More work needed at SEC
Published on August 21st, 2002
STONEHAM, MA - The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) for the proposed Stoneham Executive Center at the former Boston Regional Medical Center site, and concluded that it is less than satisfactory.
This SDEIR was intended to address concerns raised by some of the 240 letters written to the EOEA office in regards to the original plan and its impact to water drainage and traffic patterns.
“The SDEIR recently reviewed by EOEA shows that this project, as currently proposed, would have significant adverse impacts on the historic parkways within the MDC's Middlesex Fells Reservation,” according to the report, which was released to the public on Monday.
Board of Selectmen Chairman, Anthony Kennedy was surprised that the parkland restoration issues were not sufficiently covered. “I hope whoever is assigned with the duties of re-submitting a report will work to meet all the requirements listed in this report.” Kennedy sees the report as giving the proposed office park another chance with a final environmental report. The board of selectmen hand delivered a letter of support, of approximately 10 pages in length, on Aug. 9, to the Secretary of the EOEA, Bob Durand.
The report admonishes the traffic studies submitted in the SDEIR as to the impact on the neighboring community. Traffic patterns of the New England Memorial Hospital as it were three years ago, compared to the traffic patterns of an office complex is in their words, “misleading.” The report explains, traffic patterns of a 24-hour hospital will be vastly different on traffic congestion than that of an office park. The SDEIR shows that rush hour traffic, which is the “key criterion of roadway congestion,” will more than double with the Gutierrez proposal compared to the traffic level of the hospital, if it were still operating at the site.
The project will generate approximately 40 percent of all peak hour trips on Woodland Road, according to the report. This traffic will significantly degrade the Level of Service and time of delay at several key intersections.
Additional mitigation efforts will have to be identified in a Final Environmental Impact Report for the following intersections:
Park Street/North Border Road/Fallon Drive
Woodland Road/Ravine Road
Fellsway East/Ravine Road
Highland Avenue/Fellsway East
Fellsway East/Phillips Road
Route 28/Elm Street
Elm Street/Aquavia Road/ Brackett Street.
According to the report, the character of the parkway would be harmed by the proposed “mitigation” of the intersection widening, which would erase over one-half an acre of parkland. Also, at its current full-build proposal, traffic during rush hour on Woodland Road would increase approximately 50 percent over current conditions.
Miriam Regan-Fiore, spokes-person for Community For Fells Preservation, would like to get that 50 percent increase to as close to zero as possible. “Peak hour traffic is what needs to be looked at,” said Regan-Fiore.
Regan-Fiore believes that the height and size of the proposed new construction on the site should be reduced in size to whatever the traffic constraints allow.
The proposed project by Fellsway Development LLC, owned by Gutierrez Development of Burlington, consists of the redevelopment of the existing BRMC into an executive office park. The existing three buildings of 110,000 square feet, 250,000 square feet and a maintenance building of 14,000 square feet would be met with three new office buildings totaling 540,000 square foot. The final development would consist of a total of 914,000 square feet of space.
Regan-Fiore was happy to see the comments concerning Article 97 because changes would need a two-thirds vote of the legislature to approve a change in land use of parkland. The MEPA review, as noted in the report, hinges upon whether there has been a conversion of those lands to a use not in accordance with Article 97. The report states: “The parkland impacts described in the SDEIR are not perceptions; they are real, and they are unacceptably great.”
This SDEIR was met with over 900 letters of comment either for, or against the project. A rise in consciousness that is indicative of a better-informed public, according to Regan-Fiore. “The increase in responses show that people care about parkland and the Fells,” said Regan-Fiore. Of the more than 900 letter writers, the overwhelming majority were “negative,” said Pizzi, who also notes that, “proponents of such projects usually are not as moved to write as are the opponents.”
“The secretary’s concern is the impact and integrity of the parkland and the abutting properties,” said Doug Pizzi. “We think the document speaks for itself.”
The SDEIR plans for too many parking spaces--a fact that the report says works against reducing auto traffic to the site. Shuttle service to the MBTA's Malden Center station was not included in this report as it was in the DEIR. The EOEA suggests that a final report have more emphasis on public transportation and possibly shuttle service to the nearest commuter rail stop.
The SDEIR fails at its intended goal in the opinion of the EOEA in this report. This full-build proposal falls short on mitigating key issues such as, landscape restoration, conservation restrictions over abutting land, constraints of on-site parking, mass transportation and traffic congestion affecting residential neighborhoods. All of these issues must be adequately addressed before the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency grants approval.
Previously, the EOEA asked for a reduced-build alternative to be considered if the impacts from the full-build could not be adequately mitigated. However, this report does not offer a scaled back plan for the former hospital site.
A scaled back version is exactly what Regan-Fiore and her group is looking for. “Our position is that this proposal is too big,” said Regan-Fiore.
The final report should include an impressive amount of research and data, according to Secretary Durand.
“The study should, at a minimum, include site history, analysis and evaluation of existing conditions, summary of findings, and recommendations of a preservation strategy for treatment of the landscape and its associated features.”
It will also need mitigation plans and estimates with a schedule for implementation for each pertinent item.
A traffic explanation will also be needed for the number of projected trips on Ravine and Philips Roads as cut-through traffic onto Ravine Road and a plan of mitigation for those trips.
The report also wants extensive drainage research done to explain where the storm runoff will go and what body of water it will affect. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) has asked that no storm water from the project site or associated roadways drain into Spot Pond. That request, along with the replacement of the MDC drainage pipe under Ravine Road, and an analysis of the Woodland Road drainage system and its impact resulting from the development must be included in the final report.
Well water use and the location of the proposed well for the lawn irrigation system must also be defined. Wastewater flow should also be better defined as to the impact it will have on the presently constrained areas.
According to Pizzi, there is not a time limit on when the final report is due, however, after three years if the Final Environmental Impact Report is not submitted, the Gutierrez Company will have to re-file with a new EIR.
Both Arthur Gutierrez Sr. and Arthur Jr. were on vacation and could not be reached for comment on the report. Their attorney Charles Houghton could not comment on the report until they returned.
This report is available at both the Stoneham Public Library and the Melrose Public Library as well as on the internet at http://www.state.ma. us/envir/eoea.htm.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!