Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Redevelopment staff push state for clarity after EOHLC says EIR work still required for Pleasant Street plan
Summary
Staff reported that EOHLC reviewed the submitted urban renewal plan for Pleasant Street and flagged items; although the Authority requested rescinding an earlier EIR scope, EOHLC staff said the board must still address items in the previously identified EIR scope or proceed with an EIR. The board discussed pursuing a Notice of Project Change and potential consultant funding through MassHousing.
The board reviewed the status of the Pleasant Street urban renewal plan and the Authority’s interaction with state reviewers. Board member reporting said staff submitted a final urban renewal plan to the housing department (EOHLC) and then sought assistance from the governor’s permitting liaison to avoid an extended NEPA/EIR review. The liaison met with staff and engaged the lieutenant governor’s office to advocate for rescinding an identified scope of work.
However, EOHLC staff (Tory Kim) reportedly told the Authority that because a scope of work for an EIR had already been identified, "we either had to do the EIR because we had a scope of work for it already, or we could do a notice of project change," and that EOHLC still expected the Authority to "address all the items identified in the EIR." Board members expressed concern that new regulations should allow for a simpler notice of project change and asked staff to seek direct clarification. One board member offered to speak directly with EOHLC staff to resolve apparent inconsistencies.
The board also discussed consultant funding. Staff noted $60,000 set aside by MassHousing that could support analysis or consultant work, but procurement rules at the state level may require MassHousing to procure consultants directly, which could prevent the Authority from retaining prior consultants without rebidding. The board agreed to explore options, requested a succinct memo summarizing the Authority’s position and where the staff believes the submission stands, and to continue pressing EOHLC for a timely answer.
