GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS LOWE'S OF QUINCY QUINCK MASSACHUSETTS - Revised September 2008

 
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS
LOWE'S OF QUINCY

QUINCK MASSACHUSETTS

Revised September 2008
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ANALYSIS
        LOWE'S OF QUINCY
     QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS

               Prepared for:

             Tetra Tech Rizzo
             One Grant Street
          Framingham, MA 01701

               Prepared by:

         Tech Environmental, Inc.
            1601 Trapelo Road
       Waltham, Massachusetts 0245 I

           September 12, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section          Contents                                                                                                              Page

1.0       EXECUTIVE SCTMMARY............................................................................................... 1
          1.1      Analysis Results ....................................................................................................1
          1.2      Comparison of EENF and SEIR Results ............................................................... 1
2.0       PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ...............................
                                                                                       3
          2.1      Background...........................................................................................................   -3
          2.2      Modeling Energy and GHG Emissions .................................................................3
3.0       TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS .................................................. -5
          3.1      Mesoscale Analysis Procedure .............................................................................. 5
          3.2      Predicted Transportation Impacts..........................................................................6
4.0       GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS ...........................................11
          4.1      Siting and Site Design Mitigation Measures ....................................................... I1
          4.2       Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures......................................... 11
          4.3       Transportation Mitigation Measures ...................................................................
                                                                                                                      14
          4.4       Mitigation Summary...........................................................................................          -16
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

                                                 List of Tables

Table   Description                                                                                              Paae
        ENERGY AND COz MODELING AT LOWE'S OF QUINCY .......................................4

        MESOSCALE COz MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUMMARY ...............................8

        VMT TRAVELED IN MESOSCALE STUDY AREA .....................................................
                                                                                                9

        TOTAL VEHICLE co2EMISSIONS n?r MESOSCALE STUDY AREA ..................... 10

        PROJECT SITING AND SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES .........................16

        BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES................. 17-18

        TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES ...............................19-20

        GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SUMMARY ...........................................................21

                                                 List of Figures

Figure Description                                                                                               &

1       MESOSCALE STUDY AREA ..........................................................................................7
1.0     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1     Analysis Results

A carbon dioxide (C02) analysis was performed for the proposed Lowe's of Quincy store (the
"Project"). C 0 2 emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the MA
Building Code, (2) the Preferred Alternative, which includes some energy saving design features,
and (3) the Mitigation Alternative, which includes additional energy savings elements. This analysis
uses the Tech Environmental Energy Model and replicates the output of the US EPA Energy STAR
Target Finder using data and algorithms from the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration
(EM). The Mitigation Alternative reduces the Project's direct and indirect stationary source energy-
related emissions of C 0 2 by approximately 21.7% and 14.1%, respectively, compared to the Base
Case.

C 0 2 emissions produced by Project vehicle trips were analyzed using the US EPA MOBILE6.2
Mobile Source Emission Factor Model. Mitigation measures for transportation emissions include a
number of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and roadway improvements for the
Project. These measures will improve traffic operations, reduce Project generated vehicle trips, and
reduce Project-related motor vehicle C 0 2 emissions by 5%. Overall, mitigation measures in the
Mitigation Alternative are expected to reduce the Project's total COz emissions by approximately
13.2% compared to the Base Case.

1.2     Comparison of EENF and SEIR Results

The greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis presented in this report for the SEIR has been updated in
several areas from the GHG analysis presented in the EENF. Electrical usage for the Base Case in
this SEIR has risen slightly to 1,765.1 MWhIyr from the figure of 1,677.2 MWhlyr in the EENF. As
a result, Base Case electrical use C 0 2emissions have gone up slightly from 1,073.4 tonslyr (EENF)
to 1,129.7 tonslyr (SEIR). The reason for this slight increase is that the lighting electrical load was
underestimated in the EENF. Base Case gas usage and heating C02 emissions also have risen
slightly in the SEIR due to an update in the formula for estimating building wall area. Those Base
Case CO2 emissions have risen from 153.3 tonslyr (EENF) to 165.1 tonslyr (SEIR).
Stationary source (CO2) emissions fiom on-site fuel use and off-site generation of electricity for the
                                                1
Preferred Alternative are listed as 977 tonslyr in the EENF and 1,147 tonslyr in this SEIR. The
reasons for these differences are:

    1) The EENF analysis calculated a mitigation credit for the store using T8 lighting. The
       SEIR analysis assumes T8 fluorescent lighting is the standard for commercial building
       design, and consistent with MEPA Policy, the mitigation credit has been removed from
       the SEIR calculations.

    2) The EENF analysis calculated a mitigation credit for the store using insulated HVAC
       ducts. The SEIR analysis assumes insulated ducts is the standard for commercial
       building design, and consistent with MEPA Policy, the mitigation credit has been
       removed. The Preferred Alternative now assumes duct sealing prior to insu.lation,and
       the energy reduction from duct sealing has been included in the SEIR calculations.

    3) The EENF analysis did not calculate a mitigation credit for using HVAC units with an
       EER of 9.5, and the SEIR analysis does include this credit. Standard HVAC units of the
       size to be used at Lowe's (10 to 20 tons cooling capacity) have an EER of 8.5.

    4) The EENF analysis did not calculate a mitigation credit for skylights in the Garden
       Center, and the SEIR analysis does include this credit.

The SEIR GHG analysis has added a Mitigation Alternative which includes two additional
mitigation measures beyond those in the Preferred Alternative:

    1) HVAC energy efficiency is increased to an EER of 11.5.

    2) Lowe's allocates 2% of green power purchasing credit to each store nationwide,
     including Massachusetts. If the opportunity to purchase green power is available in
     Quincy, it will be bought by store operations.
2.0    PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

2.1    Background

On April 23, 2007 The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
(EOEEA) established a greenhouse gas (GHG) Policy for certain MEPA projects, and the EOEEA
published its "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol" in the Environmental Monitor on
July 11, 2007. The following GHG analysis conforms to that Policy and Protocol. The Policy
requires a project to quantify carbon dioxide (C02) emissions and identify measures to avoid,
minimize or mitigate such emissions. In addition, the Policy requires the proponent to quantify the
effect of proposed mitigation in terms of emissions reduction and energy savings.

The Lowe's of Quincy Project's GHG emissions include direct emissions of CO2 from natural gas
combustion for heating and from a diesel emergency generator. Indirect emissions of CO2 will result
from Project-generated motor vehicle trips and from electricity used for lighting, building cooling
and ventilation, and the operation of other equipment inside the store.

2.2    Modeling Energy and GHG Emissions

Energy modeling for the Project used the Tech Environmental Energy Model that replicates the
output of the US EPA Energy STAR Target Finder using data and algorithms from the U.S. DOE
Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers. The Project will consist of a 124,216 square foot (sf) main Lowe's
building and a 26,926 sf garden center. The base case was analyzed and energy use calculates to be
1,732.3 MWatt-hours per year (MWhrIyear) of electricity and 2,542.0 thousand cubic feet per year
(Mcflyear) of natural gas, see Table 1. For the preferred alternative, these energy figures are 1,588.1
MWhrIyear of electricity and 1,922.8 Mcflyear of gas. The mitigation case and final Project design,
discussed in Section 4, reduces energy use to 1,524.9 MWhrIyear and 1,944.0 Mcflyear.
TABLE 1-A
                                             ENERGY AND C 0 2MODELING FOR QUINCY LOWES PROJECT
                                                                 Large Retail
                                                                                                      Heating      Electr~cal   Total     C02
                                                          Electrical   Electrical            Gas        C02          C02        C02     Emissions
                                                           Usage       Reduction Gas Usage Reduction Emissions    Emissions Em~ssions Reduction
                                              Area (sf)   (MWhIyr)        (%)     (Mcflyr)   (%)      (tonslyr)    (tonslyr)  (tonslyr)   (%)

                                Base Case     124.216     1.765.1                 2,737.9               165.1      1,129.7    1,294.8
  Super Energy Effic~entHVAC (EER = 11.5)     124.216     1,659.9        6.0%     2.737.9     0.0%      165.1      1,062.3    1,227.4     5.2%
         Energy Effic~entHVAC (EER = 9.5)     124,216     1.722.6        2.4%     2,737.9     0.0%      165.1      1,102.5    1,267.6     2.1%
                              Duct Sealing    124.216     1,684.4        4.6%     2,292.5    16.3%      138.2      1,078.0    1.216.3     6.1%
              Energy Management System        124.216     1,731.5        1.9%     2.470.7     9.8%      149.0      1.108.1    1.257.1     2.9%
                          Cool Roof Design    124.216     1,733.2        1.8%     2,765.4    -1.0%      166.8      1,109.2    1.276.0     1.4%
                                 Skylights    124,216     1.751.1        0.8%     2,806.7    -2.5%      169.2      1,120.7    1.290.0     0.4%
              Purchase Renewable Energy       124,216     1,729.8        2.0%     2,737.9     0.0%      165.1      1,107.1    1,272.2     1.7%

                                                                   TABLE 1-B
                                             ENERGY AND C 0 2 MODELING FOR QUINCY LOWES PROJECT
                                                                PROJECT TOTAL

                                                                                                      Heating   Electrical      Total     C02
                                                          Electrical   Electrical            Gas        C02       C02           C02     Emissions
                                                           Usage       Reduction Gas Usage Reduction Emissions Emissions     Emissions Reduction
                                              Area (sf)   (MWhlyr)        (%)     (Mcflyr)   (%)      (tonslyr) (tonslyr)     (tonslyr)   (%)
TOTAL
                                Base Case     124,216      1,765                   2.738                 165        1,130      1.295
          Combined Efficiency Measures
         Preferred Alternative
         Energy EfficientHVAC (EER = 9.5)
                              Duct Sealing
                                              124.216      1.590         9.9%      2,144      21.7%      129        1,018      1.147     11.4%
              Energy Management System
                          Cool Roof Design
                                 Skylights
         Mitigation Alternative
  Super Energy Efficient HVAC (EER = 11.5)
                              Duct Sealing
              Energy Management System        124,216      1.516        14.1%      2,144      21.7%      129        970        1.100     15.1%
                          Cool Roof Design
                                 Skylights
              Purchase Renewable Energy
3.0    TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

Transportation C 0 2 emissions were calculated and the results are summarized in Table 2. The
mesoscale study area was defined in accordance with DEP guidance to include the roadway
segments in the Project area that will potentially experience an increase of 10% in traffic due to the
Project and which currently operate at Level-of-Service (LOS) D, E, or F, or will be degraded to
LOS D, E, or F in the future. To be conservative, the mesoscale study area includes the entire traffic
study area for the Project and is defined by the following eighteen roadway segments in Quincy (see
Figure I):

             Burgin Parkway - Centre Street to Penn Street
             Burgin Parkway - Penn Street to Quincy Street
             Centre Street - Albertina Street to Branch Street
             Centre Street - Branch Street to Liberty Street
             Centre Street - Liberty Street to Columbia Street
             Centre Street - Columbia Street to Crown Colony Drive
             Centre Street - Crown Colony Drive to Burgin Parkway
             Columbia Street - Centre Street to Penn Street
             Liberty Street - Centre Street to Brooks Avenue
             Brooks Avenue - Centre Street to Roberts Street
             Brooks Avenue - Roberts Street to Liberty Street
             Roberts Street - Centre Street to Brooks Avenue
             Liberty Street - Brooks Avenue to Quincy Street
             Penn Street - Burgin Parkway to Columbia Street
             Penn Street - Columbia Street to Quincy Street
             Penn Street - Quincy Street to Liberty Street
             Quincy Street - Liberty Street to Penn Street
             Quincy Street - Penn Street to Burgin Parkway.

3.1    Mesoscale Analvsis Procedure

The mesoscale analysis calculated emissions of C 0 2 over the study area for three scenarios:

        2012 No-Build
        2012 Build
        2012 Build with Mitigation.
The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each roadway segment was calculated by multiplying the
length of each road segment by the average daily traffic volume on the segment. Average daily (24-
hour) traffic volumes (ADTs) were provided by traffic engineers at Tetra Tech Rizzo. Table 3 shows
the VMT calculation spreadsheet.

The C02 emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the daily VMT by the
MOBILE6.2 predicted C 0 2 emission factors in grams per mile. Table 4 shows the C 0 2 emission
calculation spreadsheet. The MOBILE6.2 model was run with MOBILE6.2 input files for 2012
provided by the MA DEP.

3.2    Predicted Transportation Impacts

A summary of the results of the mesoscale analysis is presented in Table 2. The table shows that the
mesoscale emissions of C 0 2for the 2012 No-Build case are predicted to be 5,163.2 tonslyear. The
mesoscale emissions of C 0 2 for the 2012 Build case are predicted to be 5455.8 tonslyear. The
difference between the 2012 Build and 2012 No-Build COz emissions, 292.6 tonslyear, represents
the C 0 2 emissions released by Project-generated trips. The transportation mitigation measures
discussed in Section 4.3 reduce Project transportation C 0 2 emissions by 5% to 277.9 tonslyear.
FIGURE 1

             NIESOSCALE STUDY AREA
LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT, QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS

                                               Q I C . W . W b . I I I - N
                                               mama.--
                                               -k.Lrw#
                                               -wa-rrrrcrare
                                               on*ranu.oanmlqMn
                                               -W*WIRm
                                               -ma---
                                               --.mull
                                               Lbt#N*bdlrmo
                                         11.   Q*qkl.-mu
                                          1I   W N U R n N

 ma     O   I   I   ~   KO       Lmof Quincy
C)~GZZZ~                         Puincy, Massachusetts
TABLE 2

     MESOSCALE MOTOR VEHICLE COz EMISSIONS SUMMARY

                  Total Predicted COz Emissions Burden

    2012                        2012                       2012
   No-Build                     Build              Build with Mitigation

12,832.9 kg/day            13,559.9 kg/day           13,523.6 kg/day

5,163.2 tons/yr           5,455.8 tons/yr            5,441.1 tons/yr
                        Project 292.6 tons/yr      Project 277.9 tons/yr
TABLE 3
                                 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Mesoscale Study Area -
                                      Lowe's of Quincy Project, Quincy. Massachusetts

                                   Average Daily Traffic (ADT)                                              Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
                                         (vehicles/day)                                                              (miles/day)

                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                      VMT (milesfday):            25 427            22.863              24,158       24,093
'Assumes an 5% reducbon In the total proledgenerated traffic due to Ihe lmplementat~on
                                                                                     ol proposed TransporatlonDemand Management P M )
TABLE 4
        Total Daily Motor Vehicle Carbon Dioxide (CO,) Emissions
                      in the Mesoscale Study Area -
            Lowe's of Quincy Project, Quincy, Massachusetts

                 Vehide Miles Traveled (VM7)                           Mesoscale C02Emissions

Speed
_o
 45

                    1   Total Daily C 0 2Emissions
                                 @giddy):
                                   - -         -     -   1   14.0401     12.8329   1   13.5599   (   13,5236   1
4.0      GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS

The GHG Policy requires that the Project proponent to identify measures to avoid, minimize or
mitigate GHG emissions. The following sections discuss the measures the Lowe's of Quincy project
will implement.

4.1      Siting and Site Design Mitigation Measures

All reasonable and feasible siting and site design mitigation measure will be adopted by the Lowe's
of Quincy project, see Table 5. The measures the Project proponent intends to pursue are listed
below.

Sustainable Development Principles     -   The Project design promotes compact development and
conserves land.

Conserve and Restore Natural Areas - Wetland areas are preserved on the site. Approximately
22,395 s.f. of existing pavement within the Riverfront Area will be restored by removing and
replacing the paved surface with loam and seed.

Stormwater Management - Under proposed conditions, a comprehensive storm water management
plan has been included as an integral part of the project design. Structural features include deep
sump catch basins, water quality structures, and underground detention basins consisting of
Stormtech chambers with isolator rows surrounded with filter fabric. Non-structural measures
include street sweeping and an operations and maintenance plan. Although the project is a
redevelopment project and only needs to meet MADEP Stormwater Management Guidelines (2007
Policy Applies), to the greatest extent practicable the drainage system has been designed to meet the
standards for new development. The project design does not include LID elements because there is
no room on the site to include LID elements without disturbing additional resource areas.

Additional siting and site design mitigation measures were also considered for the Lowe's of Quincy
Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 5. Changing the building footprint or
orientation is not feasible for this site. The site is located across the street from the MBTA Quincy
Adams Red Line subway station.

4.2      Building Desipn and Operation Mitipation Measures

All reasonable and feasible building design and building operation mitigation measures will be
adopted by the Project, see Table 6. These measures are listed below and in aggregate they would
                                                 11
reduce the combination of direct and indirect C02 emissions by 11.4% for the Preferred Alternative
and by 15.1% for the Mitigation Alternative, compared to the Base Case, see Table 1. Percentage
reductions for individual energy efficiency measures listed in Table 1 do not simply sum to the net
reduction because when several measures are combined, the reduction of the second measure is
applied to a lower base level that includes the reducing effects of the first measure, and so forth.

Design Elements of the Preferred Alternative

Duct Sealing - HVAC supply ducts will be sealed and then insulated to reduce energy losses.

Energy Management System - Lowe's has a highly efficient energy management system for all of
its stores that is programmed and operated from its headquarters in North Carolina. Store functions
and energy needs are closely monitored and use of heat, cooling, and lighting is minimized.

High-Efficiency HVACSystems - The preferred alternative is use of HVAC units with an Energy
Efficiency Ratio (EER) of at least 9.5. These are energy saving units since standard HVAC units
have an EER of 8.5.

Energy Efficient Interior and Exterior Lighting - Lowe's uses T-8 fluorescent lamps which the
MEPA GHG Policy considers as the base case for energy efficiency calculations. While not
creditable, T-8 fixtures with electronic ballasts use less energy than standard fluorescent lamps and
ballasts and incandescent lighting. Lowe's has studied Super T8 lighting but not adopted it for the
prototype design dues to problems with starting in low temperature conditions and incompatibility
with dimming ballasts. Lowe's has studied T5 lighting and determined it does not provide more
efficient lighting in its stores. Motion sensors will be used in office spaces. Exit signs will be LED.
 The Project design uses efficient and directed exterior lighting to minimize energy use.

Maximize Interior Day-Lighting - The Project design uses skylights instead of electric lights for the
9,358 square foot three-season room in the garden center that has a roof.

Third Party Commissioning - The Project will use a third party to do building commissioning.

Cool Roof Design -The Project will have a reflective white roof. This would increase the reflection
of sunlight and will help maintain a cooler building temperature in the summer, reducing energy use.

Building Materials - Whenever possible, the Project will use environmentally friendly building
materials, including materials with recycled content, rapidly renewable building materials, and
manufactured within the region.

Construction Waste Management - The Project will comply with all State solid waste regulations.

Operations Waste Management         -   The Project design provides for storage and collection of
recyclables.
Water Conserving Features - The Project will use sinks and toilets with auto sensors. The Garden
Center will use non-potable water to conserve water.

Energy Efficient Windows - The Project will have 1" thick insulated glass display windows.
Lowe's does not use low-e glass due to the reflection it produces that would distort views of interior
displays for customers.

Additional Desipn Elements for the Mitigation Alternative

Purchase Renewable Energy - Lowe's allocates 2% of green power purchasing credit to each store
nationwide, including Massachusetts. If the opportunity to purchase green power is available in
Quincy, it will be bought by store operations. Also see the discussion of photo-voltaic cells below.

High-Efficiency HVAC Systems - For the Mitigation Alternative, the project was evaluated with
HVAC units having a high efficiency EER of 11.5.

Lowe's is willing to commit to the above additional design features (Mitigation Alternative) in its
final design for the Project. Other building design and operation mitigation measures were
considered for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 6.
Photo-voltaic (PV) cells currently are not a part of Lowe's store design. The Project in Quincy's
roof structure is adequate to support a possible future grid of thin cell PVs, but not a heavier glass-
array PV system. Lowe's is currently building PV demonstration projects at stores in California and
Hawaii, where solar insulation is far more plentiful than in New England, to gather data on actual
energy performance and operating costs. At a future date, Lowe's will have specific life-cycle cost
data to enable it to evaluate PV systems as part of store design.

Green roofs, which consist of layers of gravel, soil and vegetation atop a rubberized water-proof
membrane, are expensive to install and maintain. Green roofs add significant weight and the
structure and its roof must be designed for that added weight. There are significant capital and
maintenance costs associated with green roofs. Generally a concrete roof deck is required to provide
adequate structural support and this is not a standard component of the new buildings planned for the
site. For these reasons green roofs are not a part of the Project.

Peak shaving or load shifting strategies are not appropriate for the Lowe's of Quincy. Customers
expect the store to have full electrical service during shopping hours, which include peak periods. A
                                                  13
central combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration plant is not appropriate for a single retail
building.

In 2005, Lowe's was named "Energy Star Retail Partner of the Year" by the US EPA, for the third
consecutive year, for outstanding efforts in promoting Energy Star quality products and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Many Energy Star products are available at Lowe's, including: fans,
communication devices, dishwashers, lighting units, programmable thermostats, room air
conditioners, water coolers, sealing and insulation products, dehumidifiers, light bulbs, patio doors,
refrigerators, washers, and windows. Lowe's also offers an Energy Solutions Guide to customers
which offers tips on making homes more energy efficient and the financial benefits that go along
with that.

4.3    Transportation Mitigation Measures

                                                                    7
In addition to off-site roadway infrastructure improvements, Lowe s is committed to supporting and
promoting strategies to reduce vehicle trips, especially by single occupant drivers, to and from the
site. These measures are known as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) practices. The
proponent will promote all reasonable TDM strategies to reduce employee and customer vehicle
trips (see table 7). The TDM measures are designed to help reduce peak hour and daily vehicle trips
through the temporal spreading of the peak hour demand, increased vehicle occupancy rates, and
shifts in the mode of transportation away from single occupancy vehicles. The transportation
mitigation measures are listed below and in aggregate it is estimated they would reduce C 0 2
transportation emissions by 5%.

Locate Building Close to Transit - The Project is located across the street from the MBTA Quincy
Adams Red Line station.

Appoint an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) - The Project will appoint an ETC
who will implement a Commuter Services Program to encourage and promote TDM measures.

Alternative Work Schedules - The Project will allow employees to work nonstandard hours to
reduce peak period traffic volumes. The resulting decrease in peak period traffic congestion may
result in reduced vehicle emissions from increased travel speeds and reduced delays (idling
emissions) at intersections.
Rideshare Program - The Project will institute a ride-matching program (carpool/vanpool) to assist
employees to find appropriate carpool and vanpool matches. This program will be coordinated with
MassRides (formerly Caravan for Commuters, Inc.). This organization operates a commuter hotline,
a vanpool program, and a computerized ride-match program.

Promote Use of Transit and Alternative Modes - The Project will promote the use of the MBTA;
the Red Line Quincy Adams station is directly across the street from the proposed site. The Project
will post MBTA subway and bus schedules, and bike routes, in the store (e.g., in the employee break
room). The Project will provide materials that publicize the economic and environmental benefits of
the available TDM practices.

Internet Shopping at Lowe's - The Project will promote the use of Lowe's internet site
(www.lowes.com) as a shopping alternative. Lowe's internet site allows customers to purchase items
over the internet and to have the purchases shipped to their homes or businesses. The use of the
internet shopping service has the potential to significantly reduce the number of store related trips.

Direct Deposit for Employees -The Project will promote the establishment and use of direct deposit
of employee paychecks.

Multi-use Paths - Most pedestrians, coming from the adjacent neighborhood use Penn Street to
access Burgin Parkway. Since Penn Street will be abandoned as part of this project, we assume that
pedestrians will cut through the Lowe's site. While there will not be any dedicated internal
sidewalks, Lowe's will not prohibit pedestrian access through the site. Thus, the project will allow
unstructured multi-use paths through the project site.

Parking Capacity - Although the Quincy Zoning By-Law requires 379 parking spaces, the number
of spaces on the project plans, 435 spaces, is higher and represents the prototypical minimum
required to support a 151,000 square foot Lowe's store in the Boston metro area market. Lowe's
prototype for this size store actually includes 488 parking spaces. By taking advantage of the site's
location in an urban setting and its proximity to major area highways, which encourage pass-by
visitors, the amount of parking spaces for this project has been reduced to 435. This reduction of
approximately 53 spaces decreases the amount of impervious area within the project.

Parking Management - The Project will develop a parking management program to minimize
parking requirements. Preferential parking spaces will be provided to people who rideshare.

Bike Storage - The Project will provide secure bicycle storage.

Roadway Improvements - The Project proponent has recommended improvements for four
intersections in the Project area. See the transportation section for more details.

Additional transportation mitigation measures were also considered for the Lowe's of Quincy
Project, but were rejected for the reasons given in Table 7.
4.4    Mitigation Summary

Table 8 summarizes the C 0 2 emissions for the Lowe's of Quincy Project, for the base case (a
building that complies with MA Building Code), the preferred alternative (includes some energy
mitigation measures), and the mitigation alternative (includes additional energy savings elements
and TDM measures). Lowe's will commit to the mitigation alternative for which total CO2
emissions are reduced 11.8% from 1,5 54.6 tonslyear to 1,371.0 tonslyear.
TABLE 5

                              PROJECT SITING AND SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES
                                           LOWE'S OF QlJlNCY PROJECT

                                                                 Part of Project   Technically    Inappropriate
Suggested Mitigation Measure                                         Design         Infeasible   to Project Type

Sustainable Development Principles                                     4
Protection for open space on the Project site                          4
Conserve and restore natural areas on-site                             4

Minimize building footprint

Design Project to support alternative transportation t o site          J

Use low impact development for stormwater design                                       4

Minimize energy use through building orientation                                       4
TABLE 6

                            BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES
                                          LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT

                                                                 Part of Project   Technically    Inappropriate
Suggested Mitigation Measure                                         Design         Infeasible   to Project Type

Construct green roof                                                                                   d
Construct cool roof (high albedo)                                      d

Install high-efficiency HVAC systems                                   4
Seal and insulate HVAC supply ducts                                    4
Reduce energy demand by using peak shaving or load
shifting strategies
                                                                                                       J
Maximize interior day-lighting                                        4

Energy efficient windows                                               4

Incorporate motion sensors in lighting and climate control             4

Use efficient, directed exterior lighting                              4
Purchase renewable energy                                              4
lncorporate combined heat and power (CHP) technologies
into project
                                                                                                       J

Use water conserving fixtures that exceed building code
requirements
                                                                      J

Use non-potable water in Garden Center                                4
Provide for storage and collection of recyclables in building
design
                                                                       J
TABLE 6 (continued)

                          BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES
                                        LOWE'S OF QLllNCY PROJECT

Suggested Mitigation Measure                                Part of Project   Technically    Inappropriate
                                                                Design         Infeasible   to Project Type

Use building materials with recycled content, rapidly
renewable building materials, and manufactured within               d
region

Use low-VOC adhesives, sealants, paints, carpets and wood           J
Conduct 3rd party building commissioning t o ensure
energy performance
                                                                    J
Track energy performance of building and develop strategy
t o maintain efficiency
                                                                    J
TABLE 7

                               TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                        LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT

                                                               Part of Project   Technically    Inappropriate
Suggested Mitigation Measure                                       Design         Infeasible   to Project Type

Locate new buildings near a transit station                          4
Purchase alternative fuel and/or fuel efficient vehicles for
fleet
                                                                                                     J

Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) t o implement
Commuter Services Program and promote TDM measures
                                                                     J

Allow unstructured multi-use paths through the site                  J
Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, local
parking requirements
                                                                                                     J
Pursue opportunities to minimize parking supply through
shared parking
                                                                                                     J
Develop a parking management program to minimize
parking requirements
                                                                     J
Develop and implement a Marketing/
Information Program that distributes ridesharingltransit             4
information

Subsidize transit passes                                                                             4
Use of pre-tax dollars for non-single occupancy vehicle
commuting costs
                                                                                                     J
Reduce employee trips during peak periods through
alternative work schedules
                                                                     J
Provide on-site amenities such as banks, dry cleaning,
food service, childcare
                                                                                                     J
Provide bicycle storage                                              4
TABLE 7 (continued)

                                TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                         LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT

Suggested Mitigation Measure                                   Part of Project       Technically    Inappropriate
                                                                   Design             Infeasible   to Project Type
                                                                                 I

Roadway improvements to improve traffic flow                            4
Traffic signalization and coordination t o improve traffic
flow and support pedestrian safety
                                                                        J

Provide no-idling truck zones at loadingloff-loading areas              4
TABLE 8

                           GREENHOUSE GAS (COJ EMlSSlONS SUMMARY
                                  LOWE'S OF QUINCY PROJECT
                                        (TONSIYEAR)

                                                                                   Percent
                                                   Preferred    Mitigation     Reduction from
             Source              Base Case
                                                  Alternative   Alternative   Base to Mitigation
                                                                                 Alternative

Direct Emissions                  165.1                129.3      129.3             21.7%

Indirect Emissions                1,129.7          1,017.6        970.4             14.1%

Subtotal Direct and
                                  1,294.8          1,146.9       1,099.6            15.1%
lndirect Emissions

Transportation Emissions           292.6               277.9       277.9            5.O%

Total COz Emissions               1,587.4           1,424.8      1,377.5            13.2%
You can also read
NEXT SLIDES ... Cancel