01 R-2 - - 1,455 1 1,455 1 

APT 3.02 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.03 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.04 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.05 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.06 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.07 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.08 R-2 - - 1,446 1 1,446 1 

APT 3.09 R-2 1,446 1 - - 1,446 1 

APT 3.10 R-2 748 1 - - 748 1 

APT 3.11 R-2 700 1 - - 700 1 

APT 4.01 R-2 - - 1,464 1 1,464 1 

APT 4.02 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.03 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.04 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.05 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.06 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.07 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.08 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 4.09 R-2 1,481 1 - - 1,481 1 

APT 4.10 R-2 748 1 - - 748 1 

APT 4.11 R-2 700 1 - - 700 1 

APT 5.01 R-2 - - 1,464 1 1,464 1 

APT 5.02 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.03 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.04 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.05 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.06 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.07 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.08 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 5.09 R-2 1,481 1 - - 1,481 1 

APT 5.10 R-2 748 1 - - 748 1 

APT 5.11 R-2 700 1 - - 700 1 

APT 6.01 R-2 - - 1,464 1 1,464 1 

APT 6.02 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.03 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.04 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.05 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.06 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.07 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.08 R-2 - - 1,481 1 1,481 1 

APT 6.09 R-2 1,481 1 - - 1,481 1 

APT 6.10 R-2 748 1 - - 748 1 

APT 6.11 R-2 700 1 - - 700 1 

Total 11,681 12 47,070 32 58,751 44 

2.0 Program 2-8

2.5 Parking 


A summary of the parking program by phase is shown in Table 2-5. Further 

analysis is provided in Chapter 9: Transportation Access Plan. 

Table 2-5 PARKING 

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 - TOTAL 

Use Gp nsf spaces nsf spaces 

Lower Parking (Level 1) S-2 9,348 23 21,955 59 

Upper Parking (Level 2) S-2 8,116 22 25,056 64 

Surface parking (phase 1 only) N.A. 24 - 

Total 17,464 69 47,011 123 

2.0 Program 2-9

3.0 ZONING ANALYSIS 

3.1 Article 80 


The proposed project amounts to 124,996 gross square feet of new construction 

(excluding associated garage space) and therefore qualifies for consideration as a 

Large Project under the terms of Article 80B. 


Article 37, Green Buildings, adopted into Article 80 on January 10 th 2007, is 

addressed in this proposal in Chapter 12 Environmental Impacts, Section 12.1 and 

Appendices 12-1 and 12-2. 

3.3 South Boston IPOD Article 27P 

The site is located in the South Boston Interim Planning Overlay District under 

the terms of Article 27P of the Zoning Ordinance. Map 4 (South Boston) shows 

the site to be designated L, allowing a building height of 35 feet and an FAR of 

2.0. Tables 3-1 through 3-3 provide basic dimensions of the proposed 

development. 

3.4 Project Dimensions 

Project dimensions are tabulated in Tables 3-1 through 3-4 below. 

Building Heights: The proposed building roof height is the same as the existing 

adjacent buildings. The grade varies from +16.5’ at the corner of First and 

Dorchester, to +32’ on East Second Street as shown in Figure 3-1. The roof 

heights in Table 3-1 below are established as height above mean grade for each of 

the four frontages on the block. 

3.0 Zoning 3-1

+ 16.5’ 

Table 3-1 BUILDING HEIGHTS – above mean 

grade 


Proposed Building Heights Existing Roof Height 

First Street 61.59’ n.a. 

H Street 53.47’ 60’-6” 

Second Street 48.32’ 52’-0” 

Dorchester Street 65.30’ n.a. 

Setbacks and Sidewalks: the new buildings are built to the property line at 

Dorchester Street, H Street and East Second Street. On East First Street the 

building will be set back from the property line to allow for a 5’-6” sidewalk 

(currently 4’-0”) to be compatible with the new sidewalk built on the adjacent 

block. An open courtyard, part of the property but publicly visible and accessible, 

faces south on East Second Street. 

Table 3-2 PROJECT DIMENSIONS 

Height Stories Frontage Setback Sidewalk 

proposed 

Sidewalk 

existing 

East First Street 61.59’ 2 parking + 4 187’-0” 0’-0” 5’-6” 4’-0” 

H Street 53.47’ 2 parking + 4 56’-0” 0’-0” 8’-0” 8’-0” 

Second Street 48.32’ 2 parking + 4 

1 parking 

93’-6” 

110-0” 

+ 19.5’ 

+ 29.5’ +32’ 

+ 30.5’ 

Figure 3-1 

Spot Grade Elevations 

0’-0” 8’-6” 8’-6" 

Dorchester Street 65.30’ 2 parking + 4 316’-6” 0’-0” 8’-5” to 11’-4” 8’-5” to 11’-4” 

3.0 Zoning 3-2


Floor Area Ratio: the FAR is shown both as a function of the proposed new building 

in relation to the available developable area on the lot; and as a function of the 

proposed new development and the existing property in relation to the total lot 

area. 

Table 3-3 FLOOR AREA RATIO 

1.0 LOT AREA 

1.1 Total Lot Area 75,618 S.F. 

1.2 Distillery & Boiler House (footprint) 21,205 S.F. 

1.3 Total developable lot area (courtyard and one-storey buildings) 54,413 S.F. 

2.0 GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) 

2.1 Parking LEVEL 1 3,949 S.F. 

2.2 Parking LEVEL 2 3,954 S.F. 

2.3 Residential LEVEL 3 31,421 S.F. 




2.7 Total Proposed GFA 124,996 S.F. 

2.8 Total Existing GFA 105,667 S.F. 

2.9 Total GFA (existing and proposed) 230,663 S.F. 

3.0 FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) 

3.1 Proposed GFA / Total Developable Lot Area (line 2.7 / line 1.3 ) 2.30 

3.2 Total GFA / Total Lot Area (line 2.9 / line 1.1 ) 3.05 

4.0 PARKING SPACES 

4.1 Level 1 Parking 59 

4.2 Level 2 Parking 64 

4.3 Total Parking spaces 123 

3.0 Zoning 3-3

3.5 Space Allocation 


The space use and parking program is summarized in Chapter 2 and Tables 2-1 

through 2-5. The allocation of space is shown on the architectural plans in 

Chapter 7 and summarized in Table 3-4 below: 

Table 3-4 SPACE ALLOCATION 

Stories Residential Commercial Other 

East First Street 2 parking + 4 25 Live 

Work Units 

on four 

stories 

None Main pedestrian access at Level 1 

to residences and café / gallery on 

Level 3 

H Street 2 parking + 4 None None Access to Level 1 Parking. 

Truck Loading 

Pedestrian access 

Second Street 2 parking + 4 

1 parking 

Dorchester Street 2 parking + 4 44 

Residential 

Units on 

four stories 

3.6 Other Permits 

None Retail outlet 

at street level. 

Greenhouse 

above. 

Emergency and delivery access to 

courtyard. 

Access to residences, galleries 

and cafe 

None 5 pedestrian access points to 

residential units. Vehicle access to 

Level 2 parking. Light truck service 

access. 

Permits that may be anticipated for this project are as follows: 

BOSTON Boston Landmarks Commission Review Demolition Delay 

Boston Water and Sewer Commission Site Plan Review 

Boston Water and Sewer Commission General Service Application 

Public Improvement Commission Specific Repairs 

Boston Transportation Department Construction Management Plan 

Boston Transportation Department Transportation Access Plan Agreement 

Inspectional Services Department Building Permit(s) 

STATE Massachusetts Historical Commission Finding of No Adverse Impact 

Department of Environmental Protection Sewer Connection Permit 

Department of Environmental Protection Notice of Demolition / Construction 

FEDERAL Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Hazard to Air Navigation 

EPA / NPDES Notice of Intent for Construction - Stormwater 

3.0 Zoning 3-4

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 

4.1 Tidelands 


MGL Chapter 91 and the Waterways Regulations Act 310 CMR 9.0 do not apply 

to the Distillery development site under any of the four stipulated criteria: 

1. Flowed Tidelands: the entire site is on the landward side of the Mean High 

Water (MHW) shoreline. 

2. Filled Tidelands: the historic Mean High Water ran through the middle of 

the site which has been gradually filled over the course of the last century 

and a half (see Chapter 5.0). The site is separated from the existing MHW 

by East First Street. In addition the closest point of the site to the existing 

MHW is 449 feet, which is outside the prescribed limit of 250 feet. These 

two factors render the site a ‘landlocked tideland’ beyond the jurisdiction 

of Chapter 91. 

3. The site does not conform with the definition of a great pond, and 

4. The site is not situated on a non-tidal river or stream. 

For these reasons it is construed that MGL Chapter 91 does not apply. See Figure 

4-1 on the next page. 

4.2 Flood Hazard 

According to the FEMA Flood Insurance map (Figure 4-2), the site is in Zone C, 

i.e. outside the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. In addition, it is to be noted 

that while the lowest point of the site is at datum 116.5 (MHW = 100.0) the 

proposed building is designed so that the lowest residential floor is at datum 135, 

i.e. 18.5’ higher than that lowest point. Lower levels of the construction are 

devoted principally to parking. 

4.0 Site Conditions 4-1

Figure 4-1 Tidelands 


449 FEET 

Figure 4-2 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Rev. November 1990 


4.3 Environmental Site History 


The property is located in a commercial/residential area of South Boston. The 

property and surrounding properties have had industrial/commercial uses for well 

over 100 years. The neighborhood, including portions of the property, were part 

of a manufactured gas plant that operated from the 1890’s to the 1930’s. A 

shipping channel also occupied the lower portion of the property along First 

Street. 

The property has three Release Tracking Numbers (RTN) associated with it. The 

response actions to the releases have been conducted under the Massachusetts 

Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000). 

RTN 3 – 11965 

This petroleum release is associated with the former No.6 fuel oil tanks. In 

October 1995, a 9,000 gallon underground ground storage tank was removed from 

the property. During a Phase I assessment, elevated levels of total petroleum 

hydrocarbons were detected above reportable concentrations. A Phase II 

Comprehensive Site assessment was conducted. A Release Abatement Measure 

consisting of bioremediation was also undertaken to reduce the levels of 

petroleum contamination in the soil. A Method III Risk assessment confirmed that 

the petroleum contamination was low enough to conclude that a Condition of No 

Significant Risk had been obtained at the site. An Activity and Use Limitation 

was submitted that provided notice on the deed that soils below 9 feet from grade 

were to be left undisturbed unless proper oversight was obtained by a Licensed 

Site Professional. A Response Action Completion Report was prepared for RTN 

3-11965 and submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection in February, 1999. 

RTN 3 – 18069 

During the subsurface investigation conducted to assess the petroleum 

contamination as described above, elevated levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons 



(PAHs) were encountered in the soil from a boring located along First Street 

farthest from the former underground tank. The PAHs were attributed to past 

releases of coal tar from the former coal gasification facility. A Downgradient 

Property Status (DPS) Opinion was submitted to the DEP. The DPS was audited 

by the DEP and an addendum to the DPS was submitted in November, 2000. This 

RTN currently has DPS status for the coal tar contamination detected in soils 

along First Street. 

RTN 3 – 24537 

As part of the preparations for the proposed construction activities on the 

property, the physical conditions of the existing monitoring wells associated with 

the above RTN (3-18069) were assessed. A total of 12 inches of dense nonaqueous 

phase liquid (DNAPL) was measured for the first time in the existing 

well near First Street. This boring had been the focus previous response action 

activities under RTN 3-18069. The presence of DNAPL in the groundwater 

constituted a new reporting condition. The DNAPL was reported to the DEP in 

December 2004. Immediate Response Actions (IRA) was conducted and 

consisted of assessment and monitoring of the DNAPL over a period of one year. 

DNAPL was not detected in other monitoring wells located in the immediate area. 

The site was tier classified as a Tier II site in December of 2005. An Immediate 

Response Action Completion report was also submitted at that time indicating 

that the DNAPL had been removed and had not returned during the one-year 

monitoring period. The site is currently under going Phase II Comprehensive Site 

assessment to evaluate the extent of the coal tar contamination along First Street. 


5.0 HISTORIC RESOURCES 


5.1 Neighborhood Historic Resources 

On the streets immediately abutting the Distillery site there are no buildings of 

historic interest listed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The 

map at the end of this chapter (Figure 5-1) shows buildings listed by the MHC 

within a quarter mile radius of the site 1 . None of these buildings is likely to be 

affected by the development. 

The Distillery buildings themselves and the site in particular, are of historic 

interest although not listed by the MHC. The following account gives a history of 

the development of the site and buildings since 1847. During site excavation a 

photographic record will be kept of any major artifacts unearthed. Should any 

large pieces of granite be discovered they will either be used on site in a visible 

way as part of the historical interpretation of the site, or they will be reserved for 

use on parts of the seawall elsewhere in the city. 

5.2 Site Land Use History 

The parcel owned by Second Street Associates LLC (SSA) at 516 E. Second St., 

South Boston, is bounded by East Second, Dorchester, East First, and H Streets. A 

detail from an 1847 chart of Boston Harbor, surveyed by the U. S. Coast Survey 

and known for its accuracy, shows that this area was once on the north shore of 

South Boston - the south part of the present parcel is original uplands and the 

north part once tidal flats (Figure 5-2). The chart also shows that in 1847 there 

was, on what is now SSA land, a small L-shaped building on Dorchester Street 

and a small wharf extending out into the flats at the end of the street (Figure 5-2). 

1 Data compiled from the following: 

http://mhc-macris.net/VMWeb.asp?Page=towns.asp 

http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/ 

http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/pdf/maps/southboston.pdf 

5.0 Historic Resources 5-1


Figure 5-2 US Coast Survey: Plan of Inner Harbor of Boston, 1847 

The land that became the SSA parcel had been owned in the early nineteenth 

century by the South Boston Association, a corporation formed in 1805 to 

develop South Boston as a speculative venture. The future SSA area north of East 

Second between Dorchester and H Streets apparently became the property of 

Jonathan Mason, a member of the association, for after Mason died in 1831 this 

land was included in an 1836 partition of his estate. A plan of this partition, dated 

April 9, 1836, shows that the SSA parcel is comprised of Lots No. 47-52 in 

Mason's estate (Figure 5-3). The 1836 plan also shows that the north part of the 

present SSA parcel was to become a public dock ("dock" meaning water into 

which ships sailed, not structures at which they moored) and suggests that Lots 

47-50 had already been filled to the edge of the dock (Figure 5-3). The later 1847 

plan, however, shows no such dock (Figure 5-2). The explanation is probably that 

the dock was mandated in 1836 but the area surrounding it had not yet been filled. 


Figure 5-3 Wadsworth survey, 1836 


Lots 47 and 48 were purchased in 1862 by Henry Souther. By this time the lots 

had definitely been filled out to the dock, for the deeds of sale cite the dock as 

their northwestern boundary. 2 It was probably Souther who built the existing fourand-a-half 

story brick brewery on E. Second Street and adjoining six-story brick 

malt house on H Street. These buildings were constructed sometime between 

1862 and 1874, for there were no buildings on Lots 47 and 48, where the 

buildings are located (Figures 5-3 and 5-4), when Souther acquired these lots in 

1862 but buildings are shown in this location in an 1874 atlas. 3 Also, the 

architecture of the buildings, with a panel-brick detail at the cornice and 

segmental-arch window heads, is consistent with a late 1860s/early 1870s 

construction date. And in 1870 when Souther bought the adjoining Lot 49 (Figure 

5-3), he is described as a "brewer.” 4 

2 Deeds, Suffolk [County, Massachusetts) Registry of Deeds, Edward W. Brooke Courthouse, Boston, 

Mass., 814: 81, 34 (hereafter cited as S.D.). 

3 G.M. Hopkins, Atlas of the County of Suffolk, Massachusetts. Volume 3rd including South Boston and 

Dorchester (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins & Co., 1874), Plate C. 3 S.D. 1021: 111. 4 S.D. 1874: 83. 

4 S.D. 1021: 111. 



Figure 5-4 1888 Sanborn Insurance Atlas, Plate 113 

By 1883, a prospectus for the brewery on East Second St. indicates that, although 

it was still owned by Souther, it was operated by Jones, Cook and Company under 

the name Bay State Brewery & Malt House (Figure 5-5a). The buildings shown 

on the plan accompanying the prospectus (Figure 5-5b) are also shown on an 

1888 Sanborn atlas map of the property (Figure 5-4). The prospectus had 

presumably been prepared with the intention of selling the property, and in 1889 

Souther did sell it-to Frank Jones, James P. Cook, and Charles A. Sinclair of the 

Bay State Brewery. 5 Five months later, however, Jones, Cook, and Sinclair sold 

the property to Frederic Jessup Stimson, Louis Curtis, and John M. Graham. The 

deed included a 99-year lease to the Frank Jones Brewing Company, 6 which 

continued to operate a brewery on the site. 

5 S.D. 1874: 83 

6 S.D. 1877: 145; 3095: 353. 



Figure 5-5a 1883 Prospectus 

Figure 5-5b 1883 Prospectus, Plan 



Figure 5-6 1899 Sanborn Insurance Atlas, Plates 27, 28 

Meanwhile, the property on the west side of the dock had been acquired in the late 

1850s and early 60s by the South Boston Gas Light Company. The company 

undoubtedly produced coal gas on this site, for both the 1888 and 1899 Sanborn 

atlases show coal sheds on the wharf portion of the property and retorts closer to 

West First Street (Figures 5-4 and 5-6). The coal gas was presumably stored in a 

gas holder located on the western part of what is now the SSA parcel (Figures 5- 

4, 5-5b and 5-6). In 1905 all Boston gas companies consolidated as the Boston 

Consolidated Gas Company. In June 1905, for example, the consolidated gas 

company acquired al1 the property of the former South Boston Gas Light 

Company. 7 Boston Consolidated Gas apparently soon stopped producing coal gas 

on the W. First Street site, for in 1906 it sold most of the property to Lumsden and 

Van Stone Company, which operated a machine shop and foundry (Figure 5-7). 8 

7 S.D. 3049: 237. 

8 S.D. 3174: 356, 359. 


Figure 5-7 1923 Sanborn Insurance Atlas 


The gas company did, however, retain the parcel at the comer of West First and 

Dorchester Streets for another 15 years, selling it in 1921 to Windram 

Manufacturing Company, which produced treated cloth (Figure 5-7). 9 The gas 

company also maintained the gas holder at the comer or E. Second and Dorchester 

Streets until at least 1923 (Figures 5-7 and 5-8), selling the site, with no mention 

of a gasholder on it, in 1930. 10 

9 S.D. 4278: 530. 

10 S.D. 5229: 289. 


Figure 5-8 1947 Sanborn Insurance Atlas 


Changes also occurred on the SSA parcel. In 1905, Stimson, Curtis, and Graham 

sold the brewery property on the eastern part of the present SSA parcel to Frederic 

L. Felton of Newton. 11 The brewery relinquished its lease 12 and in 1906, the same 

year that Boston Consolidated Gas sold most of the former South Boston Gas 

Light property to Lumsden and Van Stone (see above), Felton sold his property to 

Felton & Son, Inc. 13 The former brewery then became a rum distillery (Figure 5- 

7). 

In 1914 the city decided to extend E. First Street westward across the dock and 

across the former South Boston Gas, New England Felt Roofing, and Jarvis 

Wharf properties to join with W. First Street (see Figures 5-6 and 5-7). 14 The 

11 

S.D. 3095: 353. 

12 

S.D. 3095: 355. 

13 

S.D. 3188: 95. 

14 

Annual Report of the Street Laying-Out Department for the year Ending February 1, 1915, City 

Document No. 32 (1915). 



order to extend the street was passed at the end of June, and on August 21, 1914, 

the city received a license to do the necessary filling across the dock. The license 

specified that the north side of the new street was to be finished with a seawall, 

the south side was to be sloped, and the quadrilateral cut off at the end of the old 

dock (Figure 5-6) was to be filled solid to the grade of the street (italics added). 15 

The license does not specify, however, the kind of fill to be used. The extension 

or East First Street and filling of the dock-the part of the present SSA parcel now 

designated RTN-11965-was probably completed in 1914. Felton & Son then 

acquired this newly made land in 1920 and 1921. 16 

In the years since the dock was filled there have been more changes to the SSA 

parcel. The gasholder at the corner of E. Second and Dorchester Streets was 

evidently removed sometime between 1923 and 1930 (see above). Felton & Son 

did not acquire this land and the adjoining lot at the western tip of the parcel until 

1956, however. 17 (The present Neamco Office Products building at 510 East 

Second Street was reportedly constructed about 1966 on the site of the former 

gasholder. 18 ) In the 1930s there was a railroad track, shown on a 1947 Sanborn 

atlas (Figure 5-8), on the site of the former dock in the north part of the parcel. 

The track was used for hauling molasses to the distillery, 19 and railroad cars can 

be seen on the north side of the Felton distillery in a photograph that appeared on 

the front of a 1938 booklet about the Felton & Son distillery. 20 About 1960 Felton 

& Son sold what is now the SSA parcel to Old Mr. Boston. 21 The latter continued 

to operate a distillery on the site until they sold the property to Second Street 

Associates in 1982. 22 

15 

License No. 98, Directors of the Port of Boston to the City of Boston, August 21, 1914, Division of 

Wetlands and Waterways, [Massachusetts] Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, Mass. 

16 

S.D. 4224: 51, 4307: 109. 

17 

S.D. 7168: 381, 7200: 575. 

18 

ENSTRAT, Report on Project No. 049522-8. 

19 

Fred Gordon, personal communication. 

20 

West Peterson, The Romance of Rum: [History of New England's Famous Drink and Felton's Five 

Generations of Quality ([Boston]: , 1938). 

21 

Fred Gordon, personal communication. 

22 Ibid. 


6.0 URBAN DESIGN 

6.1 Site Context 


The area of South Boston in which the site is located is historically on the 

shoreline (see Chapter 5) which in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries was 

heavily industrialized, the Distillery itself being an example of the type of land 

use prevalent throughout this period. As the shoreline was extended outwards on 

‘made land’ the new uses were primarily industrial. On the higher ground, in the 

hinterland, is the residential neighborhood proper, extending south along 

Dorchester Street on both sides. 

Figure 6-1 Project Site in relation to South Boston neighborhood and seaport 

6.0 Urban Design 6-1


Today the site is at the cusp of the industrial uses that abut First Street (to the 

north) and the residential land uses that extend south to Broadway and beyond. 

On the northwest side of the site (on Dorchester Street) a former industrial site is 

being redeveloped as residential. To the east of the site, on H Street, the industrial 

land uses still prevail. 

Figure 6-2 View of Distillery site from Summer Street bridge 

6.2 Site Development and Massing 

The massing and disposition of the buildings on site are determined by the 

following objectives: 

1. To create a strong edge to all four streets on the block. 

On Dorchester Street this objective is enriched by the additional desire to 

locate front doors to the residential units on this street in order to maximize 

pedestrian circulation. The elevation is given a vertical articulation with bay 

windows that also give residents views up and down the street. 



Figure 6-3 View up Dorchester Street from corner of East First Street 

Figure 6-4 View up Dorchester Street from corner of East Second Street 

On First Street the goal is to provide a strong edge to the trucking route, 

eliminating vehicular access on this frontage for safety reasons but at the same 

time providing pedestrian access to the live-work units and to the elevated 

courtyard from street level. At the corner of First and Dorchester there is a 

major entrance to the entire complex. This entrance lobby rises through three 

stories from the street to a café and gallery at courtyard level, as well as to the 

live-work and residential units. The stair rises through an extensively glazed 



lobby to permit views up and down First Street and to provide a lively, well lit 

elevation to passing traffic. A second stairway is located at mid-block giving 

access to the live-work units and the courtyard. 

The elevational treatment maintains the scale of the existing historic industrial 

buildings with which they form a corner, and at the same time the mass is 

scaled down with small ‘juliet’ balconies and vertical patterns in the 

brickwork at the party walls. 

Figure 6-5 View west along East First Street 

Figure 6-6 East First Street edge to Distillery site 



The H Street elevation is an extension of the Distillery Building in general 

massing. This elevation also provides access to the lower level parking and to 

the loading bay for large trucks. 

2. To create of an edge condition on Second Street modified by the objective of 

creating an energy efficient footprint that maximizes solar exposure for 

southern elevations and for the open courtyard space at the center of the 

development. 

Figure 6-7 Interior courtyard elevation – southeast exposure 

The Second Street frontage will have the existing Distillery Building as one 

‘bookend’ to the street frontage. On the corner of Second and Dorchester there 

will be a large volume greenhouse which will have exposure to sunshine for 

most of the day. As an urban design element it is intended to create a 

landmark at this important but otherwise somewhat inchoate crossroads. 

Between the Distillery Building and the Greenhouse, the courtyard is open 

and penetrated by sunshine from morning until early afternoon. Next to the 

Greenhouse will be a plinth (over the upper level parking) raised 

approximately 3 feet above sidewalk level that will be developed as an urban 

garden. At that height it will be easy for members of the pedestrians on the 

Second Street sidewalk to see the garden itself and beyond into the planted 

courtyard. Between the plinth and the Distillery Building there will be a 24’ 

wide access point to the courtyard restricted to emergency and delivery 

vehicles. 



Figure 6-8 Interior courtyard – view from East Second Street 

3. To respond to the massing and volume of the existing historic structures on 

site which are approximately 65 feet above mean grade. The parapet level of 

the new buildings is calibrated as an extension of the existing eaves and 

parapet lines of the Distillery (on Second Street) and the Warehouse Building 

(on H Street). The heights of the new structures above mean grade for each of 

the streets are shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. 

Figure 6-9 H Street elevation of the existing buildings and proposed extension 



4. To modulate the slope of the hill from Second Street (elevation +32’) on the 

southern boundary of the site down to First Street (elevation +16.5’). While 

the roof line of the new buildings remains level, the relative height of the roof 

at the top of the hill, adjacent to the residential neighborhood, is less than it is 

at the bottom of the hill adjacent to the industrial / manufacturing uses and the 

First Street through-route. 

Figure 6-10 Dorchester Street Elevation 

6.3 Space Allocation 

GALLERY 

Figure 6-11 Site plan and space allocation existing buildings 

proposed development 



Four levels (Levels 3 to 6) of live-work and commercial units are placed on the 

First Street frontage with a predominantly northern orientation. These units will 

be serviced by the truck access off H Street. 

Four levels (Levels 3 to 6) of residential units are located on Dorchester Street 

facing north-west (over the street) and south-east (into the courtyard). 

Lower level parking (Level 1), serving all units above, is accessible from H Street 

and may be serviced by the large truck (40’) on H. 

Upper level parking (Level 2), serving all units above, is accessible from 

Dorchester Street and may be serviced by the box truck dock on Dorchester St. 

A café and an art gallery are located at the corner of Dorchester and First Street 

on Level 3, accessible from the street by stair and elevator, and from the courtyard 

(which is at level 3). This location gives patrons an excellent view of the street as 

they wait for the bus (or a ride) to pick them up. The bright lights and signage of 

the café will also provide a welcome landmark on First Street. 

A greenhouse for growing vegetables is located at level 4 on the corner of 

Dorchester and Second Street, accessible from the street by stair and elevator. The 

south facing glazing of the greenhouse is not only very functional but will also 

provide an iconic corner characteristic as the signature statement of the new green 

building on the edge of the residential neighborhood. 


6.4 Access and Circulation 


Figure 6-12 Pedestrian and Vehicular Access 

Pedestrian access Vehicular access 

The principal pedestrian approach to the site is from Broadway (where most of 

the buses run) down Dorchester Street. There are pedestrian access points – front 

doors – to each group of residential units along the Dorchester Street frontage. In 

addition there is open access from the Second Street sidewalk to the courtyard, 

leading to a reception area, galleries and café and the live-work studios both in the 

new building and the existing. From First Street there is a major pedestrian 

entrance at the corner of First and Dorchester where there is a three-storey lobby 

leading to the café and the courtyard. The lobby is served by elevators and a 

generous staircase. 

It is envisioned that a convenience food store will occupy the commercial site at 

the corner of Dorchester and E. Second Street. The store will be accessed by a 



handicap access ramp, which will serve also non-handicap entrance from E. 

Second Street. This ramp will join stairs access coming up from the corner of 

Dorchester Street and E. First. The store will thereby invite entrance from its own 

residents (and others on Second Street), and from the broader neighborhood to the 

south and west. 

Supplementary pedestrian access points are located at H Street adjacent to the 

lower parking entrance, the freight elevator and the loading dock, as well as on 

the upper end of H Street into the existing Distillery building; and on Second 

Street at the corner of the retail store, leading into the store itself and to the 

Greenhouse above. This route is also served by an elevator. 

Vehicular access points are located at H Street for lower level parking; at 

Dorchester Street for upper level parking; and at Second Street for access to the 

courtyard (for emergency vehicles). A loading dock is provided at H Street 

allowing large trucks to load and unload off-street and have direct access to the 

freight elevator that serves both the new live-work units and the existing building. 

Access for the corner retail store will be from a loading dock located in the upper 

level parking off Dorchester Street. 

There is an even distribution of vehicle access points between three of the four 

surrounding streets. First Street is not used as an access point for vehicles because 

it is a busy through-route. 

H Street is used as access to the lower parking and for the loading dock because it 

is the least heavily trafficked and poses least interference, disruption or danger. 

Second Street serves the delivery trucks (USPS, UPS, FedEx etc) and emergency 

vehicles. 

For alternative access points reviewed see Chapter 9. 


7.0 ARCHITECTURE 

7.1 Architectural expression 


The architectural expression and choice of materials for the project is influenced 

firstly by several considerations. It is influenced firstly by the strong architectural 

character of the existing Distillery building—a traditional, industrial, loadbearing 

brick structure characterized by identical punched windows on all elevations. 

Secondly, by the requirement to create a transition from that industrial vernacular 

to an architectural form more expressive of, and sympathetic to, new uses for the 

proposed development. This is to be reflected in the use of new materials and 

more variation in scale. Thirdly, it is influenced by the prominence of the 

building. Although well-embedded in the urban fabric, it is fully visible both 

from a long distance (Figure 7-1 - Summer Street Bridge over the Reserve 

Channel) and from close quarters (particularly along the residential streets of 

Second Street and Dorchester Street). Lastly, the form and materials of the 

building are influenced by the energy performance considerations. This is to a 

large extent dependent on the relative balance of window and wall, and the 

requirement for carefully designed overhangs to provide summer shading of 

windows while maximizing passive heat gain during the heating season. See 

Table 7-1 at the end of this section for a summary of building materials. 

Figure 7-1 View from Summer Street bridge 

7.0 Architecture 7-1

7.2 H Street Elevation 


The H Street elevation (Figure 7-2) features a wall characterized by the loading 

dock and vehicle access point with a series of punched windows (facing due east). 

The window to unit floor area will be kept below 5%, as is recommended for 

passive heating on east exposures. The principal design issue here is the decision 

as to whether to match the existing brickwork of the Warehouse or to make a 

distinct addition. Given the age and weathering of the existing brickwork, a 

distinction is favored using composite or limestone panels as a complement to the 

brick. 

Figure 7-2 H Street elevation 

7.3 East First Street Elevation 

East First Street is a busy truck route and the wall of the new building is facing 

due north (Figure 7-3). It is anticipated that snow and ice buildup, plus spattering 

of salt spray from passing vehicles, makes for a harsh, cold environment. The 

parking garage walls will be of concrete with a distinctive formwork pattern; this 

part of the wall will be punctuated with fresh air intake ventilation grills. Above 

the parking levels the elevation will be of brick with windows and balconies 

(serving the live-work spaces) distributed evenly throughout. The main field of 

brickwork will be a warm russet color with vertical accents at each party wall 

(and movement joint) in a dark blue-gray ironspot. Balconies and window trim 

will be set off in an attractive color. 


Figure 7-3 East First Street elevation 

7.4 Dorchester Street Elevation 


Dorchester Street will have a residential character on both sides of the street. 

Street trees on both sides will start at the bottom of the hill and continue up 

beyond Second Street to enhance this residential neighborhood character. The 

building itself is designed to have front doors on the sidewalk, serving all of the 

new residential apartments (Figure 7-4). At the lower end of the site, building 

entrances will be flanked by retail storefronts. At the top of the street at the corner 

there will be a convenience food store accessible from Second Street. At the 

bottom of the hill on the corner with First Street, the main entrance to the building 

complex and access to the café and galleries will be located, presenting a 

welcoming transparent face to passing motorists and pedestrians. On Dorchester 

Street itself, the elevation of the building is given a regular articulation with metal 

clad bay windows set against a main wall clad in limestone or artificial stone 

cladding panels (Figure 7-5). 

Figure 7-4 Dorchester Street elevation 



Figure 7-5 View up Dorchester Street from corner of East First Street 

7.5 East Second Street Elevation 

The proposed development does not present an elevation directly on East Second 

Street. However the courtyard elevations are highly visible from East Second 

Street (Figure 7-6). The treatment to this more ‘interior’ elevation is warmer, 

softer and more subtle than on the outer faces. The cladding will be in natural 

cedar punctuated by windows and doors accented with color. Balconies and 

sunscreens will be constructed of semi-transparent perforated metal to give 

residents a view downwards and to convey a feeling of lightness on the face of the 

building. There will also be an opportunity to grow plants on this southern aspect 

of the building. Another major feature of the Second Street / Dorchester Street 

corner will be the transparent greenhouse (Figure 7-7) which will be a production 

unit for growing vegetables, some of which will be sold in the retail store below. 



Figure 7-6 Distillery courtyard from East Second Street 

7.6 Roofscape 

As described in the landscape architecture section of this report, the roofs and 

courtyard will act as ‘gardens’ for the growth of vegetable produce. In addition 

the roof lights to the atriums will provide a characteristic and attractive roofscape 

for those neighbors who will look down on the development from higher 

elevations up the hill (Figure 7-7). The use of the roof for vegetable gardens, as a 

place for roof decks for people to sit out on, and as a gathering place is important 

to the concept of the building. The design is intended to reduce the windswept 

environment and to maximize the use of the roof as a place for gardens, 

penthouses, as well as accommodating the elevator headhouses and atria, staying 

within the requirement of one third of the total roof area for such uses. 



Figure 7-7 Distillery courtyard and roofscape from above East Second Street 

TABLE 7-1 PROPOSED MATERIALS FOR BUILDING FACADES 

H Street Elevation 

limestone clad or artificial stone cladding panels 

East First Street Elevation concrete for parking garage 

brick (warm russet and dark blue-gray) 

Dorchester Street Elevation metal clad bay windows 

limestone clad or artificial stone cladding panels 

East Second Street Elevation natural cedar punctuated by windows and doors accented with color 

semi-transparent perforated metal balconies 

glass for greenhouse at corner of East 2nd and Dorchester Streets. 


8.0 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 


It is the objective of the landscape plan for the development to provide an 

attractive and reasonably hardy streetscape and, particularly within the 

development, to provide a productive horticulture that will consist of trees and 

bushes bearing fruits and berries and extensive areas of fruit and vegetable 

annuals. The landscape aesthetic within the complex is therefore based on the idea 

that a productive landscape is also an attractive one. 

The landscape architecture of the development is treated in three areas: 

8.1 Street Landscape 

It is the intention of the developer to work with the BRA in determining an 

appropriate paving and planting scheme for all four abutting sidewalks. Tree 

planting is envisioned for Dorchester Street and Second Street. On First Street this 

may be problematic firstly because it is situated in shadow; and secondly it is 

likely to suffer from salt spray thrown up by heavy truck traffic. 

8.2 The Courtyard 

Fig 8-1 Dorchester Street planting 

The courtyard has to be paved and structured for emergency vehicle access and 

must allow for pick-up and drop-off services such as the mail, laundry or the 

occasional maintenance vehicle. Hard standing will be provided by ‘grascrete’ or 

8.0 Landscape Architecture 8-1


similar paving type materials that allow for vegetation to grow within a structural 

matrix. 

Fig 8-2 Courtyard planting 

The courtyard will also be planted with fruit trees with an underplanting of 

productive bushes. The basement of the former boiler house (to be demolished) 

will serve as a hardscape for ball games, barbecues and occasional block parties. 

The plinth (the roofed area over the upper level parking spaces extending along 

Second Street) will be used for intensive vegetable cultivation by residents. 

8.3 The Roof 

The roof will be used for relaxation and gardening. There are two elevator access 

points to the roof (one on Dorchester Street, the other on First Street) and seven 

staircase access points. Most of the areas designated for gardening will consist of 

elevated beds (approximately 24” above the paving) to provide for the required 

depth of soil. 

Fig 8-3 Roof landscape 



Each of the Dorchester Street stair headhouses will have a small greenhouse leanto 

for use by residents. Each of the atrium modules will have use of seating and 

gardening space protected from the wind. On the First Street roof, the gardening 

area will be distributed amongst residents in the live-work units below. Another 

characteristic feature of the Dorchester Street roofs will be the glazed headhouse 

to each of five atriums. The headhouses will also contain heliostat mirror systems 

to direct sunlight into the atrium. 

A parapet railing will run around the entire roof. 


9.0 TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PLAN COMPONENT 

9.1 Introduction 


This chapter of the Expanded Project Notification Form (PNF) for the Rum 

Distillery project (referred to as the “Distillery project”), presents an evaluation 

and summary of existing and future transportation aspects of the project. The 

transportation study has been performed in order to understand and mitigate any 

potential transportation impacts of the proposed Distillery project, and provide a 

Transportation Access Plan in accordance with Article 80 of the City of Boston 

Zoning Code. The Transportation Access Plan includes an analysis of the 

following: 

• Vehicular traffic on study area roadways and intersections; 

• Parking conditions; 

• Loading and service activities; 

• Pedestrian and bicycle activities; and 

• Public transportation and private shuttle bus services. 

In addition to quantifying existing conditions, the analysis assesses the 

transportation impacts that are expected in the study area under future conditions, 

with and without the Distillery project. This chapter is presented in four sections, 

as follows: 

Existing Conditions 

Defines and quantifies existing transportation conditions in the project study area 

as defined by the Boston Transportation Department (BTD); 

9.0 Transportation Access Plan 9-1

Future Conditions 


Projects the expected future transportation conditions in the study area, and 

identifies the transportation impacts that might occur as a result of the Distillery 

project; 

Traffic Operations Analysis 

Presents a capacity and operational analysis at study area intersections under 

existing and future conditions; and 

Transportation Improvement Plan 

Develops a set of improvement strategies and actions that will address any 

transportation effects of the Distillery project and improve the transportation 

infrastructure in the surrounding area. 

The remainder of this Introduction section includes an overview of the Distillery 

project, the definition of the study area and the transportation analysis 

methodology. 

9.1.1 Project Description 

The Distillery project is located on a parcel of land, originally used as a rum 

distillery, abutting East First Street to the north, East Second Street to the south, 

Dorchester Street to the west and H Street to the east, in South Boston. The 

location of the site is shown in Figure 9-1. The site comprises approximately 

75,618 square feet of land and is currently occupied by three buildings. 

As proposed, the Distillery project will maintain one existing building, the 6-story 

brick Distillery / Warehouse building, and demolish the remaining two buildings, 

the Honeywell Building (former bottling plant) and Cooper’s Shop. Two new 

buildings will be built, accommodating 124,996 gross square foot (GSF) of 

commercial space, live-work space, residential units, retail, a café, a greenhouse 

and two galleries, with dedicated on-site parking (refer to Chapter 2 and Table 3- 



3 for details). The project thus comprises the addition of two new buildings, the 

tallest of which is 6-stories high and will include the following components (see 

also Table 2-4): 

• 25 Live-Work Studios (28,755 nsf) 

• 44 Residential Units (58,751 nsf) 

• Retail space (2,126 nsf) 

• Café (1,584 nsf) 

• Greenhouse (1,319 nsf) 

• Gallery (868 nsf) 

• Gallery (1,324 nsf) 

• TOTAL 94,727 NSF 

The project proposes 123 total parking spaces to support the entire site, an 

increase of 57 spaces over the existing 66 surface parking spaces (see Tables 2-1 

and 2-5). 99 spaces will be allocated to the residential components (for 30 

existing + 69 new units), and the remaining 24 spaces will support the 

commercial and retail space. The need for private automobile access is expected 

to be lower than for similar developments in the city due to access to existing 

public transportation services, the mixed-use nature of the development program, 

and the aggressive alternative transportation options that are being proposed. A 

detailed discussion of expected on-site parking demand and operations is 

presented later in this chapter. 

9.1.2 Study Area 

The project study area includes 5 intersections that have been specifically defined 

for analysis by the BTD. These intersections, illustrated in Figure 9-2, are as 

follows: 

1. East First Street at West First Street/Pappas Way 

2. East First Street at Dorchester Street 


3. East First Street at H Street 

4. East Second Street at Dorchester Street 

5. East Second Street at H Street 


In addition, the project site driveways are included in the analysis. 

Figure 9-1 Site Location 



Figure 9-2 Study Area Intersections and MBTA Bus Stop Locations 


9.1.3 Study Methodology 


Although the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) has not issued a formal 

Transportation Access Plan Scope, the transportation analysis presented in this 

chapter conforms to the BTD “Transportation Access Plans Guidelines” (2001). 

The analysis has been developed to be responsive to the BTD through a number 

of preliminary meetings and discussions. 

The analysis of Existing Conditions included a survey and compilation of existing 

transportation conditions within the study area, including: 

• An inventory of the transportation infrastructure within the defined project 

study area; 

• Transportation characteristics of the proposed site, including access, egress, 

parking, loading activities, shuttle bus activities, and truck activities; 

• Geometric and operational characteristics of study area roadways and 

intersections; 

• Existing traffic control at study area intersections (i.e., traffic signalization, 

stop signs, one-way streets, etc.); 

• Area off-street and on-street parking supply, demands, turnover, availability, 

and rates; 

• An inventory of study area sidewalks and crosswalks; 

• Pedestrian activity and bicycle accommodations along study area roadways, 

and at study area intersections; 

• Public transportation options within the study area, including bus and subway 

options, and existing capacity by specific transit service type. 



In the evaluation of Future Conditions, future transportation conditions were 

analyzed within the study area. The future no-build conditions (without the 

Distillery project) were developed by analyzing projected roadway volumes for a 

5-year time horizon, to the year 2011. The future build condition (with the 

Distillery project) assesses the addition of the proposed project and supporting 

transportation improvements to the 2011 no-build conditions. The future 

conditions analysis includes evaluation of pedestrian, transit, parking and loading 

aspects of the project, as well as traffic operations for the morning and evening 

peak commuter periods. Hence, the transportation study addresses three 

conditions, as follows: 

• 2006 Existing Conditions 

• 2011 No-Build Conditions 

• 2011 Build Conditions 

Based on the evaluation of existing conditions, as well as the identified projectrelated 

effects of the Distillery project to pedestrian, parking, traffic, and public 

transportation conditions, a comprehensive package of improvement actions was 

developed, described in detail later in this chapter. The proposed improvement 

actions serve as the basis for a Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA) to 

be developed and executed by both the proponent and the BTD. 

Finally, the project’s short-term impacts due to construction activity are evaluated 

as a basis for a Construction Management Plan to be approved by the BTD. 

9.1.4 Summary of Findings 

The primary finding of the transportation analysis is that the Distillery project will 

have no significant impact on the transportation infrastructure in South Boston. 

The proposed project will add approximately 110 AM and 80 PM peak hour trips 

to area roadways. As these trips will be distributed in several directions, no 

adverse operational or capacity impacts are expected. The neighborhood is also 



well served by transit, with ample service available within a few-minutes walk of 

the site to accommodate anticipated transit demand from the project. 

Additionally, the proponent has developed a package of transportation 

improvements and actions that will provide artists, residents, and visitors with 

additional and improved access choices to the project site, including 

• Intersection safety improvements; 

• Parking management strategies; 

• Transportation demand management enhancements; 

• Pedestrian access and open space improvements; and 

• Construction management actions. 

The proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) incentives to residents 

and employees at the Distillery project will promote the use of public 

transportation and other alternative modes of travel that will help to reduce the 

amount of single occupant vehicles in the area and decrease the demand for onsite 

parking. Taken together, these measures will ensure that the project will have 

minimal impact on neighborhood transportation services, and indeed may benefit 

the existing neighborhood. 


9.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 


Existing transportation conditions in the study area, including roadway geometry, 

traffic controls, peak hour traffic and pedestrian flows, transit availability, parking 

supply and utilization, and loading and service activities are described in this 

section of the transportation chapter. The existing access characteristics of the 

project site are specifically described, and transportation characteristics of the 

entire study area are quantified. 

The project site, located in South Boston, is currently occupied by three buildings 

The project will complement the surrounding area by helping to strengthen a 

transition zone between the residential neighborhood to the south and the more 

industrial activity to the north of the site while supporting artists’ working and 

living environments and providing some neighborhood-serving retail uses. 

This section describes the existing transportation infrastructure including roadway 

geometry, intersection conditions, parking supply and demand, crash analysis, 

public transportation, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing traffic and 

pedestrian volumes are presented, but capacity and operational analysis of study 

intersections is presented later in the chapter along with the corresponding 

analysis of future no-build and build conditions. 

9.2.1 Existing Roadway Conditions 

The study area includes the following four roadways: 

East First Street is an urban minor arterial that runs in a general east-west 

direction from Farrago Road to the east to West First Street near the project site. 

Generally, there are two lanes in each direction and the roadway is 80 feet wide in 

the vicinity of the project site. Adjacent to the project site and to the east, parking 

is available on the north side of the street. Pavement markings along East First 

Street are in faded condition. Generally, there are sidewalks on both sides of East 

First Street, although the sidewalk is in poor condition adjacent to and opposite 

the project site and is limited to 4-feet in width in some locations. 



Dorchester Street is an urban minor arterial that runs in a general northeastsouthwest 

direction from its intersection with East First Street adjacent to the site 

southwest to Andrew Square, where it intersects with Preble Street, Dorchester 

Avenue, Southampton Street and Boston Street. Dorchester Street is 34 feet wide 

and there is one lane in each direction near the project site, with parking allowed 

on both sides of the street. There are sidewalks on both sides of East First Street, 

with newer sidewalks adjacent and across from the project site. There are no 

pavement markings on Dorchester Street. 

East Second Street is an urban minor arterial abutting the south side of the project 

site. It runs east-west between M Street and West First Street at the southwest 

corner of the project site. East Second Street is 34 feet wide and has one lane in 

each direction. Parking is permitted on both sides of East Second Street. There 

are sidewalks on both sides of the street. There are no pavement markings on 


H Street is an urban minor arterial abutting the east side of the project site. It runs 

in a north-south direction, between East First Street at the northeast corner of the 

project site, south to Columbia Road. H Street is 34 feet wide and is one-way 

with one lane in the northbound direction. Parking is permitted on both sides of 

the street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of H Street, however across H 

Street from the project site, the lack of a curb makes the sidewalk 

indistinguishable from the street; field observations revealed that parked cars 

encroached on pedestrian space. There are no pavement markings on H Street. 

9.2.2 Study Area Intersections 

As discussed previously, the project study area includes 5 intersections defined by 

the BTD (see Figure 9-2). The following descriptions of the 5 study area 

intersections include physical characteristics, geometric conditions, pedestrian 

facilities, and traffic control measures. Again, intersection capacity and 

operational analysis is presented later in this chapter. 



1. East First Street / West First Street/Pappas Way is an off-set 4-way 

unsignalized intersection. East First Street intersects West First Street at an angle, 

with Pappas Way, a private roadway, intersecting East First Street about 50 feet to 

the east of West First Street. The West First Street northbound and Pappas Way 

southbound approaches are stop-sign controlled. There is one travel lane 

provided in each direction on all approaches. Parking is allowed on both sides of 

East and West First Street. Sidewalks are provided on West First Street, but there 

are no sidewalks on East First Street near the intersection. There are no marked 

crosswalks at this intersection 

2. East First Street / Dorchester Street is an unsignalized three-legged 

intersection with a fourth leg being a driveway onto private property. All 

approaches provide one lane in each direction. The Dorchester Street northbound 

approach is stop-sign controlled. There is unrestricted parking on Dorchester 

Street and the south side of East First Street, but no parking allowed on the north 

side of East First Street. Sidewalks are provided on the south side of East First 

Street and on the Dorchester Street approaches, but there is only a nominal 

sidewalk on the north side of East First Street. There are no marked crosswalks at 

this intersection, but there is an ADA-accessible curb cut on the southwest corner 

of the intersection. 

3. East First Street / H Street is an unsignalized three-legged intersection with a 

fourth leg being a private driveway as the north leg of the intersection. The 

eastbound and westbound East First Street approaches provide one lane in each 

direction. H Street is one-way with one lane in the northbound direction. The H 

Street northbound approach is stop-sign controlled. No parking is allowed on the 

East First Street eastbound approach at this intersection. Unrestricted parking is 

allowed on the south side of East First Street east of the intersection and along H 

Street. Sidewalks are provided on the south side of East First Street and on both 

sides of H Street. There are no marked crosswalks at this intersection. 



4. East Second Street / Dorchester Street/West First Street is a four-legged 

unsignalized intersection. There is one travel lane at each approach to the 

intersection. The East Second Street westbound and West First Street eastbound 

approaches are stop-sign controlled. Parking is allowed on both sides of each 

approach. However, there are multiple curb cuts along the southern side of East 

Second Street serving adjacent businesses. Sidewalks are provided along all 

intersection approaches. There are no marked crosswalks at this intersection, but 

there are ADA-accessible ramps at all corners except the southeastern corner of 

the intersection. 

5. East Second Street / H Street is an un-signalized four-legged intersection. 

The East Second Street approach provides one lane in each direction and H Street 

is one-way with one lane in the northbound direction. The H Street northbound 

and southbound approaches are stop-sign controlled. Unrestricted parking is 

allowed on both sides of all approaches to the intersection. Sidewalks are 

provided along all intersection approaches. There are no marked crosswalks 

provided at this intersection, although there are ADA-accessible ramps at all 

corners except the southeastern corner. 

9.2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes 

An extensive transportation data collection program was conducted, including 

morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts (TMCs) from 7:00 to 

9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM at all study area intersections. In addition, an 

automatic traffic recorder (ATR) count was conducted for 48 hours along East 

First Street between Dorchester Street and H Street. Traffic count data are 

included in the Transportation Appendix and are summarized below. 

Average Weekday Daily Traffic Counts 

Hourly traffic activity on East First Street is presented in Table 9-1. The data 

represent the averages of data collected over two weekdays. 


Table 9-1 Average Weekday Daily Traffic Summary 

Hour Beginning 


East First Street (between Dorchester Street and H Street) 

Westbound 

Volume 

Eastbound 

Volume 

Total for 

9.0 Transportation Access Plan 9-13 

Both 

Directions 

Peak 

Direction 

Percent in 

Peak 

Direction 

Midnight 13 9 21 WB 60% 

1:00 AM 8 7 15 WB 52% 

2:00 AM 6 2 8 WB 75% 

3:00 AM 7 5 12 WB 58% 

4:00 AM 13 17 30 EB 57% 

5:00 AM 59 58 117 WB 50% 

6:00 AM 142 121 263 WB 54% 

7:00 AM 218 141 358 WB 61% 

8:00 AM 269 139 408 WB 66% 

9:00 AM 187 154 340 WB 55% 

10:00 AM 146 156 302 EB 52% 

11:00 AM 171 157 328 WB 52% 

Noon 183 153 336 WB 54% 

1:00 PM 119 156 275 EB 57% 

2:00 PM 116 141 257 EB 55% 

3:00 PM 134 184 318 EB 58% 

4:00 PM 170 133 302 WB 56% 

5:00 PM 154 138 292 WB 53% 

6:00 PM 127 118 244 WB 52% 

7:00 PM 112 129 241 EB 54% 

8:00 PM 82 75 156 WB 52% 

9:00 PM 44 47 91 EB 51% 

10:00 PM 47 39 85 WB 55% 

11:00 PM 31 26 56 WB 54% 

Daily Total 2,552 2,300 4,852 WB 53% 

Source: ATR counts conducted by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. from Tuesday 

August 2 through Wednesday August 3, 2006


On East First Street between Dorchester Street and H Street, the average weekly 

daily traffic (AWDT) is approximately 4,850 vehicles, with more traffic traveling 

westbound during the majority of each hourly period. Hourly traffic volumes are 

highest during the morning peak period (7 to 10 AM), with a total of just over 400 

vehicles in the peak hour, 8 to 9 AM. The evening peak period occurs quite early 

in the afternoon, with the peak hour volume of almost 320 vehicles occurring 

between 3 to 4 PM. 

Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Manual turning movement/classification counts (TMCs) were conducted on July 

27th, 2006 at each of the 5 study area intersections. As requested by the BTD, 

TMCs were conducted from 7 to 9 AM and from 4 to 6 PM. 

The intersection turning movement counts were used to develop 2006 Existing 

Conditions traffic networks for the study area during the morning and evening 

peak hours. The networks were balanced to eliminate discrepancies due to 

differences in peak hours for individual locations. The study area’s overall peak 

hours were determined to occur between 7:45 AM and 8:45 AM and between 

4:45 PM and 5:45 PM. Existing Condition (2006) morning and evening peak 

hour traffic volumes are presented in Figures 9-3 and 9-4, respectively. Detailed 

data collection summary sheets for ATRs and TMCs are included in the 

Transportation Appendix. 



Figure 9-3 2006 Existing Conditions: Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Figure 9-4 2006 Existing Conditions: Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 


9.2.4 Parking 


This section identifies the existing parking supply and demand in the study area, 

which comprises on-street parking that is largely unrestricted. Although there is 

off-street parking on the existing project site and other sites in the vicinity, there 

are no off-street public parking facilities. 

On-street parking located in the area around the project site is summarized in 

Table 9-2 and illustrated in Figure 9-5. There are approximately 117 on-street 

spaces in the defined study area. 107 of the 117 spaces are unrestricted parking 

and the remaining 10 spaces are either for South Boston Residents between 6:00 

PM and 10:00 AM Monday-Friday (2 spaces) or for South Boston Visitors 

between 6:00 PM and 10:00 AM Monday-Friday (8 spaces). Mid-day and 

overnight observations revealed that, on average, 54% and 58% of the on-street 

spaces were used, respectively, although parking is very under-utilized on East 

First Street and West First Street. 

Table 9-2 On-Street Parking Summary 

Street Location (Both Sides of Street) Restricted Un-Restricted Mid Day 

Utilization 

East First Street West First Street to H Street - 27 7% 7% 

East Second Street Dorchester Street to H Street 10 14 92% 88% 

West First Street East First Street to Dorchester Street - 24 25% 33% 

Dorchester Street East First Street to East Second Street - 24 75% 79% 


Overnight 

Utilization 

H Street East First Street to East Second Street - 19 84% 100% 

Total 10 107 54% 58% 

Source: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. field survey conducted August 2, 2006.

Figure 9-5 Parking - Existing Curb Use 



9.2.5 Crash History 


In order to identify any traffic safety concerns in the study area, crash data for the 

study area intersections was obtained from the Massachusetts Highway 

Department (MassHighway) for the most recent three-year period available 

(2002-2004). There were 2 accidents reported at the 5 study area intersections 

over the three-year period 1 . 

• In 2003, there was an angle-type crash reported at Dorchester Street and 

Second Street. The crash occurred during the morning peak period in wet 

conditions. The crash resulted in property-related damage. 

• In 2003, there was a head-on crash reported at 405 West First Street, near the 

intersection of Dorchester Street/West First Street/East Second Street. The 

crash occurred on a weekday during off-peak hours in dry conditions and 

resulted in personal injury. 

As the crash history is very limited, it is not possible to identify any specific crash 

trends or safety issues. 

9.2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions 

Pedestrian activities were observed and recorded at each of the study area 

intersections during morning and evening peak hours. The following sections 

discuss pedestrian facilities and peak hour pedestrian flows in the study area. 

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks that vary in width from 

less than four feet to as much as eleven feet. Figure 9-6 provides an inventory of 

existing sidewalks and their minimum widths (shown in feet). There are no 

1 Accidents at parking lot driveways were not analyzed because accident locations are rarely reported with a 

high enough level of precision to identify accidents at specific driveways. 



marked crosswalks at study area intersections. Sidewalk conditions vary from 

street to street. 

Figure 9-6 Existing Sidewalk Widths 



Along the north side of East First Street, there are only nominal provisions for 

pedestrians, with no sidewalk available in some locations to the west adjacent to 

the Casey & Hayes property. Sidewalks surrounding the 3 Dorchester Street 

project site vary from new sidewalks along Dorchester Street to no sidewalks 

provided near the northwest corner of the block. Surrounding the project site, 

sidewalk conditions also vary from new concrete sidewalks along Dorchester 

Street that are ADA-accessible to narrower sidewalks on East First Street, with 

obstructions, that are not accessible. 

Bicycle facilities in the study area are minimal, with no visible on-street bicycle 

racks and no marked bicycle lanes along any of the study area roadways. 

Pedestrian Volumes 

Morning and evening peak hour pedestrian counts were conducted at each of the 

study area intersections and are presented in Figures 9-7 and 9-8, respectively. 

The following key observations characterize pedestrian activities in the project 

study area: 

• Pedestrian volumes are generally very low in the study area. Along East First 

Street, pedestrians were observed walking along both sides of the street, 

including the north side of the street where there is a minimal sidewalk with 

obstacles. 

• The intersection with the highest pedestrian volume is West First Street/East 

Second Street/Dorchester Street. At this intersection, there were a total of 52 

pedestrians in the morning peak. In the evening peak hour, this intersection 

also was the busiest in the study area, with a total of 21 pedestrians observed 

crossing the street. 



Figure 9-7 Existing Conditions Morning Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes 

Figure 9-8 Existing Conditions Evening Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes 


9.2.7 Public Transportation 


The project site is located within a 5-minute (1/4-mile) walk of three 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus routes, within 1/3-mile 

of the Silver Line and Route 7 and about 1-mile from the MBTA’s Broadway 

Station on the Red Line rapid transit line. Bus service to Broadway Station takes 

less than 10 minutes, with Red Line service to downtown in about 10 minutes. 

Bus service to Back Bay is also directly provided by two bus routes, with service 

taking about 30 minutes. These routes are described in detail below, and are 

shown in Figure 9-9. MBTA bus routes are accessible to persons with 

disabilities. 

Route 5 

MBTA bus route 5 provides service from City Point in South Boston to 

McCormack Housing via Broadway, Dorchester Street, Andrew Square Station 

and Columbia Road. The nearest bus stop is at the intersection of H Street and 

East Broadway, about 1/8-mile from the project site. Route 5 service runs from 

8:45 AM until 3:00 PM inbound, from 9:15 AM until 2:30 PM outbound 

approximately every hour during weekdays. Saturday inbound service operates 

from 9:45 AM until 3:00 PM approximately every hour. Saturday outbound 

service operates from 9:15 AM until 2:30 PM approximately every hour. There is 

no Sunday service. 

Route 7 

Route 7 provides service from downtown crossing in Boston to City Point in 

South Boston via Summer Street / L Street and East Broadway. The nearest bus 

stop is at the intersection of East First Street and Summer Street, about 1/3-mile 

from the project site. Route 7 service runs from 5:15 AM to 10:00 PM inbound, 

5:40 AM to 10:40 PM outbound during the week; 5:15 AM to 9:50 PM inbound 

and 5:37 AM to 10:20 PM outbound on Saturday; and no service on Sunday. 



During the morning and evening peak hours, every other outbound (morning) and 

inbound (evening) trip operates via the Harbor Industrial Park along Pappas Way 

and East First Street adjacent the project site. 

Figure 9-9 MBTA Transit Map 

Route 9 

Route 9 provides service from City Point in South Boston to Copley Square in the 

Back Bay via Broadway, West Broadway, Broadway Station, East Berkeley 



Street, St. James Avenue and Boylston Street. The nearest bus stop is at the 

intersection of H Street and East Broadway, about 1/8-mile from the project site. 

Route 9 service runs from 5:13 AM to 12:28 AM inbound, 5:38 AM to 12:52 AM 

outbound during the week; 5:10 AM to 12:30 AM inbound and 5:40 AM to 12:54 

AM outbound on Saturday; and 6:00 AM to 12:30 AM inbound and 6:25 AM to 

12:53 AM on Sunday. 

Route 10 

Route 10 provides service from City Point in South Boston to Copley Square in 

the Back Bay via Broadway, Dorchester Street, Andrew Station, Southampton 

Street, Newmarket Square, Massachusetts Avenue, Albany Street, East Newton 

Street/East Concord Street, Washington Street, West Dedham Street and 

Dartmouth Street. The nearest bus stop is at the intersection of H Street and East 

Broadway, about 1/8-mile from the project site. Route 10 service runs from 4:55 

AM to 12:32 AM inbound, 5:30 AM to 1:05 AM outbound during the week; 6:15 

AM to 12:20 AM inbound and 7:00 AM to 12:50 AM outbound on Saturday; and 

6:00 AM to 12:15 AM inbound and 6:28 AM to 12:45 AM on Sunday. 

Silver Line SL3 

The MBTA’s new Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit provides service from City Point 

in South Boston to South Station in downtown Boston, via the South Boston 

Waterfront and providing an important link to Logan International Airport via the 

SL1 transfer at the Silver Line Way Station. The nearest bus stop is at the 

intersection of East First Street and Summer Street, about 1/3-mile from the 

project site. SL3 service runs from 6:03 AM to 8:18 PM inbound, 5:45 AM to 

7:55 PM outbound during the week. There is no weekend SL3 service. The 

MBTA’s Silver Line is accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Red Line 

The nearest MBTA rapid transit station is located on the Red Line at the 

Broadway Station. The Red Line is the MBTA’s busiest rapid transit line, 



providing service from Braintree on the South Shore, Ashmont/Mattapan in 

Dorchester, downtown Boston, and major academic and employment centers in 

Cambridge. The Red Line provides service from 5:05 AM until 1:08 AM 

northbound and between 5:24 AM until 12:15 AM southbound Monday-Saturday; 

from 5:50 AM until 1:03 AM northbound and between 6:08 AM until 12:14 AM 

southbound on Sunday. The Red Line’s Broadway Station is ADA-accessible. 

9.2.8 Vehicular Site Access 

Currently, the project site has driveway curb cuts in four locations and a loading 

dock accessed on East Second Street. There is one driveway curb cut providing 

access to the Fishbach & Moore loading area, located on Dorchester Street near 

its intersection with East First Street. There is an additional driveway curb cut 

located on East First Street near the intersection with Dorchester Street serving 

the existing primary surface parking lot. A third driveway curb cut located about 

mid-block on East Second Street provides another access point to the surface 

parking lot. A fourth driveway curb cut providing access to the existing Fishbach 

& Moore surface parking area is located on H Street near the corner of East First 

Street and H Street. Finally, a small loading dock is located on East Second 

Street attached to the Distillery Building, near the midpoint of the building on 


9.2.9 Adjacent Land Uses 

The BTD requested that as part of this Expanded PNF an inventory and 

description of adjacent land uses be provided to better understand the impact of 

the project on loading activity of abutting properties. Adjacent uses and driveway 

curb cuts are shown in Figure 9-10. 

Industrial uses are located across East First Street to the north and H Street to the 

east. There are two driveway curb cuts located on East First Street at the 

intersections of Dorchester Street and H Street. Observations during the morning 

peak hour revealed numerous trucks exiting the Casey & Hayes property at the H 



Street driveway, turning westbound onto East First Street. Along H Street, there 

are four curb cuts across the street from the project site, but it appears that only 

one driveway is in active use, as the fence was locked at the remaining three 

driveways and vehicles were parked blocking access to these driveways on both 

sides of the fence. 

Figure 9-10 Adjacent Uses, Access Points, Curb Cuts 



To the south, there are light industrial uses at both the corner of East Second 

Street and H Street and Dorchester Street. Mid-block along East Second Street 

between Dorchester Street and H Street are residential uses. There are numerous 

curb cuts on the south side of East Second Street, primarily serving the large 

driveways to the industrial uses. The residences have two driveway curb cuts. 

Finally, across Dorchester Street is the newly constructed 3 Dorchester Street 

project, a residential development. There are no driveway curb cuts for the 3 

Dorchester Street project on Dorchester Street. 

9.3 EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 

To evaluate future roadway operations, traffic volumes in the study area were 

projected to the year 2011 to reflect a five-year planning horizon. The 2011 No- 

Build traffic volumes include all existing traffic, new traffic attributable to general 

background growth, and traffic generated by identified planned/approved 

developments in the area. Anticipated site-generated traffic volumes that are 

expected to be generated by the project were then added to the No-Build traffic 

volumes to provide Build traffic volumes. In addition, any roadway 

improvements currently under construction or planned to be completed within the 

planning horizon are taken into account when analyzing both future No-Build and 

Build Conditions. 

9.3.1 2011 No Build Condition 

The 2011 No Build Condition considers study area traffic conditions if the 

Distillery project was not built. 2011 No Build Condition traffic volumes were 

developed by considering background traffic growth and traffic related to specific 

development by others expected to be completed by the 2011 analysis year. 


Background Growth 


In consultation with the BTD, the No Build Conditions for study area 

intersections were developed by applying a 1% per year background traffic 

growth rate to the 2006 Existing Condition traffic volumes. 

Specific Area Developments 

There are two developments expected to influence traffic volumes within the 

study area - the 3 Dorchester Street project and the Channel Wharf Project. 

Traffic volumes from these projects were obtained from the Channel Wharf Draft 

Project Impact Report prepared by Daylor Consulting Group in 2002. Since the 

filing of the Channel Wharf DPIR, a portion of the 3 Dorchester Street project has 

been completed. Thus, some traffic related to this project is included in the traffic 

counts conducted for the Distillery Project. However, the entire 3 Dorchester 

Street project, as represented in the Channel Wharf DPIR, was added to the 2011 

projections, representing a more conservative analysis. The resulting 2011 No- 

Build morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figures 9- 

11 and 9-12. 

Figure 9-11 2011 No-Build Condition Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volume 



Figure 9-12 2011 No-Build Condition Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volume 

9.3.2 2011 Build Condition 

2011 Build Condition traffic volumes for the study area intersections were 

determined by estimating site-generated traffic volumes and distributing these 

volumes over the study area roadways. The site-generated volumes were then 

added to the 2011 No-Build traffic volumes to create the Build volume networks. 

The following section describes the procedure used to estimate site-generated 

traffic. 

Project-Generated Trips and Mode Split 

The Distillery project will contain a mix of uses designed to enhance and blend in 

with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Trip generation was developed for 

each new component of the project independently, based on the proposed program 

listed on page 9-3 (also in Table 2-4) that was current at the time of analysis. 



The analysis presented in this section is conservative in that it does not take any 

credit for the elimination of some of the existing uses on the site, and does not 

reflect the fact that some trips generated by individual project components will be 

shared (e.g. residential – retail or café). 

The ITE Trip Generation Manual 2 provides trip generation rates for much of the 

proposed project, including the residential (ITE Land Use Code 230 – Residential 

Condominium/Townhouse), retail (Land Use Code 852 - Convenience Market) 

and café (Land Use Code 933) portion of the project. While trip generation rates 

for artists’ workshops, galleries and greenhouses are not specifically defined by 

ITE, Land Use Code 110, General Light Industrial 3 , provides an appropriate 

proxy for the level of trips that will be generated by those project components. 

Special events held at the two galleries may produce additional trips, but these 

events would likely occur during off-peak hours and would not affect the peak 

hour analysis. The trip generation for each of the Land Use Codes is provided in 

the Transportation Appendix. 

Table 9-3 provides the daily and peak hour person-trip generation estimates for 

the proposed project, using a vehicle-occupancy rate (VOR) of 1.2 in order to 

convert the raw ITE vehicle trip generation estimates to person trips. It should be 

noted that the residential trip rates were applied to the 69 new residential units (44 

residential and 25 live-work) in the proposed project, as the 30 existing live/work 

units will remain, and are already accounted for in the base traffic counts. 

2 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 7th Edition 

3 ITE LUC 110, General Light Industrial, is defined as having fewer than 500 employees, “an emphasis on 

activities other than manufacturing and typically have minimal office space. Typical light industrial 

activities include printing, material testing and assembly of data processing equipment.” Institute of 

Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 7th Edition, page 89 


Morning Peak Hour 

Table 9-3: Person Trip Generation Summary 


Residential Galleries 1 Retail Café Total VOR Person Trips 

In 7 10 24 62 103 1.2 124 

Out 37 8 23 62 130 1.2 156 

Total 44 18 47 124 233 1.2 280 

Evening Peak Hour 

In 34 9 26 24 93 1.2 112 

Out 17 11 27 24 79 1.2 95 

Total 51 20 53 48 172 1.2 207 

Weekday Daily 

In 260 12 695 608 1,575 1.2 1,890 

Out 260 12 695 608 1,575 1.2 1,890 

Total 520 24 1,390 1,216 3,150 1.2 3,780 

1 Includes the two galleries and the greenhouse 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 7th Edition 

Trip generation estimates are generally based on data gathered at auto-oriented 

suburban locations, and an adjustment must be made for the mix of transportation 

options available in the South Boston neighborhood, including transit, walking 

and bicycling. Mode share data for the South Boston neighborhood was obtained 

from the BTD and analyzed separately by daily, morning and evening periods. 

The mode splits are presented in Table 9-4. 


Table 9-4: Mode Share 


AM PM 

Mode Daily In Out In Out 

Automobile 52% 35% 58% 58% 35% 

Transit 15% 22% 13% 13% 22% 

Walk/Bike/Other 33% 43% 29% 29% 43% 

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Source: Boston Transportation Department Mode Share for Zone 13 

These mode shares were applied to the person trip generation results in order to 

obtain vehicle trips, transit trips and pedestrian/bicycle trips. The auto mode split 

includes all vehicle-based trips including taxis and has been adjusted by a vehicle 

occupancy rate of 1.2. This VOR is consistent with previous studies in the South 

Boston area. Vehicle, transit and pedestrian trips are shown in Table 9-5 below. 


Table 9-5: Trip Generation by Mode Summary 

Morning Peak 

Hour 

In 

Out 

Total 

Evening Peak 

Hour 

In 

Out 

Total 

Weekday Daily 

In 

Out 

Total 

Vehicle/ 

Person Trips 


VOR 


Vehicle 

Trips 

Transit Trips Pedestrian Trips 

124 1.2 36 27 53 

156 1.2 75 20 45 

280 1.2 111 47 98 

112 1.2 53 14 32 

95 1.2 28 21 41 

207 1.2 81 35 73 

1,890 1.2 819 283 623 

1,890 1.2 819 283 623 

3,780 1.2 1,638 566 1,246 

As shown in Table 9-5, the Distillery project is expected to generate 

approximately 111 new vehicle trips (36 in, 75 out) during the weekday morning 

peak hour, and 81 new vehicle trips (53 in, 28 out) during the weekday evening 

peak hour. 

During the morning peak hour, the project is expected to generate approximately 

47 new transit trips (27 in, 20 out) and 98 pedestrian trips (53 in and 45 out), and 

35 new transit trips (14 in, 21 out) and 73 pedestrian trips (32 in, 41 out) during 

the weekday evening peak hour. 

The trip generation estimates presented above did not take into account the 

reduction in trips due to the demolition of the existing 19,680 square-foot Bottling 

Plant and 3,524 square-foot Cooper’s Shop buildings. Additionally, no pass-by or 

internal trip reduction was assumed. In particular, the café and convenience retail 

is expected to have a large portion of trips resulting from passers-by or shared 

(internal) trips, so the analysis presented presents a more conservative scenario.

Trip Distribution 


The BTD provided trip distribution patterns for the neighborhood that the 

Distillery project is located in (Zone 13), and these were reduced to a general 

distribution to/from the Distillery site. The BTD’s trip distribution patterns are 

derived from home-based, work-based and “other” trip categories, accurately 

reflecting the mixed-use nature of the Distillery project. The distribution pattern 

developed and approved by the BTD for this project was also compared to that 

presented in the Channel Wharf DPIR. Table 9-6 and Figure 9-13 present the 

anticipated trip distribution patterns for the proposed project. 

Table 9-6: Trip Distribution 

Origin Travel Route Traffic Assigned to Route 

North/West via West First Street 48% 

South via Dorchester Street 41% 

Local via East First/Second Streets 11% 

Total 100% 

Source: BTD 

As shown, the majority of vehicle trips will utilize West First Street and 

Dorchester Street to access points north, west and south of the site. The greatest 

increase in traffic will be on H Street, with an additional 38 vehicles and 36 

vehicles on East First Street in the morning peak hour. 


Figure 9-13 Project Trip Distribution 

Build Traffic Volumes 


Trips were assigned to the proposed site driveways based on the distribution of 

parking spaces served by each driveway. The site-generated traffic volumes were 

assigned to the study area roadways according to the trip distribution and travel 

patterns presented in Table 9-6 for the morning and evening peak hours. The 

project trips are shown graphically in Figures 9-14 and 9-15. Site-generated 

traffic was then combined with the 2011 No-Build traffic volumes to develop the 

2011 Build traffic volumes. The resulting 2011 Build Condition morning and 

evening peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figures 9-16 and 9-17. 



Figure 9-14 Project Generated Trips Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Figure 9-15 Project Generated Trips Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 



Figure 9-16 2011 Build condition Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Figure 9-17 2011 Build condition Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 


Pedestrians 


As presented in Table 9-5, the project is expected to generate 98 (73) pedestrian 

trips in the morning (evening) peak hour, and a total of 1,246 pedestrian trips 

during a typical weekday. These pedestrians are expected to generally walk along 

the south side of East First Street, Dorchester Street, H Street and East Second 

Street to access the local neighborhood and MBTA services on Broadway and at 

L Street. Sidewalk provision in most locations is adequate, with the exception of 

parts of East First Street and on the east side of H Street. However, as part of the 

project, the sidewalk adjacent to the site on East First Street will be reconstructed 

and widened to 5’6”. 

Parking 

The project proposes 123 parking spaces for residents, workers and visitors. 

These spaces are distributed as follows: 99 spaces are to be allocated to the 

residential units on site (including 30 existing Distillery building units plus 69 

new units) and 24 spaces are to be allocated to the galleries, café, and retail space 

(including existing commercial space in the Distillery, a total of 7,221 + 31,812 = 

39,033 nsf). The parking ratios are 1.0 space per residential unit and less than 1 

per 1,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. It is anticipated that these 

spaces, combined with the travel demand management measures described in the 

next section, will be sufficient to serve all users on-site. 

Public Transportation 

The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 566 transit trips per 

weekday, with 47 of those trips occurring during the morning peak hour and 35 

during the evening peak hour. These trips are expected to be distributed amongst 

the areas bus routes and the Red Line with no undue impact. The Proponent will 

work with the MBTA to further enhance service near the project site. 


9.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 


Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating 

conditions that occur on a given roadway or intersection under various volume 

loads. It is a qualitative measure of the effect of roadway/intersection geometry, 

speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an 

index to the operational qualities of a roadway or intersection. LOS designations 

range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and 

LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. 

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) evaluation criteria are different for signalized 

and for unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, level of service is 

calculated for individual moves or combination of moves, approaches and for the 

overall intersection. For unsignalized intersections, as is the case for all of the 

study intersections, only the critical moves are analyzed, i.e. the minor street 

movements and/or the left turn movements from the major street. 

A level of service analysis was performed at study intersections during the 

morning and evening peak hours for each scenario. Table 9-7 shows 2006 

Existing, 2011 No Build and 2011 Build morning peak hour intersection LOS for 

the study area for unsignalized intersections. Table 9-8 shows 2006 Existing, 

2011 No Build and 2011 Build evening peak hour intersection LOS for the study 

area for all intersections. Complete Synchro 6 reports are provided in the 

Transportation Appendix. 

It should be noted that for the West First Street/East First Street/Pappas Way 

intersection it is necessary to perform the analysis as two separate intersections, as 

follows: 

1. West First Street/East First Street 

1A. East First Street/Pappas Way 



As shown in Tables 9-7 and 9-8, all study area intersections operate at Level of 

Service (LOS) C or better during both morning and evening peak hours, and are 

expected to continue to do so under future No Build conditions with only minor 

increases in delay for critical movements. 



Table 9-7 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 

Weekday Morning Peak Hour 

2006 Existing 

2011 No-Build 2011 Build Condition 

Condition 

Condition 

Location Approach v/c 1 Delay2 LOS3 v/c 1 Delay2 LOS3 v/c 

1 

Delay2 LOS3 1. East First Street/ West First 

Street 

2. East First Street/ Dorchester 

Street 

Westbound 

Southbound 

Northbound 

Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

3. East First Street/ H Street Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

4. West First Street/ East Second 

Street/ Dorchester Street 

Westbound 

Eastbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

5. East Second Street/H Street Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

1A. East First Street/ Pappas Way Eastbound 

Westbound 

Southbound 

Site Drive A/ Dorchester Street Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

Site Drive B/ H Street Eastbound 

Northbound 

0.08 

0.11 

0.28 

0.00 

0.03 

0.12 

0.00 

0.00 

0.17 

0.16 

0.01 

0.17 

0.19 

0.08 

0.00 

0.01 

0.05 

0.12 

0.32 

0.48 

0.06 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

3 

NEG 

15 

NEG 

1 

11 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

12 

11 

16 

11 

4 

NEG 

2 

NEG 

10 


11 

12 

9 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

C 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

B 

A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.09 

0.12 

0.43 

0.00 

0.03 

0.15 

0.00 

0.00 

0.18 

0.17 

0.01 

0.20 

0.22 

0.09 

0.00 

0.01 

0.05 

0.12 

0.36 

0.58 

0.07 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

3 

NEG 

19 

NEG 

1 

12 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

13 

11 

18 

11 

4 

NEG 

2 

NEG 

10 

1 Demand of critical movement from the minor street or left-turn movement from the major street, expressed in vehicles per 

hour. 

2 Average delay to critical movements, expressed in seconds per vehicle. 

3 Level of Service. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

11 

14 

9 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

A 

A 

C 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

C 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

B 

A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.09 

0.13 

0.45 

0.00 

0.04 

0.21 

0.00 

0.00 

0.18 

0.29 

0.01 

0.25 

0.28 

0.09 

0.01 

0.03 

0.05 

0.16 

0.38 

0.65 

0.07 

0.03 

0.06 

0.01 

0.05 

0.01 

3 

NEG 

20 

NEG 

2 

14 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

15 

12 

22 

13 

4 

NEG 

4 

NEG 

12 

12 

17 

10 

9 

NEG 

1 

9 

2 

A 

A 

C 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

C 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

C 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A


Table 9-8 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary 

Weekday Evening Peak Hour 

2006 Existing 

2011 No-Build 2011 Build Condition 

Condition 

Condition 

Location Approach v/c 1 Delay2 LOS3 v/c 1 Delay2 LOS3 v/c 

1 

Delay2 LOS3 1. East First Street/ West First 

Street 

2. East First Street/ Dorchester 

Street 

Westbound 

Southbound 

Northbound 

Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

3. East First Street/ H Street Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

4. West First Street/ East Second 

Street/ Dorchester Street 

Westbound 

Eastbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

5. East Second Street/H Street Eastbound 

Westbound 

Northbound 

1A. East First Street/ Pappas Way Eastbound 

Westbound 

Southbound 

Site Drive A/ Dorchester Street Westbound 

Northbound 

Southbound 

Site Drive B/ H Street Eastbound 

Northbound 

0.10 

0.19 

0.15 

0.00 

0.02 

0.08 

0.00 

0.00 

0.09 

0.08 

0.00 

0.10 

0.31 

0.03 

0.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.06 

0.29 

0.25 

0.06 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4 

NEG 

11 

NEG 

2 

12 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

11 

9.4 

14 

11 

4 

NEG 

2 

NEG 

10 


10 

9 

9 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

B 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.10 

0.21 

0.24 

0.00 

0.02 

0.15 

0.00 

0.00 

0.09 

0.09 

0.00 

0.12 

0.34 

0.04 

0.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.07 

0.33 

0.29 

0.07 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4 

NEG 

14 

NEG 

2 

13 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

11 

9.5 

16 

11 

4 

NEG 

2 

NEG 

10 

1 Demand of critical movement from the minor street or left-turn movement from the major street, expressed in vehicles per 

hour. 

2 Average delay to critical movements, expressed in seconds per vehicle. 

3 Level of Service. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

10 

10 

9 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

C 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.11 

0.23 

0.25 

0.00 

0.03 

0.19 

0.00 

0.00 

0.09 

0.12 

0.00 

0.16 

0.41 

0.04 

0.00 

0.04 

0.02 

0.09 

0.35 

0.30 

0.07 

0.01 

0.04 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

4 

NEG 

14 

NEG 

2 

14 

NEG 

NEG 

NEG 

12 

9.7 

18 

13 

4 

NEG 

4 

NEG 

11 

11 

10 

9 

9 

NEG 

2 

9 

3 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

B 

A 

A 

A 

B 

A 

C 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A


The proposed project is not expected to cause any changes in level of service, and 

any increases in delay as a result of the project, are limited to a maximum of 4 

seconds per vehicle. Generally, the increases in delay for each critical move are 

in the range of 0 to 2 seconds per vehicle. Volume/capacity ratios are very low 

under all conditions. Accordingly, the study intersections are not expected to be 

adversely impacted by the proposed project, and will continue to operate well 

under future build conditions largely with LOS A or B, and at worst LOS C at a 

few approaches. The project driveways are also expected to operate very well at 

LOS A in all cases. The SYNCHRO output for all the conditions analyzed is 

presented in the Transportation Appendix. 

Again, it should be borne in mind that the traffic analysis is conservative in that 

no trip credit was taken for the elimination of the existing Bottling Plant and 

Cooper’s Shop, and no shared-trip or pass-by trip credit was assumed. 

9.5 ACCESS TO PARKING 

9.5.1 Assessment of Alternatives 

Taking advantage of the natural slope of the site from +32 feet at Second Street to 

+16.5 feet at the junction of First Street and Dorchester Street, the parking is 

arranged on two levels with a separate access point for each level, obviating the 

need for internal ramps. For each of the lower and upper level access points, two 

alternative locations were evaluated on the following criteria: 

• Safety and Function: ease of access and exiting; relative traffic flows at 

access point; sight lines; distance from corners. 



• Nuisance: annunciator noise as disturbance to neighbors; headlights of 

exiting vehicles as annoyance to neighbors; interruption to pedestrian flow 

at sidewalks. 

• Program: the effect on parking numbers or other program elements as a 

result of situating the access point in one location or another. 

The analysis of Options 1 and 2 on the Lower and upper Levels (LL1 + UL1; LL2 

+ UL2) examines alternative options for access as described. The alternative 

locations also require changes in the assumed grade of the parking levels. Option 

1 is situated two feet higher than the alternative in order to allow level access at 

the lower level off First Street and to make the ramp connection between Second 

Street and the upper level parking possible. Option 2 is situated two feet lower to 

ensure a level connection between Dorchester Street and the upper level parking 

while at the same time keeping a feasible connection between H Street and the 

lower parking level. One general advantage of Option 2 (the lower of the two 

options) is that the overall building height is correspondingly lower. 

9.5.2 Lower Level Access 

Lower Level parking is at +18’ accommodating 57 spaces (LL1) or at +16’ 

accommodating 62 spaces (LL2). Option LL1 as shown also indicates the 

possibility of adding another 42 spaces by double-stacking vehicles (for a Lower 

Level total of 99) in the basement of the Warehouse building. This option is not 

financially feasible. 

Option LL1 from First Street: this access point is situated midway along the First 

Street block and is designed for cars entering and leaving the lower level at an 

elevation of +18 feet. The closest corner is the First Street / Dorchester Street 

junction, about 70’ away. 



Figure 9-18 Option LL1 Lower Level Access from East First Street 

Safety and Function: There are good sightlines in both directions. However, First 

Street is the most heavily trafficked of all the surrounding streets and is a 

designated truck route. Westbound traffic in the morning is the heaviest flow thus 

presenting a specific problem for morning traffic exiting the Distillery which 

would be executing a left turn into the flow on the far side of the road. 

Nuisance: First Street is a busy and noisy road with industrial uses on the other 

side of the road so no additional nuisance is generated by vehicles coming in and 

out of the site. 

Program: Compared to Option LL2 this alternative accommodates five fewer 

parking spaces; does not accommodate a truck loading dock; and to make room 

for the parking spaces the mechanical room has to be relocated. 

Option LL2 from H Street: this access point is located on H Street at an elevation 

of +20 feet, ramping down to +16 feet in the parking area. There is also room for 

a truck loading dock adjacent. 



Figure 9-19 Option LL2 Lower Level Access from H Street 

Safety and Function: The curb cut starts approximately 25 feet from the First 

Street curb edge. On the other hand H Street is the most light trafficked of all the 

streets and it is one way feeding into First Street. Thus for vehicles exiting at this 

point there are clear sightlines upstream of the traffic (coming downhill from the 

top of H Street) and there are no vehicles turning into H Street from First Street, 

rendering the shortened view in that direction moot from a safety point of view. 

Nuisance: the opposite side of H Street between First Street and Second Street is 

an industrial use with only one access point. The location of an entrance to the 

parking at this location does not create a nuisance. 

Program: the location of the access at this point allows five more parking spaces 

than LL1 and enables the conjunction of a loading dock and freight elevator in the 

same location. 


9.5.3 Upper Level Access 


Upper Level parking is at + 27’-8” accommodating 45 spaces (UL1) or at +25’ 

accommodating 66 spaces (UL2). 

Option UL1 from Second Street gains access from a street elevation of +32’ 

ramping down to +27’-8”. The closest corner is Second Street / Dorchester Street, 

approximately 80’ away. 

Figure 9-20 Option UL1 Upper Level Access from Second Street 

Safety and Function: the crossroads of Second and Dorchester Streets, both of 

which are two-way, is too close in our opinion. In addition, the ramp down from 

Second Street to the parking level presents an additional hazard, particularly for 

exiting vehicles which will emerge on a steep slope at the same time as having to 

look both ways for street traffic. 

Nuisance: headlights from emerging traffic will strike the opposite side of the 

road which is zoned for residential development. Acceleration noise will be 



exacerbated on the exit slope and braking noise for vehicles accessing the garage 

will also be a concern. 

Program: the location of the access point on Second Street required the raising of 

the upper level parking to reduce the length and slope of the access ramp. A 

concern is that the parking level will be raised so high above street level at the 

lower end of the site that the overall effect will be that of a formidable wall. In 

order to mitigate this effect the parking level in option UL1 extends only to the 

corner of Dorchester Street and First Street. In order to make up the numbers of 

parking spaces this layout demonstrates the possibility of double stacking of 

vehicles to gain 45 spaces (21 fewer than option UL2). On further analysis 

mechanical stacking proves to be cost prohibitive both in capital cost and 

operations and maintenance. 

Option UL2 from Dorchester Street enters the upper level parking at +25’ from 

street level requiring minimal ramping. 

Figure 9-21 Option UL2 Upper Level Access from Dorchester Street 



Safety and Function: the access point is approximately 125’ away, a comfortable 

distance from the two-way junction at Second and Dorchester Streets. Sightlines 

are unimpaired and the entry is not significantly ramped making negotiation of 

both access and exit relatively simple. 

Nuisance: while the glare of headlights from exiting vehicles may be present, 

because there is no significant ramping at this access point lights will be directed 

at the ground plane rather than sweeping the vertical face of residential 

development opposite (as would be the case with UL1). In addition any noise of 

braking or acceleration will be not significantly worse than that generated in the 

normal course of street traffic. 

Program: Option LL2 and UL2 bring the parking levels closer to street grades 

than do the other options. This allows the upper level to extent to First Street to 

accommodate 66 spaces, 21 more than Option UL1 and without the expense and 

difficulty of mechanical parking. 

9.5.4 Service Vehicles and Emergency Services 

Large Truck Access: as noted above in the discussion of LL2, large trucks and 

tractor-trailer combinations have access to a loading dock off H Street, offloading 

to a freight elevator that services both existing and new buildings. This 

means all furniture removal can take place off-street. In addition there is direct 

tailboard loading from East Second Street into the retail store on the corner for 

“box trucks” of 14’ length and up to 11 ½’ high. The dock area is 12’ wide 

allowing the trucks to accommodate the wide swing into the dock, and the trucks 

will be completely inside the building when unloading, clearing the sidewalk. 

Small Truck and Van Deliveries: delivery vans have access to the upper level 

courtyard directly off Second Street. They will have three point turnaround space 

on a driveway adjacent to the front door of the existing Distillery building. 



Emergency Vehicles: emergency services have access to the building from all four 

surrounding streets and from the internal courtyard. A turning circle of radius 41’- 

0” is sufficient for full 180-degree turnaround of fire trucks. 

9.6 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN 

9.6.1 Project Improvements 

This section delineates the transportation improvements and enhancement plan 

that is proposed to support the planned Distillery project. The proponents of the 

Distillery project are dedicated to reducing the overall impact of the project on the 

surrounding environment, and this extends to the transportation impact of the 

project. As such, the proponent is studying methods of reducing single-occupant 

auto trips to and from the site to a greater extent than would be necessary since 

the project does not generate any adverse impact on area roadways. The purpose 

of this transportation improvement plan is to: 

• Help alleviate transportation impacts generated by the proposed Distillery 

project; and 

• Provide transportation infrastructure enhancements to the surrounding area. 

This transportation improvement plan includes several elements: 

• Intersection safety improvements; 

• Parking management strategies; 

• Transportation demand management enhancements; 

• Pedestrian access and open space improvements; and 

• Construction management actions. 



Table 9-9 lists each transportation improvement element that is proposed and a 

summary of the purpose and benefit of that action. 

Table 9-9 Distillery Project Transportation Improvements and Enhancements 

Improvement 

Element 

Description Purpose/Benefit 

1 On-Site Parking Provide up to 123 regular parking spaces on site as part 

of the project. 

2 Pedestrian Access 

Improvements 

3 Transportation 

Demand 

Management Actions 

Provide new/upgraded sidewalks/crosswalks and street 

landscaping to match that on Dorchester Street on H 

Street, East First Street and East Second Street 

bordering the project site. 

Provide innovative TDM programs and amenities that 

seek to encourage the use of car-sharing and transit as a 

regular means of commuting. 

4 Bicycle Parking Provide bicycle racks, showers, and lockers on-site as 

part of the project. 

5 Prepare 

Transportation 

Access Plan 

Agreement 

6 Prepare Construction 

Management Plan 

Minimizes potential for 

parking demand to be 

accommodated on street. 

Will improve pedestrian 

environment for the 

neighborhood. 

Will encourage shift in mode 

share from auto to transit by 

tenants. 

Will encourage shift in mode 

share from auto to bicycle. 

Prepare and submit detailed TAPA to the BTD. Will formalize the 

improvement plan and 

schedule for implementation. 

Prepare and submit detailed Construction Management 

Plan. 

9.6.2 Transportation Demand Management 

Will minimize construction 

impacts. 

The proponent is considering the following Transportation Demand Management 

(TDM) strategies for the Distillery project: 

• Marketing packets including MBTA information 

• MBTA Transit Pass subsidies 

• Ridematching utilizing an innovative system called Ecolane 

• Ridematching through MassRides 


• Preferential parking for carpool/vanpools 

• Secure, indoor bicycle storage 

• Encouraged flextime & staggered work hours 

• Compressed work weeks 

• Providing bandwidth to allow telecommuting 

• Showers for bicyclists 


• Commuter shuttles to transit, if need is demonstrated, using alternative 

fuel vehicles whenever possible 

• Providing parking space(s) for car-sharing options, such as Zipcar 

• Providing accommodations for plug-in hybrids 

The proponent is studying innovative transportation options including the 

following: 

Car Sharing 

The proponent has had preliminary discussions with Zipcar about supplying their 

vehicles to the East Second Street site. Zipcar has indicated that, while they have 

no interest in bringing Zipcar to the site before development, they would have an 

interest in doing so after the new buildings are built. The proponent will also 

contact Planet Trans who provides a similar service. Planet Trans is a Cambridge 

start-up which now supplies Toyota Prius hybrids to Genzyme employees and is 

looking to expand their fleet of low-emission vehicles. The proponent would like 

to encourage them to acquire plug-in Prius hybrids, potentially on a cost-sharing 

basis. 

Car Pooling 

The new buildings, with 79 units, are expected to house approximately 150 

residents. The existing Distillery building has approximately the same number of 

residents. It is believed that a considerable portion of the on-site tenants would 



use a carpool service if one were provided. Further, there is or will soon be an 

additional 600 residents not more than 2 blocks from the project site. Therefore, 

including existing residents it is estimated that there are approximately 900 

residents within 2 blocks who might be candidates for car pooling at the site. 

The proponent conducted a survey of existing tenants indicating that most 

commute to a few locations: the downtown business district, Harvard Square, the 

Museum of Fine Arts area, the South End, and Jamaica Plain. This narrow range 

of destinations makes carpooling attractive. The proponent feels that the 

difficulty with most existing car pools is that they are rigid in pairing drivers and 

riders, and are inflexible in their scheduling. A passenger must meet the same 

driver at the same time on prearranged days. This rigidity does not fit the flexible 

schedules of artists and part-time workers who make up many of the project’s 

existing tenants, and does not fit the schedules of the artists, young professionals, 

or retirees who we expect to be a substantial portion of the new residents. 

Computerized systems which employ java-based queuing software relax these 

constraints. Using a java-capable cellular phone or a web-connected computer 

terminal, a system user can schedule to be either a driver or passenger in as little 

as 15 minutes before departure. The developer has met with Robin Chase, the 

developer of Go Loco, a sophisticated computerized car pool system which is set 

to pilot in February 2007 and anticipated to be in operation in March of 2007. We 

have proposed that the existing tenants at the Distillery would be part of the beta 

trial. 

Robin Chase is a founder of Zipcar, and brings over to computerized car pooling 

the computer sophistication and business planning that made Zipcar a success. 

Under this system, riders would be able to access intersecting car pool 

populations. The Distillery might be one, Mass General Hospital or City Hall 

might be another. Potential ridership might be further sorted by rider and ride 

provider preferences, to conform to social or professional groupings. Further, 

each driver and rider will have an on-line profile which can be accessed and 



added to by others in the system. This would provide feedback on unreputable 

participants, much as E-bay does. 

The system would share all costs of the ride, with the rider paying 50% and the 

driver paying 20% of the income to Go Loco. This system therefore qualifies as a 

cost sharing arrangement, rather than a taxi or limo service. Riders and drivers’ 

security and safety is increased by the closed nature of each of these ride-sharing 

groups, by the review of members by participants, and by the fact that each 

participant has a “buddy” who is informed on-line about the time, destination and 

persons involved in each transport transaction. 

Go Loco is a timely and, in our view, very well developed plan for computerized 

car pooling, which will integrate with our plans to make it feasible for people to 

conveniently avoid car ownership. 

Shuttle Service 

The grouping of destinations in Boston and Cambridge locations indicates that a 

shuttle service may be feasible. On the one hand, the distances are small and the 

degree of congestion since the Big Dig is manageable. However, the cost of 

parking is high and often cannot be obtained exactly at the desired destination. 

Shuttle vans provide portal to portal service, or drop-offs to major public 

transportation links. 

The proponent intends to provide one or two shuttle vans available to residents 

and those from the surrounding blocks. Computer-based reservation 

software would coordinate ridership to minimize both near-empty runs and 

overflows that strand potential riders. 

The proponent is following the availability of Mercedes’ plug-in Sprinter vans 

which are now being test-marketed in the US. The shuttle service could be run by 

the proponent or by an outside vendor. The proponent has been in contact with 

Boston Coach and others with whom they would like to enter into a cost-sharing 

agreement for the premium cost of plug-ins. 


Improved Bus Service 


Many of the prospective tenants or condo owners would commute toward 

downtown. Currently, the closest public transportation is the No. 9 bus on East 

Broadway and H Street, three blocks away. The No. 7 bus runs from Otis and 

Summer Streets to City Point. During morning rush hours, Route 7 operates 

outbound from Downtown along Summer Street and serves the Harbor Industrial 

Park by turning right onto Pappas Way, and a left onto East First Street to City 

Point. Approximately half of the outbound morning peak period buses travel this 

diverted route to serve the Industrial Park. It returns downtown along Summer 

Street. During evening rush hours, it leaves City Point, travels down East First 

Street past the project site, taking a right onto Pappas Way to serve the Industrial 

Park, and then continues onto Summer Street into downtown, and returns 

outbound to City Point along Summer Street. Again, approximately half of the 

inbound buses travel this diverted route to serve the Industrial park in the evening 

peak period. Changes to the service in improve the service for tenants wanting to 

pick-up the Route 7 along East First Street is being discussed with the MBTA. It 

should be noted that Pappas Way is a private road and changes in the service 

would need to be discussed with the roadway owner. Further, there may be riders 

who currently pick up Route 7 along Summer Street who would have a decrease 

in their service. 

A preliminary discussion with the MBTA indicated a willingness to continue 

looking at these service modifications. The proponent is contacting tenants and 

residents in adjacent buildings to determine if sufficient ridership currently exists 

for these service improvements. 

Plug-In Hybrid Energy and Fuel Cost Savings 

The development project is unique in the integration of distributed power 

generation and plug-in hybrids. The proponent will use diesel generator 

equipment which runs on vegetable oil developed by Schmitt Enertec (Mayen, 

Germany) and installed and maintained by Kraft Power (Woburn, MA). These 



will produce power in a way which is minimally polluting and virtually carbon 

neutral. At market rates for vegetable oil, generated electrical power (subtracting 

the value of its useable heat and REC’s credits) will cost around 6 cents per 

kilowatt hour (kwh). 

Plug-in hybrids are three times as efficient as in-vehicle gasoline engines in miles 

per gallon of fuel burned 4 . With a distributed power system representing a 

roughly 1:1 ratio of electricity and heat, the efficiency of miles per gallon of fuel 

is raised to six times the efficiency of a conventional gasoline automobile. 

At 10 cents/kwh, plug-in hybrids will cost the equivalent of 50 cents/gallon to 

run. At the project’s lower electric rates, that cost is theoretically lowered to 30 

cents a mile. The use of distributed power and plug-in hybrids represents an 

experiment which may potentially set new benchmarks in nonpolluting fuel use 

and fuel economy. 

Transportation and Building Layout 

The project is designed in accordance with its transportation aims. The two new 

buildings come together at the corner of Dorchester Street and East First Street. 

There will be a café on level three (even with the grade of the interior courtyard 

and above the two levels of parking) where people can assemble to wait for the 

bus, to take the shuttles, or to pick up a car pool ride. To depart by bus, people 

will go downstairs (16 ft) to a weather-protected lobby on the corner of 

Dorchester Street and First Street, and from there to the bus stop across the street. 

Access will be provided to parking level 2, from which the commuter vans will 

depart. A third option allows them to go to the designed numbered parking space 

in the two-level garage to pick up their car pool ride. All information about bus 

schedules, van and carpool deployments, will be accessible by a large monitor in 

4 Scientific American, April 2006 “Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction,” Technology Review, May 24th, 2006. 

Plug-in Hybrids are on the Way. 



the café. Computer terminals at several tables will allow ride scheduling on the 

spot. 

The café will be an attractive social meeting place, with a patio open to the 

courtyard in good weather, an adjacent art gallery, and a view out to First Street 

and the city skyline. 

9.6.3 Loading and Service Management Actions 

Service and loading activities for the development is accommodated in the dock 

area located within the building and from the driveway area in the central 

courtyard. Access to the main loading dock is via a driveway located on H Street. 

The majority of goods and services delivered to tenants and residents of the 

Distillery project will be primarily by single-panel trucks or smaller delivery 

vehicles such as vans. Typical deliveries will include artists’ supplies, residential 

moves and trash collection for the building. The loading dock has been designed 

to accommodate 35-foot vehicles (SU-35) without encroaching onto sidewalks 

and driveways. Occasionally longer vehicles may visit the site. The dock staff 

will actively manage these occasions. It is anticipated that Federal Express, other 

package and mail deliveries will come through the main building entrance within 

the courtyard area accessed via the driveway located on East Second Street. 

These trucks can execute three-point turnarounds in the area near the current main 

entrance. There will also be a loading area on the first level of the garage for the 

condominium units accessed via Dorchester Street. 

9.6.4 Construction Management 

The proponent will develop a detailed evaluation of potential short-term 

construction-related transportation impacts including construction vehicle traffic, 

parking supply and demand, and pedestrian access. Detailed Construction 

Management Plans will be developed and submitted to the BTD for their 

approval. These plans will detail construction vehicle routing and staging. 


Construction Vehicle Traffic 


Construction vehicles will be necessary to move construction materials to and 

from the project sites. Every effort will be made to reduce the noise, control 

fugitive dust, and minimize other disturbances associated with construction 

traffic. It is anticipated that East First Street will serve as the principal 

construction traffic route. Truck staging and lay-down areas for the project will 

be carefully planned. The need for street occupancy (lane closures) along 

roadways adjacent to the project site is not known at this time. 

Construction Parking Issues 

Contractors will be encouraged to devise access plans for their personnel that deemphasize 

auto use (such as seeking off-site parking, provide transit subsidies, 

on-site lockers, etc.) Construction workers will be encouraged to use public 

transportation to access the project site because no new parking will be provided 

for them. Because of the construction workers early arrival/departure (7:00AM- 

3:00PM) schedule, a conflict for on-street parking is not anticipated. 

Pedestrian Access During Construction 

During the construction period, pedestrian activity adjacent to the parcels may be 

impacted by sidewalk closures. A variety of measures will be considered and 

implemented to protect the safety of pedestrians. Temporary walkways, 

appropriate lighting, and new directional and informational signage to direct 

pedestrians around the construction sites will be provided. After construction is 

complete, finished pedestrian sidewalks will be permanently reconstructed to 

meet ADA standards around the new facilities. Any damage as a result of 

construction vehicles or otherwise will be repaired per City standards. 



9.7 TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PLAN AGREEMENT & CONSTRUCTION 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

As required by the Article 80 process, the Proponent will prepare and submit a 

Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA) and Construction Management 

Plan (CMP) for review by the BTD and other City of Boston agencies as 

appropriate. 

Specifically, the TAPA will address the following: 

• Assessment of overall traffic impacts and mitigation adequacy; 

• Assessment of construction traffic impacts and mitigation; 

• Monitoring and mitigation of traffic impacts; and 

• Management of loading and deliveries. 

The following are some of the elements that are anticipated to be included in a 

forthcoming CMP to support the project: 

• The primary vehicular access to the project site during the construction period 

will be from East First Street. 

• The construction site will be maintained on private property and will likely 

not require long-term roadway and/or sidewalk occupancies (other than for 

utilities connections, the reconstruction of new driveways and sidewalks, 

lighting, and street furniture. 

• Construction worker parking will be provided on-site. 

• A majority of staging areas for construction are anticipated to be located 

directly on the site. 


APPENDIX 9-1 SOUTH BOSTON PARKIN G FREEZE 





10.0 INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS 

10.1 INTRODUCTION 


The Distillery project will connect to existing city and utility company systems in 

the adjacent public streets. This chapter evaluates the infrastructure systems that 

will support the project. Based on initial investigations and consultations with the 

appropriate agencies and utility companies, existing infrastructure systems are 

available at the project site and appear adequately sized to accept the incremental 

increase in demand associated with the development and operation of the project. 

The following utilities were reviewed: wastewater, water, drainage, electricity and 

telecommunications. In addition, consideration was given to the sustainable 

elements of the energy supply provision for the project. 

This project will include a number of innovative sustainable design features 

aimed at reducing the depletion of natural resources through increased 

efficiencies, selection in materials and overall design philosophy. This will 

ultimately result in a lower operating demand for building systems. The project is 

still in the design process and these exact savings will be refined and documented 

as the project moves forward. For the purposes of this section we have carried 

typical generation rates for sewer and water as well as initial design demands and 

service needs for energy systems to ensure that this evaluation takes a 

conservative approach to the availability of public and private utility systems. 

The final design process for the project will include all required engineering 

analyses and will adhere to all applicable protocols and design standards, ensuring 

that the proposed buildings are properly supported by, and in turn properly use by 

the City’s infrastructure. Detailed design of the project’s utility systems will 

proceed in conjunction with the design of the buildings and interior mechanical 

systems. 

10.0 Infrastructure 10-1


The systems discussed below include those owned or managed by the Boston 

Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC), private utility companies and on-site 

infrastructure systems. There will be close coordination among these entities and 

with the Project Engineers and Architects during subsequent reviews and design 

process. Figure 10-1 depicts the existing utilities infrastructure and Figure 10-2 

shows the approximate proposed utility locations. 

All improvements and connections to BWSC infrastructure will be reviewed by 

BWSC as part of the BWSC Site Plan Review Process. This process includes a 

comprehensive design review of the proposed service connections, assessment of 

system demands and capacity and establishment of service accounts. 

Regulatory Framework 

This chapter, in addition to a description of existing and future infrastructure 

connections, discusses the regulatory framework of utility connection reviews and 

standards. All connections will be designed and constructed in accordance with 

city, state and federal standards. 

• In the City of Boston, BWSC is responsible for the majority of water, sewer 

and stormwater systems. 

• A sewer connection/extension permit from the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) will be required. 

• The Boston Fire Department (BFD) will review the Project with respect to fire 

protection measures such as siamese connections and standpipes. 

• Design of the site access, hydrant locations and energy systems (electric) will 

also be coordinated with the respective system owner. 

• New utility connections will be authorized by the Boston Public Works 

Department through the street opening permit process, as required. 

Additional information on the regulatory framework for each utility system is 

included in subsequent sections of this chapter. 



A more complete list of the state and local permits anticipated in connection with 

the project infrastructure is included above in Chapter 3. Figure 10-1 shows the 

existing infrastructure at the site. 

10.2 WASTEWATER 

10.2.1 Existing Wastewater 

Local sanitary sewer service in the City is provided by the BWSC. Sewage 

generated by the existing building on the site is collected by the BWSC’s 12-inch 

combined sewer and drain line in Dorchester Street. In addition, the site is served 

by a 36x48-inch and a 20x27-inch combined sewer along East Second Street. 

Furthermore, a 12-inch sewer along East First Street flows into the previously 

mentioned 36x48-inch combined main in H Street before turning the corner 

towards East Second Street. 

10.2.2 Demand / Use 

The Distillery Project’s residential units, including the artist live-work studios, 

will generate approximately 10,230 gallons per day (gpd). The retail and café 

aspects of the project are expected to generate an additional 1,919 gpd. The 

gallery, greenhouse and remaining commercial area will also contribute 2,837 

gpd. A total sewer generation of approximately 15,000 gpd for the building 

program is expected. Generation rates from the Massachusetts State 

Environmental Code (Title 5) were used. The project is also expected to generate 

additional demand from cooling system operations which will slightly increase 

the total sewer generation. The project is currently exploring opportunities for 

water re-use that would limit this demand. 

10.2.3 Proposed Connection 

The sanitary collection system in the immediately adjacent streets is a combined 

system meaning that both drainage and sewerage are conveyed in the same lane 



and are ultimately discharged to the wastewater treatment plant at Deer Island. 

The city has an ongoing program to eliminate such systems where feasible to limit 

unnecessary flows to Deer Island and increase system capacities and limit 

potential for overflow of sewerage during rain events. Ideally the project will be 

designed to support any future separation improvements that are planned. At a 

minimum the design will include separate drain and sewer connections with the 

ability to be directed to different systems in the future. The project team has had 

initial discussions with Boston Water and Sewer regarding the proximity of the 

site planned separation improvements. The proponent will work with BWSC 

regarding appropriate location and configurations that correspond with the 

Commission’s larger plan for any separation program. 

Sewer service for the new building will consist of three residential connections 

onto Dorchester Street; and two separate connections along East First Street to 

service the café and retail portion of the project. 

The proponent will coordinate with BWSC and the necessary agencies on the 

design and capacity for proposed connections to the sewer system. In addition, 

the proponent will submit a General Service Application and site plan, for review, 

as the project progresses. 

The project will generate new wastewater flows exceeding 15,000 gallons per day 

which will require a Sewer Connection Permit from the DEP. 

10.3 DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION 

10.3.1 Existing Water Supply System 

Water will be provided by the BWSC. There are five different water 

systems/service districts within the City, which provide service to portions of the 

City based on ground surface elevation. The five systems are southern low 

(commonly known as low service), southern high (commonly known as high 



service), southern extra high, northern low and northern high. Water service for 

the existing building is supplied by a 12-inch southern low service in Dorchester 

Street. The project site is also serviced by a 12-inch southern high line in East 

First, East Second and H Streets along with a 12-inch southern low service main 

in East First Street. 

Domestic water demand is based on estimated sewage generation with an added 

factor of 10 percent for consumption, system losses and other use. Based upon 

sewage generation rates outlined in the DEP Sewer Connection and Extension 

Regulations, 310 CMR 15.203.f, the Project will require approximately 16,500 

gallons of water per day. Additional demand will be required as “make-up” water 

for operation of the building cooling systems resulting in an increase of the total 

demand. However, water re-use will be pursued for limited building uses. Total 

demand will be defined as the project design is developed. 

Hydrant test data was obtained from BWSC for hydrants located on H Street and 

East First Street. The test results, provided in Table 10-1, indicate there is 

adequate flow and pressure in the area to service the project. 

Table 10-1 Hydrant Flow Results 

Date Location Static 

Pressure 

(psi) 

3/25/99 H Street 

(hydrant 236) 

1/31/97 H Street 

(hydrant 236) 

1. psi= pounds per square inch 

Residual 

Pressure 

(psi) 

Total 

Flow 

(gpm) 

90 65 2126 3707 

88 75 1417 3464 

Flow 

(gpm) @ 20 

psi1 The results of the hydrant flow test indicate the actual amount of water (flow) 

available and the actual pressure (residual) flow provided. For reference, these 



numbers are analyzed to establish the quantity of water that will be delivered to 

the project site at 20 psi. 

10.3.2 Proposed Connection 

The project will be serviced by BWSC’s low service system located in Dorchester 

and East First Street for both domestic and fire protection service. Domestic 

water service connections required by the project will meet the applicable city and 

state codes and standards, including cross-connection backflow prevention. 

Compliance with the standards for the domestic water system service connections 

will be reviewed as part of BWSC’s Site Plan Review Process. The review 

includes, but not limited to, sizing of domestic water and fire protection services, 

calculation of meter sizing, backflow prevention design, and location of hydrants 

and siamese connections conform to BWSC and BFD requirements. 

10.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 

The project site is currently a combination of areas both pervious and impervious 

to rainfall percolation. Construction of the project will not produce significant 

changes in either the pattern of, or increase the rate of, stormwater runoff. The 

project will look to include state of the art sustainability measures that will aim to 

reduce runoff volumes and reuse resources where possible. Stormwater 

management controls will be established in compliance with BWSC standards, 

and the project will not result in the introduction of any peak flows, pollutants, or 

sediments that would potentially impact the local BWSC stormwater drainage 

system. 

10.4.1 Existing Conditions 

The property is serviced by multiple combined sewer and drain lines along 

Dorchester Street, East Second and H Street as mentioned previously. In 



addition, a 12-inch drain line in East First Street services the site where it 

eventually discharges to the Boston Harbor. 

The site currently is broken into two sub-watersheds: the building area and the 

remaining paved areas. Both the existing building and pavement run-off drains to 

the adjacent drainage system via perimeter catch basins. 

10.4.2 Proposed Conditions 

Construction of the project will not produce significant changes in the rate of 

stormwater runoff from the site. The project courtyard will connect and drain to 

the main in East Second Street in addition to spaced roof drains along Dorchester 

Street. 

Remaining stormwater generated from the project will be collected on site and 

conveyed within a private drainage system for re-use applications to the greatest 

extent possible. Building run-off will also be controlled by the proposed 24-inch 

raised bed green roof. As part of BWSC’s review process, the proponent will 

consider measures wherever applicable to minimize flows leaving the site. 

Table 10-2 contains stormwater peak runoff estimates for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 

100-year storm events. The existing condition runoff is slightly higher than the 

proposed condition runoff. 

Table 10-2 Stormwater Runoff 

2-year 

storm 

10-year 

storm 

25-year 

storm 

100-year 

storm 

Estimated existing runoff (cfs) 1 5.44 7.87 9.43 11.34 

Estimated future runoff (cfs) 4.31 6.68 8.23 10.13 

1. cfs = cubic feet per second 



Stormwater management controls will be established in compliance with BWSC 

standards; the project will not introduce any increased peak flows, pollutants or 

sediments that would potentially impact the Boston Harbor. In conjunction with 

the site plan and the General Service Application, the proponent will submit a 

stormwater management plan to BWSC. Compliance with the standards for the 

final site design will be reviewed as part of BWSC’s Site Plan Review Process. 

10.4.3 Compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Policy 

The project involves the redevelopment of a previously developed site. Standard 7 

of the Stormwater Management Standards states: “Redevelopment of previously 

developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Policy to the maximum 

extent practicable. However, if it is not practicable to meet all the Standards, new 

(retrofitted or expanded) stormwater management systems must be designed to 

improve existing conditions.” To demonstrate the ways in which the project will 

be consistent with the Stormwater Management Policy, a discussion of each 

Stormwater Management Standard follows: 

Standard #1: Untreated Stormwater 

The project will treat the runoff contributed by plazas and driveway areas through 

appropriate stormwater measures. DEP Management Standards identify rooftop 

runoff (except certain metal roofs) as uncontaminated for the purposes of the 

Stormwater Management Standards. 

Standard #2: Post-Development Peak Discharge Rates 

The project will employ features such as green roofs and water collection systems 

for rainwater re-use that are anticipated to reduce runoff from the site. The 

proposed condition will also feature more landscaping and pervious surfaces than 

currently exist which will further reduce runoff from the site. Accordingly, the 

post-development discharge rate is expected not to exceed the pre-development 



discharge rate to the receiving body of water (Boston Harbor). Since the 

discharge rate is not expected to increase, no increased flooding impacts are 

expected. 

Standard #3: Recharge to Groundwater 

The project site is not located with the Groundwater Overlay District therefore 

there is no local requirement for groundwater recharge. However, opportunities 

for on-site recharge will be explored as part of the stormwater management 

design. This will likely be done through pervious pavements (porous asphalt or 

open joint pavers) and the addition of landscape areas. 

Standard #4: 80 Percent Total Suspended Solids Removal 

No new surface control structures are proposed. The sidewalk and pavement 

runoff will discharge to existing catch basins or proposed inlets constructed in 

connection with the project. 

Standard #5: Higher Potential Pollutant Loads 

The project site does not contain land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. 

Standard #6: Protection of Critical Areas 

The project site does not contain any critical areas. 

Standard #7: Redevelopment Projects 

The project does not increase impervious area and it will meet the Stormwater 

Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable, which is required to 

meet Standard #7. 

Standard #8: Erosion/Sediment Controls 



The project’s construction documents will include measures and specifications 

regarding erosion and sediment controls and barriers (e.g., silt fence, hay bales, 

and catch basin sacks). Construction dewatering discharges will be appropriately 

controlled and discharged in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) and state dewatering standards. 

Standard #9: Operation/Maintenance Plan 

An Operation and Maintenance plan will be developed for both construction and 

post-development, which will include, at a minimum, system ownership 

information, parties responsible for operation and maintenance, and inspection 

and maintenance schedules. Routine maintenance is expected to include catch 

basin cleaning, stormwater control cleaning and removal of debris from outlets. It 

is also expected that pedestrian and vehicular access ways will be swept 

appropriately to control sand applied during winter months. 

Measures aimed at minimizing the disposition of site soils to off-site areas, 

primarily the surrounding streets and existing drainage collection systems, will be 

a part of the City’s required Construction Management Plan. In addition, the 

proponent will apply for all appropriate permits for construction activity and 

dewatering. All efforts will be made to contain sediment, pollutants and any other 

construction-related materials within the site. Stabilized construction 

entrances/exits will be installed at each access point of the work areas to minimize 

off-site transport of soil by construction vehicles. These entrances/exits will 

remain in place until site areas have been stabilized. In addition, the proponent 

will use Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction including 

installing silt sacks on catch basins, a truck-trailer wheel wash station, antitracking 

pads and covering material piles. 


10.5 ANTICIPATED ENERGY NEEDS 

10.5.1 Electrical Service 


One of the primary features of the project’s sustainable design is the inclusion of a 

vegetable oil based cogeneration system that will be designed to provide 

electricity and heating service demand for the site. This system will be connected 

to the NSTAR system which will provide any unusual peak needs and service 

when the cogeneration system is under maintenance. 

NSTAR has service in East First, East Second and H Street. Availability of 

service will be determined as the building design progresses; however less 

demand will be required from NSTAR compared with other developments. A 

proposed connection to East First Street will provide service for the reserve 

electrical system. The proponent will work with NSTAR on particulars as the 

project design advances. 

10.5.2 Natural Gas 

It is not the intention of this project to use gas as an energy source since it is not 

cost effective and is associated with health problems in residential settings. 

10.5.3 Telecommunications 

It is the proponent’s goal as a sustainability initiative to accommodate the latest 

available telecommunications system configuration for enhanced speed and 

mobility enabling site residents to telecommute. 

The proponent will select private telecommunications companies to provide 

telephone, cable and data services. There are several potential candidates with 

substantial downtown Boston networks capable of providing service. Upon 

selection of a provider or providers, the proponent will coordinate service 

connection locations and obtain appropriate approvals. 


10.6 PROTECTION OF UTILITIES 


Existing public and private infrastructure located within the public right-of-way 

will be protected during construction. The installation of proposed utilities within 

the public way will be in accordance with BWSC, Boston Public Works 

Department, the Dig-Safe Program and governing utility company requirements. 

All necessary permits will be obtained before the commencement of work. 

Specific methods for constructing proposed utilities where they are near to, or 

connect with, existing water, sewer or drain facilities will be reviewed by BWSC 

as part of its Site Plan Review Process. 

10.7 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN / ENERGY CONSERVATION 

The proposed buildings will use an engineering approach to achieve reduction in 

energy use and environmental impact which until now has been achievable only 

by small-scale experimental architecture. This approach involves three main 

factors: building geometry, cogeneration of electricity with renewable fuel, and 

energy efficient shell and floor slabs. Other techniques, passive solar heat gain, 

heliostats, daylighting, natural venting and heat recovery venting are included in 

our design, but play a lesser role in the energy performance. Integration of 

electrical cogeneration, plug-in hybrid vehicles and other innovative 

transportation initiatives also contribute to benchmark setting reductions in the 

total energy and environmental impact of the site. 

The geometry of most buildings in South Boston (and many other neighborhoods) 

is energy inefficient with one to three unit free-standing dwellings with narrow 

alleys between them. The proposed building on Dorchester Street takes the 

compact form of attached row houses extended to a depth of 76 feet (as opposed 

to a more typical 40 to 50 feet). By including a central atrium light and air is 

brought to the inner portion of the building. Carefully designed fenestration and 

the use of heliostats minimize energy loss from the atrium while maximizing 

daylight. 



For the First Street building the site dictates a building depth of 56 feet, so an 

atrium is not necessary, instead getting light and air into the habitable spaces from 

windows on both sides. Both buildings are designed without a central corridor in 

order to allow through-ventilation and therefore the possibility of nighttime 

cooling and associated energy savings. Concrete floor slabs and other use of 

thermal mass will also reduce peak energy loads. With a tight and highly 

insulated building enclosure, energy use is expected to be 40% of that of a new 

building to code of similar geometry, and around 25% when compared to 

structures with a more typical geometry. 

The electrical loads will be supplied by on site internal combustion generators 

fueled by vegetable oil (or biodiesel). Energy models show that the building will 

be in balance, so that the heat from electrical generation is sufficient for the heat, 

hot water, and cooling needs of the building. Cooling will be achieved with the 

application of adsorption chillers. The balanced use of heat from cogeneration of 

electricity for all the thermal loads pushes the energy efficiency of the building up 

to 80% reduction from buildings of similar geometry, and 90% improvement over 

typical geometry. 

In the energy planning of the building, the objective has been to avoid all 

technologies that are not cost-effective relative to greenhouse-gas producing 

alternatives. For that reason solar photovoltaics have not been included since at 

current prices they produce electricity at an unsubsidized $.27/kWh. 

Cogeneration of electricity with vegetable oil produces electricity well below 

current market rates after accounting for the value of the recoverable heat. As the 

electricity is generated from a renewable biofuel, there is the option of selling 

RECS and reducing the cost of electricity at this site to near zero. The economics 

of this technology is expected to make this building a model attractive for others 

to adopt. 


10.8 CONCLUSION 


The Distillery Project will use the existing water, sewer, and electrical systems 

available in public streets adjacent the project site. Research and coordination to 

date indicates that these services have the ability to support the increased demands 

associated with the development of the project. The proponent will continue to 

work with the utility authorities on the design and servicing of the proposed 

project. The project is consistent with DEP’s Stormwater Management Policy 

and it incorporates a number of sustainable design and energy conservation 

measures. 


11.0 GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT 1 

11.1 Project Description 

General 


The 516 East Second Street project in South Boston, Massachusetts consists 

of the design and construction of a proposed four-story residential complex 

with an attached greenhouse and an underground parking garage. The new 

residential complex will replace two existing structures at the site along 

Dorchester Street and East 1st Street. This report provides geotechnical 

design recommendations for the proposed residential construction. 

The geotechnical scope of work performed by Weidlinger Associates, Inc. 

(Weidlinger) for this project comprises: 

1. Collection and review of available data on subsurface conditions in 

the project area. 

2. Observation and documentation of subsurface explorations 

consisting of geotechnical borings. 

3. Summary of available boring data; a generalized interpretation of 

subsurface conditions; recommended design values for soil 

engineering properties based on laboratory and field test data. 

4. Geotechnical engineering analyses and design and construction 

recommendations. 

5. Summary of data and recommendations in a Geotechnical Report. 

The analysis excludes all environmental related work therefore 

environmental-related issues are not addressed in this report. 

Existing Conditions 

1 The source of this chapter (with a very few syntactical edits) is a report on the site at 516 East Second Street, South 

Boston by Weidlinger Associates Inc. Final Geotechnical Data and Geotechnical Engineering Report dated January 

13 th 2006. 

11.0 Geotechnical Impact 11-1


Three structures are currently present at the site: (1) a seven-story brick 

building with a basement level located at the southeast corner of the site, (2) a 

one-story brick warehouse with a mezzanine situated along Dorchester Street 

on the western side of the property, and (3) a one-story cinderblock building 

on the northwest section of the site. Neither of the one-story structures has a 

basement level. The locations of the existing buildings are shown in Figure 

11-2, Project Site Aerial Photograph. The proposed residential complex will 

be located along East First Street and Dorchester Street as shown in The 

Architectural Drawings; and the one-story brick warehouse and cinderblock 

building will be razed to make room for the new condominium complex. 

11.2 Subsurface Exploration Program 

The subsurface exploration program conducted at 516 East Second Street 

consisted of seven (7) test borings (WB-1 through WB-7) drilled from 

November 8 to November 18, 2005 by New England Boring Contractors, Inc. 

of Glastonbury, Connecticut. The seven borings included standard split spoon 

sampling at five-foot intervals in accordance with the procedures of ASTM 

D1586. In addition, groundwater elevations were measured in each of the 

boreholes during the drilling operation. A Weidlinger representative was 

present during the explorations to observe and document the operations and 

the conditions encountered. 

The purpose of the test borings was to determine the type and properties of the 

subsurface soils in the vicinity of the proposed condominiums. The locations 

of the test borings are shown on Figure 11-3, Boring Location Plan. The 

borings were advanced using rotary drilling methods and four-inch casing, 

with the exception of WB-2, located within the existing warehouse, which 

was advanced with three-inch casing. Test boring logs are provided in Table 

11-3 at the end of this chapter. Descriptions of subsurface conditions observed 

from these borings are presented in Section 11.3 below. 


11.3 Subsurface Conditions 


The seven borings drilled during the subsurface exploration program 

terminated at depths ranging from 37 feet below ground surface (bgs) for WB- 

2 to 72 feet bgs for WB-5. Summary of boring depth and surface elevation at 

the borings are included as Table 11-1. 

Table 11-1 Summary of Boring Depths and Depth to Water Table 

Measurement Measurement Ground Water Boring Boring 

Location Date Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) 

WB-1 11/11/05 8:00am 17.5 31.5 60.0 

WB-2 11/17/05 1:00 pm 11.5 19.5 37.0 

WB-3 11/9/05 10:50am 12.0 18.0 45'9" 

WB-4 11/11/05 11:30am 9.5 18.5 52.0 

WB-5 11/14/05 1:50pm 9.5 21.5 72.0 

WB-6 11/14/05 12.5 27.5 52.0 

WB-7 11/16/05 16.0 29.0 58.0 

Groundwater level measurements were made while boreholes were open during the boring program. 

Based on conditions encountered in these borings, surficial deposits consist 

primarily of four strata: Miscellaneous Fill, Sand, Clay and Till. Of the seven 

borings, rock was encountered only in boring WB-7 at approximately 56 feet 

bgs. The rock is identified as gray weathered Argillite. The rock sample was 

retrieved in the SPT sampler and not from rock core, therefore, though the 

presence of the rock likely mark the top of rock at that location, this finding is 

not conclusive. 

Subsurface profiles derived based on conditions encountered at the borings are 

shown in Figure 11-4. Following is a brief description of the surficial deposits 



at the boring locations and the general site geology at the condominium 

complex: 

Miscellaneous Fill 

The soil borings indicate that portions of the site area are covered with 

approximately 4 to 17 feet of miscellaneous fill. Fill was encountered in all 

borings except for WB-2 and WB-7. In general, the fill sampled consisted of 

brown fine to coarse sand and varying amounts of ash/cinders, gravel, and 

fines. Occasional fragments of brick and concrete were encountered within the 

fill. The fill ranged in density from very loose to very dense, with the Standard 

Penetration Test (SPT) N-values ranging from 2 blows per foot to a blow 

count of 50/2”. 

Sand 

A sand layer was found underlying the miscellaneous fill in borings WB-1, 

throughout the entire boring in WB-2, between two clay layers in boring WB- 

3, and at ground level and directly beneath a sand and gravel stratum in WB-7. 

This sand layer was not encountered in WB-4, WB-5, and WB-6. The 

thickness of this stratum ranged from 2 feet in boring WB-3 to over 37 feet in 

boring WB-2. 

The density of the sand is medium dense to very dense, with SPT N-values 

ranging from 23 blows per foot to a blow count of 100/6”. This stratum can be 

described as brown fine to coarse sand with varying amount of silt and gravel. 

Based on its relative density and neighboring deposits, it is probable that this 

sand layer was deposited as glacial outwash. 

Clay 

At borings WB-3, WB-4, and WB-5, a 5 to 33-foot thick layer of clay was 

encountered beneath the miscellaneous fill. At borings WB-3 and WB-7, a 

clay stratum was also found below a sand layer. Clay was not encountered in 



borings WB-1, WB-2, or WB-6. The consistency of the clay is medium stiff to 

very hard, with SPT N-values ranging from 6 to 40 blows per foot. This clay 

stratum can be described as gray clay with varying amounts of sand and silt 

with occasional traces of gravel. Based on the local geology and the visual 

classification of the samples obtained, this clay stratum was probably 

deposited under a marine environment and is locally known as Boston Blue 

Clay. 

Till 

A layer of till consisting of sand and gravel was found directly below the 

miscellaneous fill at boring WB-6, beneath a sand layer in WB-7, and at the 

base of borings WB-1, WB-3, WB-4, and WB-5. The thickness of this layer 

ranged from 7 feet in WB-7 to over 42 feet in WB-1. Since borings WB-1, 

WB-3, WB-4, WB-5, and WB-6 terminated in this till stratum, the thickness 

of this layer cannot be assessed based on existing borings. The density of this 

stratum is dense to very dense, with SPT N-values ranging from 32 blows per 

foot to a blow count of 100/3”. The sand and gravel layer can be described as 

brown fine to coarse sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt. 

Site Geology 

Figure 11-5 shows the bedrock geology map of the Boston area. As indicated on 

Figure 11-5, in the vicinity of the project site, the underlying rock is expected to 

be soft rocks such as Argillite, slate, volcanic ash, and sandstone. A small amount 

of Argillite was encountered at the bottom of Boring WB-7 thus indicating the rock 

to be consistent with the known bedrock geology in the region. Figure 11-6, 

Location of Telegraph Hill and Historic Shoreline, is a plan of the South Boston 

Area illustrating that a portion of South Boston is occupied by Telegraph Hill. 

Telegraph Hill is considered a drumlin (Skehan, 2001) consisting of a bedrock 

high mantled with till. Kaye (1976) indicates that the surface of the bedrock is 

high near the top of Telegraph Hill and then drops off quickly away from 

Telegraph Hill to the east and west. Previous seismic and geotechnical 



investigations indicate that the bedrock surface is 40 to 50 feet bgs near the 

intersection of Columbia Road and Damrell just south of Telegraph Hill. Directly 

to the east of Telegraph Hill, there appears to be a bedrock valley that has been 

filled with till and glacial outwash deposits. Very thin and discontinuous marine 

clay deposits have been encountered in this filled valley area. 

Like many regions in Boston, areas encircling Telegraph Hill are filled land 

with a typical stratigraphic sequence of fill, thin discontinuous sand deposits, 

organic silt and clay, marine clay, and till overlying the bedrock. As shown on 

Figure 11-6, the project site is located at the edge of the natural shoreline as it 

existed in 1630. Figure 11-7, Historic Shoreline, shows historic shoreline as 

of 1868 and indicates that approximately the northern third of the site is 

beyond the shoreline at that time. Sanborn map of 1888, shown as Figure 11- 

8, indicates that a dock was present at the northwest corner of the site. 

Considering the local geology, site topography, evaluation of the historic 

shoreline, and the subsurface conditions encountered at the borings, the 

southern half of the site appears to be located on the edge of the Telegraph 

Hill drumlin thus underlain by till (consistent with materials encountered at 

borings WB-1 and WB-7). The northern side of the site is situated on filled 

land thus fill is anticipated above the natural deposit (consistent with materials 

encountered at borings WB-3 2 , WB-4, WB-5, and WB-6). WB-2 is located 

within the existing warehouse and the historic fill was probably removed as 

part of the construction of the warehouse. Given the presence of the dock and 

the expansion of the shoreline since late 1800’s, it is also anticipated that large 

granite blocks are present below the northern portion of the site. Granite 

blocks are commonly used as seawalls and are generally not removed as the 

shoreline expands. Exact configuration and locations of the seawall at this site 

are unknown due to limited information obtained for this project. 

Nevertheless, the presence of the seawalls is likely and is considered 

obstructions for the underground structures, if encountered. 

2 WB-2 is located within the existing warehouse and the historic fill was probably removed as part of the construction of 

the warehouse. 


11.4 Groundwater 


Depth to groundwater at the seven borings observed during the site 

investigation program ranged from approximately El. 9.5 to El. 17.5, with an 

average groundwater elevation of El.12.0 feet. Groundwater measurements 

made during the field program are tabulated in Table 11-1. Given the 

proximity of the site to the Reserved Channel, it should be expected that 

groundwater levels might be subjected to variations due to tidal fluctuations as 

well as seasonal precipitation. It is recommended that readings be made prior 

to construction at the existing observation wells at the site to quantify the tidal 

and seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater level. 

11.5 Foundation Design Recommendations 

The proposed new structures at this site include four-story residential complex 

as indicated in the Architectural Drawings (Chapter 7). The geotechnical 

concerns for this site are potential building differential settlements and 

minimizing groundwater movements. Groundwater flow is of concern since 

the owner has indicated that within a relatively confined section near the 

northwestern corner of the site, known contaminant was encountered. Due to 

the presence of known contaminant, it is recommended that special 

precautions should be followed during construction to minimize groundwater 

flow that may potentially induce the movement of the contaminants as well as 

disposal of excavated material and decontamination of the equipment that 

came in contact with the contaminant. 

Groundwater measurements obtained during the boring program consistently 

show the groundwater level below the final proposed top of slab. Additional 

groundwater readings should be made at the existing observation wells to 

verify the groundwater level relative to the slab grade accounting for tidal and 

seasonal fluctuations. This information should be obtained prior to 

construction as it may impact the construction sequence, extent, method, and 

schedule of the building foundation. 



Based on borings and the site geology, 2 subsurface conditions exist at the 

site: (A) profile with sand and till and (B) profile with clay. Foundation 

recommendations for these 2 profiles are presented below: 

Profile A 

Along Dorchester Street south of Boring WB-2 and WB-6, the new building is 

likely to be founded on the sand or till (sand and gravel). Based on visual 

classification, the underlying sand and till can be classified as Material Class 7 

or 8 in accordance with the 6th edition of the Massachusetts State Building 

Code (MSBC, Table 1804). The N-value for the sand and till layer is 

generally above 35 blows/ft indicating the material to be dense to very dense. 

It is recommended that spread footing foundations with maximum allowable 

bearing pressure of 4 tons/ft 2 be used on the dense sand and till. The bottom of 

the footing should extend 4-ft below the final grade for frost protection with a 

minimum width of 3-ft. For footing width of 2-ft, the maximum allowable 

bearing pressure is 3 tons/ft 2 . The estimated settlement for loading within the 

allowable bearing stated above is less than 0.3”. If the till is not encountered at 

a depth of 4-ft at footing locations, the existing miscellaneous fill should be 

excavated to an additional depth of 4 feet or to top of sand or till, whichever is 

less, and replaced with compacted structural fill. However, should conditions 

require excavation to or below the elevation of the bottom of the footing, the 

engineer should be informed and site visit by the engineer should be made to 

provide recommendations based on actual conditions encountered prior to the 

contractor proceeding. Structural fill should be placed in 9” loose lifts with 

each successive lift compacted to a density of not less than 95 percent of the 

maximum as determined by ASTM D1557. Recommended material gradation 

for structural fill and gravel borrow base course is shown in Table 11-2. 

Permanent retaining walls and temporary support of excavation walls should 

be designed to sustain the lateral earth and water pressures shown on Figure 

11-9. For the permanent retaining wall design, it should be assumed that the 


Table 11-2 Recommended Material Gradation 

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight 

4-inch 100 

½ inch 50 – 85 

No. 4 40 – 75 

No. 10 10 – 35 

No. 100 5 – 20 

No. 200 2 - 10 


groundwater elevation is 2-ft above the top of base slab. This assumed 

groundwater level is significantly higher than the actual condition and is only 

applicable for the design of permanent retaining wall. For the design of other 

building components, the actual groundwater level, which is few feet below 

the final grade, should be used. 

Profile B 

Along East First Street, north of Boring WB-2 and WB-6, fill and clay is 

likely to be present below the new building. Based on visual classification, the 

underlying clay can be classified as Material Class 10 accordance with the 6th 

edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC, Table 1804). The 

N-value for the clay layer is generally above 6 blows/ft with the top 10-ft of 

the clay stratum with N-values above 10 blows/ft indicating the material to be 

stiff at the top and medium stiff below. It is recommended that spread footing 

foundations with maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2 tons/ft 2 be used 

on the stiff to medium stiff clay. The bottom of the footing should extend 4-ft 

below the final grade for frost protection with a minimum width of 3-ft. For 

footing width of 2-ft, the maximum allowable bearing pressure is 1.5 tons/ft 2 . 

The estimated settlement for loading within the allowable bearing stated 

above is less than 0.75”. It is likely that the clay will not be encountered at a 

depth of 4-ft at footing locations in this area; in this case, the existing 

miscellaneous fill should be excavated to an additional depth of 4 feet or to 



top of clay and replaced with compacted structural fill. However, should 

conditions require excavation to or below the elevation of the bottom of the 

footing, the engineer should be informed and site visit by the engineer should 

be made to provide recommendations based on actual conditions encountered 

prior to the contractor proceeding. Structural fill should be placed in 9” loose 

lifts with each successive lift compacted to a density of not less than 95 

percent of the maximum as determined by ASTM D1557. The material 

gradation structural fill specified above should be used. In this case, the 

required over-excavation may extend below the water table. In this case, 

efforts should be made to minimize inducing additional groundwater flow thus 

potentially cause movement in the contaminant. In the vicinity of Boring WB- 

4, it may be necessary to over-excavate well below the water table due to the 

presence of a pocket of very loose fill (N-value of 2 blows/ft) encountered at 

WB-4. At other locations, the required over-excavation appear to be limited to 

4-ft as the existing fill appear to consist of acceptable material and density. In 

this area, the engineer must make a site visit and assess the actual conditions 

in order to provide appropriate recommendations based on the conditions 

encountered. If additional load bearing capacity is required, the use of helical 

piles or H-piles may be considered. Drilled-in piers, drilled shafts, or minipiles 

are not recommended due to the known presence of contaminants a the 

northwest corner of the site. 

Based on existing borings, the exact location of the transition from Profile A 

to Profile B is unknown and the exact location of transition can only be 

identified after commencement of the construction and as part of the 

foundation work. 

The temporary earth support for construction of these retaining walls and 

foundation elements should be designed by the contractor to prevent damage 

to adjacent structure including existing utilities, roadways, and buildings. 



Based on the soil and corresponding N-values encountered at the site, the soils 

at the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. 

11.6 Seismic Design 

Based on the results of the site investigation program, soil Profile A (southern 

part of the site) at this site can be categorized as type S1, with a site 

coefficient of 1.0 and soil Profile B (northern part of the site) can be 

categorized as type S2 with site coefficient of 1.2 (Table 1612.4.1, 780 CMR: 

Massachusetts State Building Code, 6th Edition). 

11.7 Construction considerations 

The site is located close to the historic shoreline with southern half of the site 

on till and the northern half on clay and fill. Based on the historic shoreline 

and the historic use of the site, it is anticipated that granite blocked seawall are 

present below the northern half of the site. The exact location and the 

configuration of the seawalls are unknown and they are potentially 

obstructions for the proposed underground work. Specific recommendations 

for the seawalls cannot be provided at this time since the most appropriate 

measure would depend on the final structure and the actual condition 

encountered. It is recommended that the contractor and the engineer are aware 

of this condition prior to construction thus are prepared to address this if 

seawalls are encountered. 

As indicated in the previous sections, the owner has indicated that there are 

environmental issues at the northwest corner of the site. Since environmental 

services are beyond the scope of our work, specific recommendations cannot 

be provided with regards to the treatment and disposal of the material. 

However, it is recommended that pumping of groundwater be avoided in 

order to minimize the potential to induce movements of the 

contaminant. Excavated material should also be tested so they can be 

properly disposed. If dewatering cannot be avoided, it is recommended 


References 


that sheetpiles bounding the site be installed in order to minimize flow 

into the site in response to the pumping. 

Skehan, J.W., 2001. Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Missoula, 

Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 

Kaye, C.A., 1976. The Geology and Early History of the Boston Area of 

Massachusetts: a bicentennial approach: the role of geology in the important 

events that took place around Boston 200 years ago, Geological Survey 

Bulletin; 1476, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 



Figure 11-1 Site Location 

Figure 11-2 

Project Site Aerial Photograph 


Figure 11-3 Boring Location Plan 

Figure 11-4 Subsurface Profile 



Figure 11-5 Bedrock Geology Map of the Boston Area 




Figure 11-6, Location of Telegraph Hill and Historic Shoreline 

Figure 11-7, Historic Shoreline of 1868 


Figure 11-8, 1888 Sanborn Map 



Figure 11-9 Lateral Earth Pressures 



Table 11-3 Boring Table 





















12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 


12.2 Wind 


The intention of this project from the outset has been to set new standards for 

sustainable design, construction and use of residential and associated mixed uses 

in an inner city location. In addition to the foregoing description of the project 

components and in compliance with Article 80B-3.2, the Environmental 

Protection Component of Article 80, the proponent has analyzed the project for 

compliance with the newly adopted regulations. This analysis is presented in 

Appendix 12-1 (Article 37 Project Checklist and Appendix 12-2 (LEED NC 

Checklist). The project scores 65 points out of a possible 73 on the Article 37 

checklist and 60 points out of a possible 69 on the LEED NC checklist. 

The proposed development is flanked by low rise buildings to the north and east 

(East First Street and H Street) and by low to medium rise residential 

development to the south and west (East Second Street and Dorchester Street. The 

annual prevailing wind is from the north-west (315 o ), principally a phenomenon 

of the winter months. In spring and fall the wind tends to veer from southwest 

(225 o ) to northwest (315 o ). In summer these patterns are to a certain extent 

conditioned by on-shore and off-shore breezes. In any of these conditions the new 

development is likely to prove an asset in providing something of a windbreak to 

the Second Street neighborhood frontage opposite and is unlikely to cause 

turbulence in any area – except possibly the courtyard within the development 

itself. This potential effect is mitigated by the open exposure to sunshine even 

during the winter months. 

12.0 Environmental Impacts 12-1

Figure 12-1 Prevailing winds (annual) 

Figure 12-2 Prevailing winds (monthly) 



Figure 12-3 Prevailing Wind diagram 

12.3 Shadow 


The shadow diagrams shown in Figure 12-4 illustrate sun and shadow conditions 

in Summer (June 21 st ), Equinox (March 21 st and September 21 st ) and Winter 

(December 21 st ) at 9am, noon, 3pm and 6pm (as appropriate). The massing of the 

proposed development ensures that every part of the new buildings is exposed to 

direct sunlight for a significant period of the day in all seasons. The southeast 

elevation of the Dorchester Street block is at the outer limit of the shadow line 

caused by the Distillery building at 9am in December. Likewise, the existing 

Distillery and Warehouse buildings are not affected by the new development 

except in late afternoon in December. 

Outside the site, there is no significant overshadowing on 1 st Street, H Street and 

2 nd Street. On Dorchester Street there is some overshadowing of proposed new 

housing on the opposite side of the street on winter mornings (9:00am). From 

about 1:30 0nwrds the street receives direct sunlight. 


12.4 Daylight 


Every unit in the new development is illuminated with natural light. Window head 

heights are typically 8’-0” or more to maximize the penetration of natural light 

into the center of the apartments. The residential apartments have been designed 

to be exceptionally deep (75 feet from front to back) in order minimize the ratio 

of building enclosure to enclosed floor area. In order to bring natural light into the 

center of the apartment a lightwell is located in between the pairs of units. The 

natural light is augmented by heliostats, mirrors designed to track the sun 

throughout the day focusing down on a fixed target within the atrium. 

The live-work studio units are less deep from front to back (56 feet) and are 

served by tall windows on each elevation with the purpose of bringing natural 

light into the center of the units. 

The location of the new development in relation to the surrounding neighborhood 

is such that the only shadowing is across Dorchester Street in the early morning. 

There will be no significant diminution of natural light. 

12.5 Solar Glare 

The building envelope of the new development is principally non-reflective 

consisting of masonry on the exterior facades and wood on the inner courtyard 

facades. The elevations of the building most directly hit by the sun will also be 

shaded so that the sun will not be hitting glass windows for any significant 

amount of time causing annoyance with reflection. The roof is landscaped 

throughout and will therefore be non-reflective. 

12.6 Air Quality 

It is expected that the air quality impact of this development will be significantly 

less than that of projects comparable in size and scope. The primary goals of the 

project are to minimize energy use and the use of fossil fuels, minimize 

environmental impact and promote health. The use of vegetable oil for the 



cogeneration plant and the promotion of plug-in hybrid vehicles are examples of 

this intention. These goals and other objectives are outlined in Chapter 1. 

12.7 Water Quality 

It is expected that there will be no negative water quality impacts from the 

proposed project. The development of the site will reduce the area of impervious 

surfaces and retention and re-use of stormwater is part of the project program. As 

part of the Health objective (see Chapter 1) protocols for the use of non-toxic 

cleaning agents, fertilizers sprays and packaging for maintenance and operations 

will be developed and adhered to. The safe disposal of toxic materials used by 

artists are, and will continue to be, fully compliant with current regulations. 



Chapter 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 12-1 Article 37 Project Checklist 

BOSTON GREEN BUILDING CREDITS 4 Possible Points 

Credit 1 Modern Grid 

The proposed project will generate near to 100% of all energy required for the 

occupants, buildings and infrastructure with renewable fuel. A combustion 

engine driven, distributed generation/combined heat and power system that is 

fueled with vegetable oil is proposed. 

Credit 2 Historic Preservation 

Not applicable to this project. 

Credit 3 Groundwater Recharge 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will meet the requirements. 

Credit 4 Modern Mobility 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will meet the requirements. 

Alternative transportation is a major component of the project as outline in the 

Transportation Mitigation and Improvement Plan - Section 9.6. 

SUSTAINABLE SITES 14 Possible Points 

Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 

An Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Plan will be created and 

implemented for all construction activities associated with the project. All 

elements of the project will also comply with Phase I and Phase II of the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. 

Credit 1 Site Selection 

The Distillery Redevelopment Site meets the requirements. 

Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment meets the requirements. 

Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 

The Distillery Redevelopment Site meets the requirements. 

Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 

Currently, the closest public transportation is the No. 9 bus on East Broadway 

and H Street, three blocks away. Other bus and subway services are not 

within the required distance of the site. A preliminary discussion with the 



MBTA indicated a willingness to continue looking at service modifications 

that may bring a second bus stop to within ¼ mile. 

Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 


Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment meets the requirements. Alternative 

transportation is a major component of the project as outline in the 


Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment meets the requirements. Alternative 

transportation is a major component of the project as outline in the 


Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will restore a minimum of 50% of the 

site area (excluding the building footprint) with native or adapted vegetation. 

Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will provide vegetated open space 

greater than 20% of the project’s site area. 

Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will use highly sustainable 

Stormwater Management programs that will meet the requirements. 

Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will use highly sustainable 

Stormwater Management programs that will meet the requirements. 

Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will have 100% underground parking. 

Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will use a high albedo and vegetated 

roof surfaces that, in combination, will meet the requirements. 

Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 


WATER EFFICIENCY 5 Possible Points 

Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 



The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will use only captured rainwater for 

landscape irrigation. 

Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment will use only captured rainwater for 

landscape irrigation. 

Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 

Not determined at this time. 

Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 


Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 


ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE 17 Possible Points 

Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment buildings and systems will be fully 

commissioned. 

Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required 

Energy conservation measures will be an integral part of the project’s 

infrastructure design with expected energy cost savings exceeding 50% of 

baseline. 

Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required 

No CFC-based refrigerants will be used in the building HVAC&R systems. 

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 

10 credits. Energy conservation measures will be an integral part of the 

project’s infrastructure design with expected energy cost savings exceeding 

50% of baseline. 

Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 

3 credits. The proposed project will generate near to 100% of all energy 

required for the occupants, buildings and infrastructure with renewable fuel. 

Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment buildings and systems will be fully 

commissioned and meet this requirement. 

Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 

The proposed Distillery Redevelopment project will not use refrigerants. 



Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 

Building energy consumption will be measured and verified for no less than 

one year of post-construction occupancy. 

Credit 6 Green Power 

The proposed project will generate near to 100% of all energy required for the 

occupants, buildings and infrastructure with renewable fuel. 

MATERIALS & RESOURCES 13 Possible Points 

Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required 


Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 

 

Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 

 

Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 

 

Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal 1 

This requirement will be included in construction contracts. 

Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1 


Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% 

This requirement will be included in construction documents and contracts. 

Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse, 10% 

This requirement will be included in construction documents and contracts. 

Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) 


Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer) 


Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally 


Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally 




Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 


Credit 7 Certified Wood 

This project will use a minimum of 50% of wood-based materials and 

products, which are certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship 

Council’s (FSC) Principles and Criteria, for wood building components. 

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 15 Possible Points 

Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required 

The proposed buildings will meet these requirements. 

Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required 


Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 

Ventilation systems will be monitored and will meet these requirements. 

Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 

Ventilation systems will be designed to meet these requirements. 

Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 

An Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan for the construction and preoccupancy 

phases of the building will be developed and implemented to meet 

these requirements. 

Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 

An Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan for the construction and preoccupancy 

phases of the building will be developed and implemented to meet 

these requirements. 

Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 

This requirement will be included in specifications, construction documents 

and contracts. 

Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings 



Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems 



Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 





Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 


Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 


Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 


Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 


Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 

The buildings will undergo verification to meet these requirements. 

Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 


Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 


INNOVATION & DESIGN PROCESS 5 Possible Points 

Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design 

The project will use heliostats, natural air flow night venting, vegetable oil 

CHP, computer enabled ride-share systems, plug-in hybrid commuter vans, 

waterless urinals in public spaces, French-intensive rooftop Victory gardens as 

well as innovations in IAQ. It is expected that all 4 Innovation in Design 

Credits will be attained. 


See above. 


See above. 


See above. 

Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional 

Mark Kelley, P.E. of The Hickory Consortium is a principal participant of the 

project team and is a LEED Accredited Professional. 


APPENDIX 12-2 LEED NC CHECKLIST 


LEED-NC Version 2.2 Registered Project Checklist 

The Distillery Redevelopment 


Yes ? No 

13 1 Sustainable Sites 14 Points 

Y 

Prereq 

1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required 

1 Credit 

1 Site Selection 1 

1 Credit 

2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 

1 Credit 

3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 

1 Credit 

4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 

1 Credit 

4.2 

Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing 

Rooms 

1 

1 Credit 

4.3 

Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient 

Vehicles 

1 

1 Credit 

4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1 

1 Credit 

5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 

1 Credit 

5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1 

1 Credit 

6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1 

1 Credit 

6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1 

1 Credit 

7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1 

1 Credit 

7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 

1 Credit 

8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 

Yes ? No 

2 3 Water Efficiency 5 Points 

1 Credit 

1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 

1 Credit 

1.2 

Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No 

Irrigation 

1 Credit 

2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 

1 Credit 

3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 

1 Credit 

3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 

Yes ? No 

12.0 Environmental Impacts 12-12 

1


17 Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points 

Y 

Prereq 

1 

Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy 

Systems 


Required 

Y 

Prereq 

2 Minimum Energy Performance Required 

Y 

Prereq 

3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required 

10 Credit 

1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10 

3 Credit 

2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 3 

1 Credit 

3 Enhanced Commissioning 1 

1 Credit 

4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 

1 Credit 

5 Measurement & Verification 1 

1 Credit 

6 Green Power 1 

Yes ? No 

continued… 

8 2 3 Materials & Resources 13 Points 

Y 

Prereq 

1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required 

1 Credit 

1.1 

Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & 

1 

1 

Roof 

Credit 

1.2 

Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & 

Roof 

1 

1 Credit 

1.3 

Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural 

Elements 

1 

1 Credit 

2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal 1 

1 Credit 

2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1 

1 Credit 

3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% 1 

1 Credit 

3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1 

1 Credit 

4.1 Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 

1 Credit 

4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 

1 Credit 

5.1 

Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & 

Manufactured Regionally 

1 

1 Credit 

5.2 

Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & 

Manufactured Regionally 

1 

1 Credit 

6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 

1 Credit 

7 Certified Wood 1 

Yes ? No 

15 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points 

Prereq 

Y 

1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required 

Y 

Prereq 

2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required 

1 Credit 

1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1


1 Credit 

2 Increased Ventilation 1 

1 Credit 

3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 

1 Credit 

3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1 

1 Credit 

4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 

1 Credit 

4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings 1 

1 Credit 

4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems 1 

1 Credit 

4.4 

Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber 

Products 

1 Credit 

5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 

1 Credit 

6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 

1 Credit 

6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 

1 Credit 

7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 

1 Credit 

7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 

1 Credit 

8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 

1 Credit 

8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1 

Yes ? No 

5 Innovation & Design Process 5 Points 

1 Credit 

1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 

1 Credit 


1 Credit 


1 Credit 


1 Credit 

2 LEED ® Accredited Professional 1 

Yes ? No 

60 6 3 Project Totals (pre-certification estimates) 69 Points 

Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52-69 points 


1

6 AM 9 AM 12 PM 3 PM 

6 PM 

MAR 21 

JUN 21 

SEP 21 

DEC 21 

Figure 12-4 Shadow diagrams by season and time of day

13.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 

13.1 Traffic 

See Chapter 9.7 

13.2 Air Quality 

13.3 Noise 


Construction activities may generate fugitive dust resulting in a localized increase 

in airborne particles. Construction equipment with internal combustion engines 

will generate tailpipe emissions similar to those generated by highway trucks. To 

reduce fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions during construction a plan will be 

developed and incorporated into construction documents. Issues to be addressed 

include: 

• The use of wetting agents to suppress and control dust 

• Covering trucks transporting construction debris and materials 

• Regular cleaning of streets and sidewalks to minimize dust accumulation 

• Reduction of vehicle and equipment idling time 

• On-site monitoring of construction practices and impacts 

The proponent will include in all construction contracts the requirement that 

contractors observe city ordinances with regard to noise. 

The main sources of obtrusive noise are likely to be: 

• Demolition of existing structures 

• Excavation and driving sheet piles for construction of the basement 

13.0 Construction Impact 13-1

13.4 Rodent Control 


The proponent will employ the services of a rodent control consultant and 

operative to minimize the disruptive effects in the adjacent neighborhood of 

rodents displaced by construction. 

13.5 Wildlife Habitat 

There is no known wildlife habitat on site. 

13.6 Construction Management 

The proponent will comply with applicable state and local regulations covering 

construction impacts and will develop and be bound by a Construction 

Management Plan (CMP) developed in consultation with the Boston 

Transportation Department and other City of Boston agencies as appropriate prior 

to the commencement of construction. 

The CMP will establish guidelines and specific mitigation methods and staging 

plans to minimize impacts to neighboring residents and property. An Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control (ESC) plan will be developed and implemented for all 

construction activities associated with the project. All elements of the project will 

also comply with Phase I and II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) program. 

13.7 Monitoring 

The proponent will employ staff and equipment to comply with the mitigation 

measures outlined above and to carry out the Construction Management Plan, the 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and other measures required for effective 

construction monitoring. 

13.0 Construction Impact 13-2

14.0 DESIGN REVIEW 

14.1 Community Meetings 


The Distillery development is situated at the edge of the South Boston 

neighborhood within five minutes walk of Broadway and will naturally be of 

great interest to neighbors and abutters and to the community at large. As a long 

term property owner in the area, the proponent has had the opportunity to build up 

lasting relationships and has employed local residents from time to time in the 

operations and maintenance of the existing property. In addition to residents of 

the surrounding neighborhood there are also residents in the existing Distillery 

buildings all of whom have a clear and distinct interest in the outcome of the 

proposed development. 

The proponent has, during the course of developing this proposal, engaged a 

group of Distillery residents, engaging them in discussions of what they would 

like to see on the site and soliciting ideas in frequent meetings. The Article 80 

process is the time to communicate with the broader public through the Impact 

Advisory Group. The proponent will put resources forward for making the public 

meetings an opportunity for providing clear information and for receiving 

community input. 

14.2 Boston Civic Design Commission 

Under the terms of Section 80B-5.2 the Urban Design component of the proposed 

development is required to be submitted for review by the Boston Civic Design 

Commission. This submission contains all the required information for such 

review. For further details in this regard refer to: 

Chapter 2 Program 

Chapter 3 Zoning 

Chapter 6 Urban Design 

Chapter 7 Architecture 

Chapter 8 Landscape Architecture 

14.0 Design Review 14-1

the distillery redevelopment - Boston Redevelopment Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?