Belmont Citizens Forum

Vol. 2, No. 2 A Newsletter for Belmont Residents March 2001

Table of Contents

Candidates for Selectmen Q & A. . . . . . . . .3

McLean Public Hearings Highlights. . . . . 10

A History of the Alewife Property. . . . . . . 13

MEPA Review Required for McLean. . . . 14

Can Alewife Still Be Saved? . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Citizens Say It�s Time toBy Lynne Cook Polcari

For years, Belmont residents have debated themerits of having a permanent senior center in town,a place where older citizens could exercise, social-ize, play bridge, work on arts- and-crafts projects,attend health screenings, and perhaps take part in adaily meal program. There are 292 communities inMassachusetts that already have senior centers, andaccording to the state�s Executive Office of ElderAffairs, they are well used.

The potential constituency for such a center inBelmont is large. Twenty percent of the town�s resi-dents, about 5,300 people, are considered senior citi-zens. For those who no longer have jobs or childrento occupy their time, a central gathering place canbe an antidote to loneliness.

In a recent letter to the Board of Selectmen,nine senior citizens wrote: �The topic of a seniorcenter for Belmont is not new; in fact, many seniorshave worked for and advocated its creation for near-ly two decades�We have waited in the wings andhave supported capital appropriations which benefit-ed the town and other demographic groups�Wedeserve a chance to achieve our goal while we arestill active enough to utilize the center�s benefits andprograms.�

Summary: Senior citizens, who make up 20% ofthe town�s population, have waited years for a permanent senior center. With the vacant Kendall site on Beech Street, and the insurance money that comes with it, the town may finally have the wherewithal to do something about it.

Build Senior CenterAppropriating space and money for such a cen-

ter, however, remains a problem. Seniors presentlyhave a temporary center in the parish hall of OurLady of Mercy church on Oakley Road, where thetown leases space. But seniors who frequent it saythe building is not suitable for long-term use. Itstrussed roof, for example, makes it difficult to heatand cool and creates acoustical problems for thosewho are hard of hearing. The building, located on aslope, barely meets the requirements for handi-capped accessibility. And the neighbors complainabout cars parked all day on surrounding streets.

Seniors have reminded town officials that thislocation was intended to be temporary. In additionto having no elevator (which forces those who usewalkers or wheelchairs to go outside the buildingand re-enter on another floor from the street), thebuilding lacks a reception area, a proper-sizedkitchen, an equipped exercise room, sufficient gameroom and small-group meeting space, even a sink inthe arts-and-crafts room. Continued on page 8

2

Belmont Citizens Forum Board of Directors

Sue Bass, President Jim Graves, Vice PresidentAnn Coit Sifneos, Secy. John Dieckmann, TreasurerRosemary Chase Lynne PolcariMark D�Andrea Peter Rand

Newsletter Editor: Sharon VandersliceArtwork: Ann Coit Sifneos

This newsletter is published six times a year (January, March, May, July, September, and November) by the

Belmont Citizens Forum Inc., a not-for-profit corporationorganized in Massachusetts. Published material represents

the views of the authors and not necessarily those of theBelmont Citizens Forum. Letters to the editor may be sent

to P. O. Box 609, Belmont MA 02478.

WANTED:

Web designer

The Citizens Forum needs a volunteer ortwo to perform several important

internet-related jobs:

1. to design and maintain a web site thatarchives our newsletters in an easy-to-read,

easy-to-download format,

2. to set up e-mail addresses connected withthe site so that people can easily communi-

cate with our officers and committees,

3. to maintain a list of supporters and periodically send out notices of important

meetings via e-mail.

Please help us join the 21st century. Call Sue Bass at 489-4729, or write her at

MerrFilms@aol.com. Thanks.

Correction: Last fall, we incorrectly listedJudy Record�s birthdate as December 9, 1944. She actually was born on December 8.

Environmental Events Calendar

Organic Lawn Care for the Home Gardener.Free lecture by Lindsay Strode, a specialist innative and naturalized landscaping, organic lawnand plant care, and bio-engineered erosion control.Learn how to care for your lawn without pesti-cides and chemical fertilizer. Thursday, March22, 7:30 p.m. at the First Parish in Watertown,Unitarian-Universalist Church, 35 Church Street.Co-sponsored by Watertown Citizens forEnvironmental Safety. (617) 924-5723.

�Year of the Charles� Lecture Series.Environmentalist Bill McKibben, author of TheEnd of Nature, will speak on April 4 at 7:30 p.m.at the Watertown Free Public Library, 124 MainStreet, Watertown. Free. For further informationabout the series, call (617) 972-6436.

Earth Day Clean-up. Help the Belmont CitizensForum clean up litter from undeveloped land inBelmont. You can spend an hour or all day. Bringgloves and wear long sleeves and long pants.Children welcome. Saturday, April 21. Theraindate is April 28. To sign up, call (617)484-1844.

Mystic River Herring Run 10K Road Race.Celebrate one of the largest fish runs in the stateand cheer runners along the banks of the Mystic.Learn about the river�s history and its role ashabitat for wildlife. Enjoy music, fish puppets,and other entertainment. Saturday, May 19.Rain or shine. The race starts at 10:00 a.m. inSomerville, follows the river, and ends at theMedford Boat Club on the dam between theMystic Lakes, Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford.For race information, call (617) 628-8850 x3. Thecelebration begins at 11:00 a.m. at the MedfordBoat Club. For information, call (781) 316-3438.Sponsored by: Alewife/Mystic River Advocatesand Mystic River Watershed Association.

Every year, Belmont voters elect one memberof the three-person Board of Selectmen to a three-year term. This April 2, they will choose betweenthe incumbent, Will Brownsberger, and the chal-lenger, Nancy Kelley. The Belmont Citizens Forumasked the two candidates to respond to the followingquestions on planning and zoning issues. Each can-didate was limited to a total of one thousand words.

What do you believe is the best way for thetown to raise money for future infrastruc-

ture repairs/improvements and for other majorcapital investments?

Brownsberger: The time is now for us to makedecisions about investment in our future � excellenteducation, safe streets, vital business areas, care forseniors, open space preserved. I have been workinghard for the past three years to build consensusamong leaders about our financial condition andlong term needs. Town leaders from across thepolitical spectrum have recently said that the time isnear to ask citizens to support needed investments. Itrust the voters and support asking them to makechoices at referenda on investment proposals. Iadvocate a circuit breaker to limit the impact of pos-sible tax increases on seniors.

Kelley: When it comes to financing infrastructure/capital efforts, we must carefully define our overallpriorities as a town, and then distinguish betweenneeds and wants for each project. If we have to go

to the taxpayers for a debt exclusion or tax over-ride in connection with these expenditures,

we must make sure that we haveexplored every other possible alterna-

tive. We need to look at generatingrevenue from limited commercial

development. Town andschool employees, as well as

residents, have great ideasfor possible revenue

opportunities. Weshould hire a town

grant-writer tobecome expert at

identifying fundingopportunities andsuccessfullyapplying formoney. Weshould explore thebenefit of makingcommercial spon-sorship opportuni-ties available forprojects, like ourhigh school track.

Continued

Candidates for Selectman Answer 10 Questions

1.

3

Do you support passage of the CommunityPreservation Act for Belmont as a means to

fund open space preservation, historic preserva-tion, and affordable housing? Why or why not?Would you lead a campaign to secure the neces-sary approval of this Act by the Town Meetingand a majority of the Town�s voters?

Kelley: The Community Preservation Act wouldallow Belmont to obtain additional resources to pro-tect open space, provide more affordable housingand preserve historically significant sites in Town.It would also raise residential taxes by up to $150on the average house in Belmont. Given thatBelmont residents need to consider operating over-rides and/or debt exclusion this year, we will need toweigh the overall impact on taxes before pursuingthis option. What I do like about the CPA, however,is that it can help Belmont purchase two-family resi-dences scattered throughout town to help us providemore affordable housing to our Town employees. Ithas been shown that there is greater benefit to plac-ing small units of affordable housing throughoutTown versus concentrating it in one part of town.

Brownsberger: I believe the CommunityPreservation Act is an important tool and I activelysupported its passage statewide. Unfortunately, it isnot immediately useful to Belmont. We are current-ly facing urgent town needs which all requireincreased tax support. Education, traffic control,and the roads come first, and CPA funds cannot beused for these purposes. The CPA may have a rolein a later year for Belmont.

The Alewife Study Committee has discussedseveral possible uses of the undeveloped

property known as the Belmont Uplands. Whatdo you think is the best use of this land?

Brownsberger: Preservation of all of the Alewifeland would be desirable, but I do not believe that itis fiscally possible at this time. We should explorecompromise approaches that involve smaller devel-opment, less traffic, protection of more of the

upland woods. However, we should never compro-mise protection of the wetlands or risk creation ofdrainage problems in Belmont.

Kelley: Limited commercial development of theAlewife Uplands area represents the best solutionfor this property and for the town. This approachcan help us to generate additional tax revenue foroperating budget requirements and capital projects,while minimizing the impact on residential propertytax. We can also preserve open space and solvesome of the drainage problems with the site anddirect much of the related traffic out to Route 2,instead of into the town. This approach would alsoprevent increased burden on our schools that wouldresult from residential development or Chapter 40Bhousing.

Are you in favor of a bicycle trail throughBelmont? Why or why not? If you support

this concept, are you willing to fight for such abike trail?

Kelley: As an avid roller-blader who frequentlyblades along the Minuteman Bike Trail, I'd love theidea of a bike path here in Belmont. In fact, as partof the original McLean agreement, we obtained landthat might support a bike path in Belmont.However, some proposals, like locating a bike pathnext to the train tracks or in close proximity to indi-vidual residences, have definite drawbacks. Anyproposal must be evaluated on its impact on conser-vation land, impact on residential privacy, and safetyfor the riders, as well as cost to Belmont.

Brownsberger: I do favor a bicycle trail throughBelmont as a priority. I worked for it in my firstterm, but we were defeated by the state�s unwilling-ness to release land for the Wayside trail. With orwithout state help, I believe that we should devotemore of Concord Avenue to creation of a truly safebike trail. I strongly support more safe bicycleroutes.

Nancy Kelley and Will Brownsberger Address

2.

3.

4.

4

In the focus groups conducted by the Vision21 Committee, many residents said that

traffic was a major problem in town. What spe-cific suggestions do you have for reducing, man-aging, or redirecting traffic flow through town?

Brownsberger: First, we need to make our majorstreets safer for both pedestrians and drivers. Thestreets should be narrower and better curbed andshould have �bumpout� pedestrian crossing areas.After years of effort by me and others, PleasantStreet is close to starting construction along theselines. Trapelo Road is the highest priority afterPleasant Street.

Second, in our town centers we need to place aspecial focus on pedestrian crossing options, side-walk width and parking availability.

Third, we need to work with residential neigh-borhoods to reduce cut-through traffic and controlparking. I started an effort to address local prob-lems in the area behind Waverley Square. After ameeting with Precinct 4 Town Meeting Members,the police have studied the area and made dozens offindings and recommendations. We will hold ahearing on these recommendations for theneighborhood shortly.

I would like to conduct similar efforts in otherneighborhoods across Belmont over the next fewyears. In some neighborhoods, I would like to go asfar as exploring street cut-offs to prevent cut-through traffic. This could make more neighbor-hoods friendly for families, in the same way thatClaflin Street and Kendall Gardens are friendly.

Too often in the past, we have made isolatedchanges on particular streets or corners with unfore-seen consequences. My goal is to get more compre-hensive planning done for whole precincts or neigh-borhoods. This seems like the right level at whichto plan for many traffic issues.

In general, I want to calm traffic without chok-ing it. Many Belmont citizens are dependent onvehicles.

Kelley: One of our biggest challenges is traffic con-trol and mitigation. While conducting the McLeannegotiations, both McLean Hospital and the Town

conducted detailed examinations of the traffic atevery intersection in Belmont and the impact onthose intersections from the McLean developmentand future regional growth. Determinations weremade as to the level of service at each intersectionand what mitigation steps might be feasible. Weshould carefully re-review those reports and re-consider the findings and recommendations as partof the Town's road reconstruction and traffic controlefforts.

How much more commercial developmentin Belmont (in thousands of square feet or

another quantitative metric) would you favor andhow much additional revenue, net of the cost oftown services for this development, would youexpect to raise? Where would these develop-ments be located? What types of businesses doyou want to see in town?

Kelley: There are limited opportunities for limitedcommercial development within Belmont: theUplands, South Pleasant Street, and the abandonedVW dealership on Trapelo Road. We should con-sider moderate-cost senior housing on Trapelo, withlinkage to develop traffic-calming measures like anesplanade on that road. Doing so would makeTrapelo Road more pedestrian friendly and helpinvigorate the Waverley and Cushing Square busi-nesses. We need to look at small shops and restau-rants for commercial development in our businesscenters, aiding those businesses with streamlinedpermitting, and business front and signage assis-tance funds.

Brownsberger: There are no additional openspaces in Belmont that I would allocate to commer-cial development. We may absorb some develop-ment under the McLean compromise and possiblyon the Alewife property. But I do not foresee anyother development of open space in Belmont.

I think the opportunities for development are inour existing town business areas. We have seenpositive movement in both Waverley and Cushing

Continued on next page

Town of Belmont Planning and Zoning Issues

5.

6.

5

Candidates Q & AContinued from previous page

squares as several major buildings have been reno-vated. These are modest opportunities without largefiscal impact, but they will improve our quality oflife.

The draft principles issued by Belmont�sVision 21 Committee call for maintaining

�an open inclusive decision-making process� intown government. How can this best be accom-plished?

Brownsberger: �Open inclusive decision-making�means working very hard to draw people into gov-ernment decisions. I am proud of the Vision 21process for this very reason. The diverse group thatran the Vision 21 process has done a great job andhas included thousands of people. We need to sus-tain the Vision 21 process and I will work to ensureits continuity so that its recommendations lead toaction.

The most important factor in �open inclusivedecision-making� is leadership. I have worked veryhard to identify interested parties for every decisionwe make, to contact them and to encourage them toparticipate. Only Selectmen who continuously makediligent efforts at outreach can create truly �openinclusive decision-making.�

Kelley: As part of my campaign, I have pledged tobetter inform citizens as to what is happening in ourTown government. We should consider annual"State of the Town" presentations on cable accesswith quarterly newsletters sent to all residents updat-ing them on the work of our town government andassociated committees and task forces. As we didduring the McLean process, we should have periodicprecinct meetings to help keep residents informedand involved and to encourage bi-directional com-munication. We need to make better use of theCitizen-Herald and Citizens Forum to ensure active,accurate, and upbeat communications and publicrelations. And we should continue one of the bestresults of the Vision 21 process, periodic surveyingof community attitudes and concerns.

What cuts do you think could be made inthe town budget without seriously reducing

the quality of service to town residents? Wouldyou consider privatizing certain town depart-ments? If so, which ones?

Kelley: I am not now thinking in terms of whatbudget items should be cut, but Belmont must close-ly examine how we can make more efficient andeffective use of our resources. I have already spo-ken out in favor of merging town and school main-tenance departments. I think we need to considercooperative agreements with surrounding communi-ties for activities like snow removal, trash removaland recycling. For those activities, and any thatmight be considered for privatization, we wouldabsolutely need to conduct cost-benefit analyses tohelp us make the right decisions.

Brownsberger: I think we can achieve very modestsavings by consolidation of bill-processing opera-tions across water, light, and treasury, and I amworking to bring these departments together. Partial privatization of bill processing has already helped inthese areas.

Comparative data suggest that we are a bit largeat 53 police officers. On the other hand, police arein constant demand to respond to traffic and parkingproblems all over town.

Most of our departments are very lean � belowthe levels needed to respond well to the citizens�needs. I do not believe there are large savingsopportunities in the town government at this time.

One privatization option that I do not favor atthis time is sell-off of the Light Department. Thiswould give us one-time gains but would probablycost citizens more over the long run.

Do you favor preserving the current firestations as historic buildings when they are

no longer in use as fire stations? Are there anyother buildings in town that you think are wor-thy of preservation as the town grows andchanges?

Brownsberger: I do not have a position on pre-serving the fire stations as historic buildings. We

8.

9.

7.

6

are in the process of determining what the new firestation configuration should be. There are manyother attractive historic buildings worth preservingin town, among them, the town hall and the schooladministration building.

Kelley: In building a new future for a commu-nity, great attention and respect must be paid toits history. I love the town government com-plex in Belmont Center, and consider that ourheart and soul. We also need to consider thehistory of our older buildings such as the fire-houses, and if we are to sell them to help payfor the cost of replacing them, we shouldlook to provide incentives or requirements tothe buyers to maintain the façade and asmuch of the interior detail as possible.

Do you think changes are neces-sary in the town�s zoning bylaw

in order to restrict the size of new resi-dential or commercial buildings in

town? If so, what do you feel needs changing?

Kelley: I think we need to do a detailed review ofour commercial and residential zoning bylaws, aswell as our tax assessment process. The beauty ofBelmont is our quiet, residential character, and any

changes that we contemplate must be "in con-text" with that character. We need to ensurethat our bylaws provide adequate protectionagainst unwanted, intrusive, or inappropriatedevelopment while ensuring that Belmont'sbusiness climate is strong in order to sup-port vibrant, business centers.

Brownsberger: It may make sense toexplore some restrictions on mansion-ization � demolition of smaller homesand construction of huge houses inmodest neighborhoods. We are earlyin the consideration of this issue as atown.

10.

7

o

Kendall Site on Beech Street Would Be Perfect SpContinued from page 1

The town has first right of offer if Our Lady ofMercy�s hall is ever put up for sale. But buying andrenovating the building would be an expensiveproposition, and some argue that it would still notmeet all the expressed needs. Aside from the physi-cal issues, there would be a parking problem unlesswe can purchase the parking lot from the church.Many believe that the proper course of action is tobuild a new center, designed specifically to meetsenior needs.

Recently, the Council on Aging held a meetingto discuss the current status of the senior center. Thefeatured speaker, Emmett Schmarzow, from thestate�s Executive Office of Elder Affairs, noted thatthose communities in Massachusetts that have creat-ed modern senior centers�with room for expan-sion�have seen a dramatic increase in usage.

Nava Niv-Vogel, Director of Belmont�sCouncil on Aging, expects this would be true ofBelmont, too. Daily attendance was up 30 percent

last year atthe tempo-

rary cen-ter.

With the addition of more programs and classes,total visits increased by seven thousand in 2000.

A new center, she says, would enable the coun-cil to accommodate programs it currently cannotprovide and to offer a wider range of services tothose elderly most at risk. For example, the councilwould like to move the daily meal program fromBelmont Manor to the senior center. This wouldallow our most fragile elderly, who do not drive, toenjoy the benefits of the programs and a meal bymaking only one trip.

Schmarzow noted that of the 292 senior centersin Massachusetts, only six serve a mixed population.The primary reason for this is site control.Ultimately, the seniors� primary concern is theirability to use the building how and when theydesire.

Many seniors do not care to share a locationwith children. For them, the center is a place toenjoy the company of people their own age.Children on the site would raise noise and safetyissues, particularly in the parking lot, where seniorsfear they might accidentally harm a young child.

Other considerations are temperature controland space design. Generally, seniors need morewarmth in the winter and less air-conditioning in thesummer than younger people do.

Historically, one of the biggest obsta-cles to building a senior center was thelack of available land. Now, however,the town has the option of constructing

Rendering by Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc., Boston for the Kendall School Site Replacement Study, October 23, 2000.

8

ot

For Senior Center, Say Neighbors and Advocatessomething on the site of the former Kendall Schoolon Beech Street. Built in 1914, this building wasused as an elementary school until 1981, when itwas closed due to declining enrollment. It was sub-sequently leased to a group of artists who estab-lished the popular Kendall Center for the Arts.This vibrant community arts center functioned as aplace for residents of all ages to take art classes andalso provided studio space for some of our local tal-ent�a place to work as well as to exhibit their art.

Sadly, the center was destroyed by fire in 1999,and the site is currently an eyesore, an uglyreminder of that painful day when many local artistslost their life�s work.

According to Lynne Doblin, a resident of thearea and a Town Meeting Member, many neighborssupport the concept of a combined senior and com-munity center on the site and have circulated a peti-tion to that effect. A well-designed center, they feel,would boost property values and might help fillsome of the vacant storefronts on nearby TrapeloRoad.

Belmont is now negotiating an insurance settle-ment on the property. How much money we willultimately receive is unknown.

The insurance policy allows the town twooptions. Belmont is entitled to reimbursement for

the costs of rebuilding a newbuilding of �like kind andquality,� such as a newschool, community center, ormunicipal office building. Ifwe choose not to rebuild, weare entitled to the marketvalue of the building when itwas destroyed, about$2 million.

A Special TownMeeting held in Decemberallotted money for the initialdesign phase of a potentialsenior/community center onthe Kendall site. Estimatedcosts were roughly $9.6 mil-lion to build a center of thesame size as the Kendall

School. The town hopes, through negotiations, tobridge the gap between the $2 million offered asmarket value and the $9.6 million estimate.Problems arise with the definition of �like kind andquality.� Replacing a very old building createsroom for disputes. For example, the insurers do notwant to pay for air conditioning because the oldbuilding did not have it. However, we will be usingmodern and less expensive construction methodsand want to get credit for that. Town leaders areoptimistic that they can narrow the spread to a set-tlement that is satisfactory.

In the meantime, the town must make decisionsabout which populations are to be served if werebuild.

Although seniors want a senior center,Selectman Bill Monahan feels that the town hasvery pressing needs and must prioritize. Lastmonth, he questioned whether, if we do not get fullinsurance reimbursement; it made sense to build acenter that would serve the needs of only a smallgroup. Town Meeting will have to decide, he said.

Selectman Will Brownsberger favors building acommunity center that would primarily serve theneeds of seniors and have space included for othercompatible uses.

The feasibility study gave a general idea ofwhat might be built on the site, noted SelectmanAnne Marie Mahoney. However, a final decisionmust be made based on the eventual insurance set-tlement. When the town does a final prioritizationof all building needs in the fall, a Kendall Centerproject will be evaluated within this framework.

Clearly there are problems with the presentsenior-center location. The questions are whetherthese problems warrant the building of a seniorcenter on the Kendall School site and whether thebuilding should be solely for the use of seniors.

It seems that budget shortfalls will always bewith us, due to Proposition 2½. But a lump sum ofmoney and an opportunity to use scarce vacant landto create a building for the benefit of the communityis rare. We should not squander this chance.

Lynne Polcari is a Town Meeting Member who livesin Precinct 5.

9

By Jim Graves

There have now been five public hearings of theBelmont Planning Board to review the site plansfiled by the three developers of the McLean proper-ty. The Selectmen�s Meeting Room at Town Hallhas usually been filled to capacity, often with theaudience overflowing into the hallway. The firsthalf of almost every meeting has been devoted to apresentation by one of the developers; the secondhalf, to comments or questions from concerned citi-zens. Two more hearings have been scheduled:

March 27 and April 3, both Tuesdays. They will bein the Selectmen�s Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m.

The Belmont Citizens Forum, the McLeanOpen Space Alliance, and individual citizens havedelivered oral and written comments on a widerange of significant issues. Some town committees�� including the Historic District Commission, theMcLean Implementation Committee, and the TrafficAdvisory Committee �� have also participated. It isnow up to the Planning Board to decide which ofthe issues will be addressed through formal, legalconditions attached to approvals of the site plans.

McLean Hearings Highlight Unresolved Issues

10

Like other groups, the Belmont Citizens Forum isproposing conditions for the Planning Board to con-sider. The forum has asked the Planning Board topublish its draft summary of the conditions to givethe public a chance to comment before the board�sposition becomes final.

Here is a brief summary of some of the majorissues:

Alternative transportation. The developers of thesite are not legally bound to any specific traffic miti-gation measures, such as car-pooling or shuttle-busservice to Waverley Square and Alewife station. Yetthe developers of the senior community and theR&D complex readily admit that it will be difficultfor them to comply with the peak-hour traffic limitsdefined in the Traffic Monitoring and MitigationAgreement. For example, ARC, the developer ofthe senior complex, expects to have 500 or moreresidents and 200 employees (100 on the main day-time shift alone). Yet it must comply with a thirty-trip limit during the morning rush hour. BelmontTechnology Park, the R&D facility, plans to build525 parking spaces to accommodate 500 employees,yet it is limited to 206 trips during peak morningrush hours. Unless these developers make a bindingcommitment to alternative transportation, the townwould face a long-term conflict over compliancewith the Traffic Monitoring and MitigationAgreement.

Stormwater. Attendees at the hearings were con-cerned about stormwater and pollution runoff intothe open space from the large paved parking areas.Also, the retirement community plans to build astorm-retention facility beyond its property line onthe conservation land, in apparent violation of theconservation restriction. Furthermore, it appearslikely that the remaining trees downhill from theARC development will be cut off from natural waterflows and could die as a result.

Projected traffic volume. Detailed design plans forthe two intersections closest to the site (PleasantStreet and Trapelo Road, and Pleasant at the newMcLean site drive) have not yet been revealed to thepublic; they have been promised soon. But it seemsquestionable whether these intersections will be ableto handle the increased volume from McLean.

McLean�s last traffic forecast for this area was con-ducted in 1998 and assumed a growth of only 1percent in background traffic. Yet the Metro-Westquadrant has experienced a 13 percent growth inoffice construction since then. Major new develop-ments have been completed or are proposed in everydirection from this site, including Belmont (theO�Neill site near Route 2), Waltham (alongWaverley Oaks Road and on the old Met State prop-erty), Watertown (the Arsenal office complex),Arlington (the Mugar parcel), and Cambridge(Alewife).

Pedestrian safety. Consultants have recommendedthe use of concurrent signaling rather than exclusivesignaling at the intersection of Trapelo Road andPleasant Street. This means that pedestrians, includ-ing senior citizens from the new complex and fromthe town�s nearby Waverley Oaks development, willhave to try crossing at the same time that cars aremaking left or right turns through the crosswalks.The developers� traffic experts say that if exclusivesignaling is used to stop all vehicles so that pedestri-ans can cross safely, traffic will back up. The townneeds to decide if the priority is good traffic flow orpedestrian safety.

Steep driveway. The main site drive from PleasantStreet is steep, with sharp curves. Yet it will be theroad used by senior citizens, many emergency vehi-cles, and trucks carrying hazardous materials andhazardous waste. Accidents seem likely.

Downed trees. The senior community and itsadjoining site driveway will take up so much ofZone 3 that an estimated 90 percent of the trees inthis area will be cut down. The developer has mademuch of the dozens of specimen trees that will besaved, but there has been no formal count of thethousands of mature trees that will be lost. Largeretaining walls will interrupt the current vista oftrees from the Waverley section of town.

Exterior lighting. The developer of the R&D prop-erty has presented an external lighting plan that willbe visible in the open space, disturbing wildlife and evening strollers. The current plan fails to takeadvantage of new designs that can significantly limit

Continued on page 15

11

Alewife, continued from page 16

$5 million as a possibility. But the land�s not goingto be free, and unless Belmont puts up some money,there seems no prospect of preventing developmenton that land. The legislature might put money in theMDC budget to expand its adjoining AlewifeReservation, but only if Belmont shows an interestin preserving the land by raising some money.

There was a chance of that last year, after thelegislature passed the Community Preservation Act.The act permits a town to vote a property tax sur-charge of 1, 2, or 3 percent to create a fund for openspace conservation, protection of historic resources,and affordable housing. Each town�s money will bepartly matched by the state. Since the first $100,000of a property�s assessed value may be excluded fromthe surcharge, and a town can exempt low-incomeresidents and some senior citizens with moderateincomes, these surcharges need not be burdensome.The maximum 3 percent surcharge would add $150a year to the average Belmont property tax billwhile raising $1.1 million a year. With state match-es and a chance of additional state aid, even a 1 per-cent surcharge might have enabled Belmont to makean offer on the Belmont uplands.

That chance passed in February, at least for ayear. The last opportunity to put the CommunityPreservation Act on the April 2, 2001, town ballotwas either a Town Meeting vote by February 26 or acitizens� petition by February 19. Since neither tookplace, the next chance is to get it on the April 2002ballot.

Last month�s deadlines did not pass withoutnotice. Shortly beforehand, the selectmen discussedhow easy it would be to collect signatures to put theCommunity Preservation Act on the ballot, but theydid not do so. Conservation activists who mighthave mounted such an effort concluded regretfullythat the surcharge would not pass without supportfrom the selectmen.

O�Neill Properties Presents New Proposal

Meanwhile, O�Neill Properties has not beenidle. Last year the firm repeatedly pressed theAlewife Study Committee with its plans for a300,000-square-foot office building and a seven-story parking garage west of Acorn Park Drive.

Rebuffed by the committee, O�Neill filed with thestate for a review under the MassachusettsEnvironmental Policy Act. It subsequently with-drew that proposal, but was back at a PlanningBoard meeting on March 8 with a new proposal,similar but 17 percent smaller.

Is an office building on that site, presumablyone scaled back considerably more, the worst thingBelmont could allow for that land? On the face ofit, it doesn�t seem such a terrible idea. The areawhere O�Neill proposes to build is comparativelyhigh ground, a low hillock rather than obviousswampland. The project would provide Belmontwith additional property taxes without largedemands for additional services. O�Neill can fix thestormwater problems somehow. And the trafficwould all be on Route 2, wouldn�t it?

Traffic Spillover Likely

Those are the arguments presented by thosewho favor development. But the traffic report sub-mitted by the developers to the Planning Board onMarch 8 suggests a different conclusion. Trafficnear Alewife at rush hours is already so clogged, thestudy shows, that several intersections, includingLake and Cross streets, are rated F now by trafficengineers. They will get worse over the next fiveyears even if nothing is built. Add thousands ofdaily car trips generated by new development atAlewife, and it�s inevitable that the traffic will spillover onto side streets all over town.

The example of the McLean development sug-gests that we can�t be confident of getting a revenuewindfall from Alewife either. Even now, McLean iscosting the town hundreds of thousands of dollars ayear for inspection personnel and related costs, withno offsetting income. Once construction starts, morerevenue will come in but costs are predicted to soar.

�We should not think that development atAlewife is going to solve any of the fiscal problemsthat the town has,� said state Representative AnnePaulsen, who is working to get the entire Alewiferegion declared an Area of Critical EnvironmentalConcern under state law. �No community has beenable to build its way out of financial difficulties.We need to make a decision whether this develop-ment at Alewife is really in the interest of Belmont.�

� Sue Bass

12

The Alewife area at the northeastern edge ofBelmont is a remnant of the Great Swamp that oncestretched from Fresh Pond to Spy Pond. It includedlarge parts of what is now Belmont�s Winn Brookneighborhood. This �primitive, beautiful wilder-ness,� wrote William Brewster in 1906, once con-tained �reeds, bulrushes, wild rice and muskrats ...beautifully diversified by wooded or bushy swampsalternating with open grassy marshes.� Up until themid-nineteenth century, the water was good to drink,with no pollution.

But according to An Alewife Area EcologyGuide, by the Belmont naturalist Stewart Sanders,the quality of the landscape quickly declined in thelate 1800s. Lagoons were filled in, water wasdiverted, and fish migrations slowed. Garbagedumping turned the now-stagnant water into abreeding ground for mosquitos carrying malaria.

The Metropolitan Parks Commission, ancestorof the Metropolitan District Commission, bought aportion of the land in the early 1900s. It drained thestagnant pools and restored some of the water flow,improving the swamp�s ecological health. Butdevelopment at Alewife didn�t stop. Route 2 wasbuilt in the 1930s and widened in the 1960s. FreshPond Shopping Center was built in 1962. The RedLine extension was completed in 1984. In the1990s, Cambridge allowed the construction of officetowers south of the MDC reservation alongCambridge Park Drive.

Now O�Neill Properties wants to put 250,000square feet of office or laboratory space on thirteenacres of Belmont land north of the MDC reserva-tion; the Martignetti family and others have plans todevelop the adjoining land in Cambridge; and theMugar family would like to put 300,000 square feetof office space on an eighteen-acre parcel in EastArlington, directly across Route 2 from the O�Neillproperty. Citizens in all three communities arefighting the developments, but they face uphillbattles. �� Sue Bass

A History of the Alewife Property

13

1

Robert Durand, the secretary of the ExecutiveOffice of Environmental Affairs, has ruled that theMcLean development must undergo a comprehen-sive environmental review by the state before build-ing can start. In a certificate dated March 2, Durandsaid the project requires review under theMassachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)because it exceeds several mandatory thresholds,specifically: the creation of ten or more acres ofimpervious surface, the generation of 3000 or morenew vehicle trips per day, and the construction of1000 or more parking spaces.

The scope of the mandatory review is broad. Itrequires, for example, that the hospital analyze alter-native site layouts for the development that wouldreduce its impact on the environment, including atleast one alternative that avoids the demolition ofhistoric structures. (Under the current plan, elevenbuildings dating from 1890 to 1927 will be razed.)McLean also must conduct archaeological examina-tions of two sites in the R&D zone that, according tothe Massachusetts Historical Commission, �mayprovide significant information regarding the NativeAmerican history of the Belmont area.�

Other topics that require further study are wet-lands protection, wastewater disposal, traffic miti-gation and improvements to the pedestrian environ-ment, conservation of agricultural land, the loss ofvegetation due to construction, the impact of blast-ing during construction, and the way in which theproject fits into local and regional growth plans.

The hospital had requested an abbreviatedreview process focusing mainly on hydrologyissues. Town Administrator Mel Kleckner wrote aletter on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, whovoted 2-1 in support of the hospital�s request, sayingthat the town and its consultants were already ana-lyzing many of the issues normally considered in adraft Environmental Impact Report. The town plan-ner, Tim Higgins, and the chair of the BelmontHistoric District Commission, Richard Cheek, alsosent letters outlining steps the town has taken to

address wastewater and stormwater issues and topreserve historic structures and landscapes.

But Durand�s office received nearly seventyother letters in support of the traditional full MEPAreview, which involves a draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) and a public comment period,followed by a final EIR that addresses the public�sconcerns. Comments were received from theMassachusetts Historical Commission, theMassachusetts Audubon Society, the Charles RiverWatershed Association, the MassachusettsDepartment of Environmental Protection, StateRepresentative Anne Paulsen, the BelmontConservation Commission, the Belmont Land Trust,the McLean Open Space Alliance, and the BelmontCitizens Forum, as well as many individual residentsof Belmont and surrounding towns.

Comments were detailed and varied. Theyranged from concerns about high levels of E. Coli inthe intermittent stream above Pleasant Street to theeffect of outdoor lighting on sky brightness to theneed for regular shuttle-bus service to the Alewife T.

The President of Watertown Citizens forEnvironmental Safety wrote: �Although there havebeen meetings on the subject of McLean�s planswithin Belmont, there has been little or no notifica-tion of the surrounding communities of Watertown,Waltham, Lexington, Arlington, or Cambridge.�

�The impact of a project of this magnitude doesnot stop at the Town line,� wrote one Arlington resi-dent. �Failure to engage the surrounding municipal-ities in the comment process from the beginning isin my opinion a significant omission.�

The MEPA review process is expected to takemonths. When the draft Environmental ImpactReport is completed, it will be made available to thepublic at the Belmont Public Library. A copy mayalso be obtained directly from McLean�s consultant,Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, on a first-come, first-servebasis.

�-Sharon Vanderslice

Full EnvironmentalReview Required for McLean Property

4

We nneed yyou.If you can volunteer even a few hours a month, you canmake a difference. You do not need to be an expert�just aperson who cares about our town.

II ccaann ddeevvoottee ttiimmee ttoo::_____Archaeology & Historic Preservation_____Environmental Protection _____Planning & Zoning_____Traffic & Transportation_____Mailings_____Newsletter _____Web Site

Name______________________________________

Address____________________________________

Phone/E-mail_______________________________

___________________________________________

II ccaann hheellpp ppaayy ffoorr tthhiiss nneewwsslleetttteerr::It costs about $3500 to publish each issue of our newsletter.Please donate for this purpose:

_____$25 _____$50 _____$100 _____$250

II ccaann hheellpp ppaayy ddoowwnn tthhee FFoorruumm��ss ddeebbtt::_____$50 _____$500_____$100 _____$1,000_____$250 _____Other______________

The Belmont Citizens Forum is a nonprofit 501(c)(3)organization. Your donation is tax deductible to the fullextent allowed by law. If you have questions, please call484-1844.

Make checks payable to Belmont Citizens Forum andmail to Belmont Citizens Forum, P.O. Box 609, BelmontMA 02478. Thank you!

McLean Hearings, continued from page 11

light pollution. There are even plans to light uptrees on the property.

Accommodations for bicycle commuters.Although the developers are responsible for mitigat-ing traffic increases, the R&D developer has notmade a binding commitment to provide lockers andshowers, which encourage commuter to use bicy-cles. The developer has said only that he will dis-cuss the idea with his tenants at some unspecifieddate.

Shuttle-bus access. Shuttle buses would be moreeffective if they served the entire development,including the townhouses and the hospital. Thiswould require an amendment to the current McLeanby-law, which does not allow buses to pass throughthe traffic gates that separate the R&D and senior

complexes from the hospital and townhouse zones.

Fixing intersections. McLean�s traffic experts,Rizzo Associates, recommended improvements atfourteen Belmont intersections that are already at ornear full capacity. McLean is providing funds toimprove only two of these intersections: Pleasantand Trapelo and the new intersection of PleasantStreet with the site driveway that will serve thesenior and R&D complexes. The Planning Boardhas made no mention of plans or estimates toimprove the remaining twelve intersections, includ-ing the congested ones in and around BelmontCenter. The town seems to be counting on realestate taxes from the McLean site to help coverexisting school and maintenance expenses. How dowe plan to pay for the traffic improvementsrecommended at the remaining intersections?

15

Belmont Citizens ForumP. O. Box 609Belmont, MA 02478

Address Service Requested

People Are Asking

Can Alewife Still Be Saved?

There are two contrasting views of the thirteen-acre O�Neill property sandwiched between theMetropolitan District Commission reservation atAlewife and Route 2. To some people, it representsnatural beauty that happens to have the very practi-cal side-effect of keeping Belmont basements dry(or at least preventing the flooding from beingworse). To others, it represents a possible source ofcash to keep Belmont�s public services afloat.

The land, which lies just north of the MDC�sAlewife Reservation, was bought in 1999 from theArthur D. Little consulting firm by O�NeillProperties, the developer of the office complex atthe former Watertown Arsenal. Though cars whizby on the Route 2 side, O�Neill�s thirteen acres areundeveloped. A few steps off Acorn Park Drive andyou�re in what feels like a wilderness. It is one ofthe last remnants of the region�s historic GreatSwamp. (See related article, page 13.)

A year ago, saving these thirteen acres was ahigh priority for Belmont�s selectmen. In their letterto townspeople in the town�s 1999 Annual Report,the selectmen said, �The entire land is environmen-tally sensitive and critical to the effective stormwa-ter drainage system for Belmont.� It is part of theflood plain for the Little River, which carries about70 percent of Belmont�s stormwater runoff. Floodedbasements all over town, but especially in the for-mer swampland that is now the Winn Brook sectionof Belmont, would be even worse if Alewife werenot there to soak up the water.

A distinguished committee appointed by theselectmen to study the property recommendedpreservation of the Belmont Uplands for open space.With the naturalist Stewart Sanders, a member ofthe Alewife Study Committee, taking the lead, thetown talked with the Trust for Public Land aboutgetting assistance in buying the property

However, the Trust for Public Land can�t buythe land as a gift for Belmont; it can only help puttogether a deal. The price may well be less than the$8 million calculated by a town appraisal. I�ve heard

Continued on page 12

16