COMMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION
ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER SOUTH WEYMOUTH NAVAL AIR STATION AND ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Submitted by Seth Kaplan and Stephanie Pollack
September 8, 2000
Introduction
The process of determining the future use of the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station is clearly at a key juncture. The Navy continues to edge towards the exit as rapidly as it can, moving its CERCLA cleanups briskly along while wrapping up the other elements of the property transfer process with the same haste. The proponent has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Mills Corporation for land needed for the keystone use under the proponentÕs current plans- the New England "shoppertainmenttm" complex of the aforementioned Mills Corporation.
The MEPA process is ideally suited to this moment. If all participants meet their obligations under the statute and regulations this process will provide a much-needed revelation of the actual environmental impacts of the current proposed development scheme. Even more importantly, MEPA can serve as an incubator for alternative visions with fewer and gentler environmental impacts. These alternatives should flower out of the long hard work of the planning that has led to this moment staying true to the values which underpinned that work- the preservation of open space, the meeting of local needs, without getting bogged down in an overly rigid application of all specific plans developed during those processes.
We are at, or are at rapidly approaching, the last possible moment when a consensus could be brokered which satisfies environmental, social, community and economic development concerns. A MEPA Scope which opens the door to discussion of unexplored alternatives will move the dialogue forward in an important way at a critical moment.
While in-depth alternative analyses are central to any MEPA review, in the case of the South Weymouth Naval Air Station they are crucial. For if it comes down to a choice between the current version of this project or nothing, then CLF will have no choice but to oppose this project using all legal and regulatory means available. It is entirely possible, however, that we will not have to reach that moment of crisis. The current plans of the proponent, partly presented in the ENF, were developed as a result of real and substantial pressures and needs and shaped by political and economic "ground rules" that steered the planning process in a particular direction. It is not too late to change those ground rules. For example, enhanced federal and state financial support for needed infrastructure projects and/or a new and different approach to private sector participation in the redevelopment (charitable support for open space preservation or a high tech office and/or "telecom hotel" or "data center" development with tax increment financing benefiting base infrastructure are possible examples of this) would open the door to new redevelopment ideas and alternatives for the site.
Finally, the proponent needs to assure the MEPA Office and the public that it has not entered into an arrangement with the Mills Corporation which will result in massive financial penalties if the proponent or the Secretary determines during the MEPA process that the environmental harm caused by the proposed project is unacceptable, even if that determination is made after the December 15, 2000 deadline for termination of the agreement with Mills. The idea that the proponent would be making what on its face appears to be an irrevocable commitment to Mills prior to the filing of even a draft EIR raises serious questions under MEPA itself and the implementing regulations.
II. Putting Air Station Redevelopment in Context
Transportation and Segmentation: Considering the interrelated current projects- and alternatives to them.
The critical decision to combine review of the Access Road and other transportation projects supporting the proposed plan of the proponent with the reuse of the site itself was an essential initial step for the MEPA process. The pressure to segment this project will continue and the Scope needs to stress the deeply interrelated nature of the transportation projects and base reuse. The relationship between these two aspects of the project is, at the outset at least, linear: the reuse planning is driving the transportation planning.
The MEPA Scope should carefully map out the causes and effects at work here: the proponent is proposing a reuse scheme that will generate tremendous automobile traffic and is, consequently, planning road widenings, construction of new roads and construction that will increase the capacity of various intersections. The MEPA process needs to ask and resolve key questions about these interrelated projects. The EIR must map out the full impact of the transportation construction project- in terms of direct construction period air and water quality impacts, direct environmental impacts from automobile and truck traffic on the surrounding communities and environment and then the secondary impacts that construction of the transportation projects will have on the surrounding towns. This question of secondary impacts is hard to ask, let alone answer, but is of critical importance. For example, the question of whether the proposed Route 3 access road will facilitate development of other parcels (including the environmentally sensitive "A.W. Perry" property) outside the boundaries of the base and the environmental consequences of such development is part of the calculation of secondary impacts. At the MEPA scoping session citizens from throughout the region, from towns like Whitman and Hull begged for a scope that would fully examine the traffic and development impacts that this project will have. While it is clear that the base reuse itself would have tremendous consequences for area towns, the transportation projects might have even more significant impacts on the future shape and nature of the region.
The size and scale of the transportation projects that are contemplated in this filing highlights the massive nature of the anticipated demands the proposed reuse will put on the regional transportation network. The direct impact that the proposed base reuse plan will have on that network must be fully analyzed in the EIR as well as the secondary impacts of traffic drawn onto roads by the proposed transportation (road) projects included in the project.
The Special Review Procedure should not allow premature construction before the full review is complete and should be guided by a CAC with broad and diverse membership.
Citizen commentors offer legitimate concerns about the prospect that senior housing and recreational facilities (in particular a golf course) will be able to proceed after only the Draft EIR has been filed under the proposed Special Review Procedure. As the proponent confirmed at the MEPA scoping session, significant portions of the land slated for senior housing sit on very sensitive wetlands and, similarly, the golf course is a component in the proponentÕs stormwater and runoff management program. It would be very problematic, therefore, to move ahead with construction of either of these elements until the impact of the entire project on wetlands and the regional storm sewer system was analyzed and appropriately gauged. Additionally, full review of all alternatives requires that the entire project site be "in play" throughout the entire MEPA process. Allowing certain uses to move ahead before the process is complete will require an assumption that roads, sewers and other infrastructure will be configured in the way contemplated by the master plan partly presented in the ENF. Even more critically, allowing certain aspects of the project to move ahead at the DEIR stage will preclude consideration in the FEIR of alternatives that consider a different use for the land which is home to those project elements. To be blunt, once the proponent is allowed to construct a parcel for senior housing or a golf course it would be very odd to require consideration of a park or office development on that parcel in a FEIR.
The question of a diverse CAC is of critical importance in this case. As was evident at the MEPA scoping session there are very strong feelings about the question of redevelopment of this site. The many local residents who oppose the current plan clearly do not trust the standing advisory committees to represent their interests and note that many members of those committees helped develop this plan. If the Secretary were to accept the recommendation of the proponent and ask the members of the standing committees to serve as a MEPA CAC he would be placing the members of the standing committee in a very difficult position. It would be unfair to the members of the standing committee (and to the citizenry in general) to ask those committee members to take a fresh look at the very plan they helped develop and consider alternatives to it as if it were something newly placed before them.
Consistency with local planning and zoning requires review of planning in all surrounding communities.
One purpose of the MEPA review is to allow the public to evaluate a projectÕs consistency with state, regional and local regulatory requirements including local land use plans and zoning. The MEPA regulations require an EIRÕs description of the existing environment to include a description of "zoning districts and other relevant land-use designations or plans." 301 CMR 11.07(6)(g)(8). Those same regulations give the Secretary the authority to require project proponents to provide information in an EIR regarding a projectÕs consistency with any applicable municipal regulations. 301 CMR 11.01(3)(a). Furthermore, Executive Order 385 on Planning for Growth requires all state agencies Š including the proponent Š to give full consideration to all local land use plans.
When a project has the potential wide ranging regional impacts that this one has the list of applicable municipal regulations and local land use plans that must be considered is a long one indeed. The process obviously starts with the regulations and plans of the three towns in which the base sits. This review process must then continue with consideration of the planning, zoning and growth management of the abutting town of Hingham and then the many other towns through which the traffic would flow, in which development would be induced by this project and which, generally, would feel the impact of this project.
At the MEPA scoping session expressions of concern about the impact of the project on traffic and development and land use patterns came from residents of Hull, Whitman and Norwell as well as residents of Hingham, Abington, Rockland and of course Weymouth. Compliance with Executive Order 385 and the MEPA regulations requires reconciling the impacts that the proposed project with the planning and zoning of neighboring towns like Randolph, Whitman, Holbrook, Hull, Scituate, Norwell, Scituate, Cohasset, Stoughton, Hanson and Marshfield.
Similarly, when the Route 3 access road that is at the heart of the transportation component of the project was presented, informally, to the Joint Regional Transportation Committee, representatives from a wide range of communities expressed concern about the impact that this project would have on the regional road network and their communities. The impact that this project will have on communities that share road infrastructure with the project, whether they directly abut Route 3 like Marshfield, Duxbury and Plymouth or depend upon Route 128/95 which feeds Route 3 like Canton, must be addressed in the EIR.
The critical question of timing: ensuring that key analysis of potential aquifers and natural resource inventories and impacts are completed before the EIR is prepared.
Surprisingly, given the fact that years have passed since discussion of redevelopment of the site began there is much about the Air Station site that remains unknown. For example, as the ENF candidly notes, there is no identified source of fresh water for the site and exploration and analysis of the potential fresh water aquifers under the site have only just begun.
The proponent needs to complete their study of potential aquifers on the site before preparing the Draft EIR and thoroughly present and analyze its scheme(s) for meeting the water and sewerage needs of the project. The admission in the ENF that the proponent simply does not know how it will handle the water and sewerage needs of the project is refreshingly honest but must be taken as a strong warning signal that these critical questions have not even started to be addressed in the serious way needed for appropriate MEPA review of the project.
Additionally, there is mounting evidence (alluded to at the MEPA scoping session and presented in the press and in written comments to MEPA) that there are substantial flora, fauna, environmental conditions and habitat on the site not yet known, cataloged or incorporated into documents like the Endangered and Heritage Species Atlas. The Scope should specify that the process of inventorying the natural resources of the Base, as well as identifying special habitats like vernal pools must precede the preparation of the Draft EIR.
III. Reviewing a Wide Range of Alternatives
MEPA review must include a description and analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. This alternatives analysis is particularly important for this project because of the high level of controversy and concern about the current form of the project. Moreover, the "super-regional" nature of the Mills Mall, the heart of the current scheme, makes it especially important that MEPA help identify alternatives with smaller and more localized impacts. Also, the unique nature of the site, a large tract of partly contaminated and partly pristine mostly undeveloped land surrounded by suburban developed areas, requires consideration of a broad range of alternatives. It is rare that an opportunity of this magnitude is presented to developed communities- the nearly limitless opportunities for this unique site should not be unduly narrowed.
A. More Than One "No Build" Alternative Should Be Analyzed.
A MEPA alternatives analysis always includes a "no-build alternative" which is included "for the purpose of establishing a future baseline in relation to which the Project and its alternatives can be described and analyzed and its potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed." 301 CMR 11.07(6)(f)(2). While the "no build" alternative is important for a variety of reasons, one of its key purposes is to establish the baseline level of traffic, transit and pedestrian utilization and congestion against which the proposed project and its alternatives will be weighed. As the ENF acknowledges (in its inclusion of Figure 6-2, showing current and projected Level of Service on the local road network, graphic showing numerous intersections at LOS E or F), the area around the project site already experiences high traffic volumes and gridlock. With or without this project, this situation is likely to be far worse by 2008 (or whatever design year is to be used). It is therefore critical that the "no build" alternative accurately reflect the extent to which drivers, transit riders and pedestrians will be gridlocked even in the absence of the project.
The MEPA Office should work with the proponent to ensure that all potential projects in the study area Š not just those which have already gone through or initiated MEPA review Š are included in the "no build" base case. Normally, the "no build" alternative assumes that the Project will not be built but that a variety of other Projects which have already at least begun state review processes will be constructed, the current building boom on the South Shore makes this methodology shaky. Not only should the "base case" look at such projects as Pine Hills and the Abington Transfer Station it should also include the senior housing and other residential projects currently being discussed for the area- especially along the Hingham/Weymouth border. A key question in defining "no build" would be defining what is to become of the current structures, uses and impervious areas on the base- would they be assumed to be abandoned? Would current uses continue and incrementally grow? The projected growth rates prepared during the Vision 2020 process might be extremely helpful in answering some or all of these questions.
A Broad Range of Alternatives Should Be Analyzed in Detail in the EIR.
It appears that a number of commenters will, like CLF, request that the Scope require the proponents to analyze a broad range of potential alternatives to the proposed project. CLF believes that it is critical for all of these alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR and at the same level of detail as the proponentÕs preferred alternative. MEPA regulations require an EIR to include a "detailed description and assessment of the negative and positive potential environmental impacts of the Project and its alternatives." 301 CMR 11.07(6)(h). The Scope should stress that the proponent is expected to analyze alternatives in depth and not just provide qualitative or descriptive language about the alternativeÕs impacts, positive and negative. Indeed, the MEPA regulations require an EIR to include "an analysis of the principal differences among the feasible alternatives under consideration, particularly regarding potential environmental impacts." Id. at 11.07(6)(f)(4). After describing and analyzing each alternative and its impacts, the EIR should include one or more comparative tables and/or text sections comparing and contrasting the relative impacts of different alternatives.
The Scope should also caution the proponent not to blithely dismiss many of the alternatives that have been put forth as not being "feasible." Indeed, to the extent that the EIR fails to include a full description and analysis of any alternative listed in the Scope or requested by any commenter, the EIR must include an explanation of why those alternatives are not being considered. 301 CMR 11.07(6)(f)(5). While the MEPA regulations do not define the term "feasible", it is clearly not intended to allow project proponents to gloss over potential alternatives which could be built even if they would produce less revenue or a lower internal rate of return. Alternatives for purposes of MEPA consideration need only be feasible Š not profitable at any particular level. And the decision as to which alternatives are or are not feasible needs to take into consideration "the objectives of the Proponent and the mission of any Participating Agency." Id. at 11.07(6)(f)(3). The powerful precedent of the ENF Certificate on Boylston Square (EOEA # 11969) is directly applicable here, both as to the range and nature of alternatives that should be considered and the specific question of what is a "feasible alternative."
It is CLFÕs belief that because the proponent could potentially access other revenue sources (federal military budget earmarks, state open space bond funds, private funds for open space preservation, monies derived from other uses like increased office/R&D development) and because the proponent is a public agency with a broad mandate to enhance and improve the surrounding municipalities the definition of feasible in this case should be broad and flexible.
In addition to requiring analysis of the alternatives requested by other commentors, CLF requests that the Scope require analysis of at least the following types of alternatives:
Project with planned uses constrained by current transportation network: In order to truly understand the interconnected nature of the redevelopment plan and the transportation projects it is essential to understand what could happen if current road and rail infrastructure were maintained and not expanded.
Project(s) in which uses vary from from the current reuse plan: As noted above the entire transportation "improvement" component of this project is literally driven by the need to accommodate the massive number of cars that the large super-regional retail complex contemplated by the proponents will create. While the Mills project differs in many ways from traditional malls, drawing more people from a wider catchment area for longer stays, the traffic numbers for this project are basically variations on traffic numbers for a traditional retail project of this size and scale. Similarly, the direct environmental impacts of the project flow from its size, location and the presence of thousands of motor vehicles on its vast impermeable parking areas, characteristics shared by any shopping mall and not unique to Mills. Therefore, in order for any alternative to have significantly different impacts it needs to feature a changed use mix, altering the monolithic footprint characteristic of large retail malls and the characteristic automobile traffic patterns.
For example, a high technology oriented office development occupying a portion of the land allocated to the proposed retail development utilizing the high capacity fiber optic cable on the western border of the site is certainly a possible alternative deserving of complete examination. Such a project could maintain the proponentÕs admirable commitment to preserve open space while spurring economic development.
Similarly, a "telecom hotel" development such as the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes project in Brighton alongside the Massachusetts Turnpike (which not coincidentally is home to a high capacity fiber optic cable) or the new Cathartes Investments project on Innerbelt Drive in Somerville should also be modeled as alternative reuses for the core redevelopment area of the site instead of the planned super-regional Mills mall. An even more promising variation on this theme, not yet seen in New England, is the "Data Center" discussed in the attached New York Times article. This use might be a perfect fit for the site, building on the NEESCom fiber optic cable infrastructure under Route 18 to put in place the Boston area equivalent of the Newburgh facility discussed in the attached newspaper article.
Pure "telecom hotel" or "data center" operations could be mixed, in another alternative, with high tech (and in particular telecommunications) office development. The pure "telecom hotel" or "data center" model should remain as a stand alone alternative as it would demonstrate the different and lessened impact that would flow from a project that looked to the fiber optics under the roadways as key infrastructure instead of the overburdened roads themselves.
These alternatives would all benefit from consideration of creation of a tax increment financing plan under which the South Shore Tri Town Development Corporation or another entity would issue bonds to pay the needed infrastructure costs which would be repaid by property tax or other tax revenue from redevelopment on the site.
Alternatives that focus on rail and other transportation modes: The South Weymouth commuter rail station on Trotter Road is one of the great assets of the project site. It does not, however, play a prominent role in the planning of the proponents. An alternative that focused on the station, featuring a rail spur, automated people mover or a simple shuttle bus system to draw the station closer to the heart of the base would dictate a different use mix but one worth exploring. Similarly, enhancements to the station, whether it be ambitious ideas like "double tracking" the rail line and/or establishing special service from South Weymouth to Braintree, JFK/UMass and/or stations to the south, possibly by self propelled Diesel Multiple Units ("DMUs" as they are known) or simple measures like enhancements to parking garages at other stations on the line need to be considered. Enhanced rail service would once again provide an opportunity to re-evaluate the use mix on the site and resulting impacts. The shuttle bus service from other rail stations to the base that has been discussed would offer a reduced measure of the same benefits.
Project(s) Based on Alternative Financing Scheme: Clearly, the dominant factor shaping the decision making of the proponent is the need to generate revenue to cover the cost of needed site infrastructure. The proponent has made special note of the need to demolish and/or renovate buildings on the site and to construct new storm sewerage and fresh water supply systems on the site. It would be enlightening to consider the different shape and type of project that would emerge if congressional or state legislative appropriation were to assume some or all of this cost. Additionally, the prospect of state open space bond money being used to purchase portions of the site should be considered in the EIR, with the proceeds from such a sale being invested in this infrastructure work, reducing or eliminating the need for the payments anticipated from Mills. In a similar vein the possibility of private fundraising or foundation support for the planned open space preservation should be considered with the funds from such acquisition being used for the same infrastructure costs.
Project(s) that Change Remediation Plans: It is essential to realize the size, scope and scale of the CERCLA and 21E cleanups which have occurred, are occurring and are still to come on the Air Base site. The Scope should require full disclosure of all Activity and Use Limitations ("AULs") imposed on all portions of the site and the extent and nature of all cleanups, whether undertaken by the Navy, the proponent or others. The Scope should require that an alternative be presented in the EIR which assumes that such AULs will not be imposed and that all sites will be completely cleaned. This would enable different and more varied uses on sites that are currently slated for road and parking- and are only being cleaned to the extent needed for such use. Imposing an AUL restriction limiting a particular portion of the site to road or parking use before the MEPA process has been commenced improperly assumes that such use is the only possible use of that site.
Analyzing Environmental Impacts
The EIR/PIR Must Analyze the Cumulative Impacts of other regionally significant site developments (e.g., Abington Transfer Station, Pine Hills) and transportation projects.
The MEPA regulations require EIRs to include an assessment of the "cumulative impacts of the Project, any other Projects, and other work or activity in the immediate surroundings and region." 301 CMR 11.07(6)(h).
The extensive public comment around the Abington Transfer Station is all directly applicable to this analysis, as the proposed access road would run on or adjacent to the transfer station. It is harder to imagine a more direct example of cumulative impact than the road and traffic impacts of this project and the Transfer Station. Both projects would fundamentally change the shape, nature and volume of traffic on all local streets and must be analyzed together.
The Pine Hills project and Canalside Commons are emblematic of the other projects that will (in the case of Pine Hills) or might (in the case of Canalside Commons if that deeply flawed project proceeds) put even more stress on Route 3. The cumulative impact of all of these projects must be considered in the EIR.
On the transportation side it is essential to remember that the widening of Route 3 contemplated as part of this project is also being analyzed as part of the controversial revived "Route 3 Add-a-lane project" currently undergoing renewed MEPA review. This project should not prejudge the outcome of that project just as that review should not prejudge the outcome of this review. However, neither project can be appropriately analyzed without considering the cumulative impact that both would have on the land use and development patterns of the communities of this "corridor."
The EIR/PIR must include a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of
the project that addresses the realities of the already congested
major roads in the area.
CLF believes that any conventional traffic analysis will fail to capture both the existing traffic problems in the area surrounding the site and those that will be created and/or exacerbated by the construction of the project as proposed. The MEPA scope must therefore ensure that the proponent produces a traffic analysis that accurately reflects the realities of this problematic site.
While the appropriate measure of maximum demand for a conventional highway carrying commuters may be morning and/or evening weekday peaks, this model is of limited use for the roadway network in the vicinity of the Air Station. The uniquely stressed nature of the traffic around the site demands the development and application of a special and customized model which places the project in the proper context. This model should look at situations much more representative of the site.
It does not take an expert in local traffic conditions to suggest that full scrutiny must be given to the projected traffic on Route 3 on a Friday afternoon and evening in the summer time when commuter and Cape Cod vacation traffic join together with traffic to and from the project. Similarly, traffic on Sundays and on the Mondays of long weekends during peak vacation times should also be considered.
The EIR must present detailed analysis of how the project will shape and change land use and development patterns in the area and the impact of those changes.
As discussed at several points above it is possible that the greatest of the many impacts that this project will have will be on land use and development patterns in the subregion around the site. The proposed project is literally centered around a development that will have a massive regional presence, drawing tens of millions of visitors every year and reshaping the nature of the surrounding area. This reshaping of the economic and social nature of the South Shore is a real environmental impact with a host of secondary impacts that need to be fully analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR must include a parking demand and supply analyses for all alternatives consistent with the traffic and transportation modeling, documenting the number of vehicles that will fill the site.
The EIR for the project needs to present a complete accounting of exactly how many cars and buses will actually travel to and from the site and how they will be accommodated. The Mills Corporation has stated that visitors to their malls stay for substantially longer than visitors to conventional malls, stating that this reduces the surges of extremely heavy traffic which is normally observed around malls at peak travel times. This assumption should be questioned and analyzed as well as its corollary that Mills requires an unusually large parking facility to accommodate the cars of the many visitors who arrive and stay for a long time, overlapping with other visitors who would "normally" have filled the parking space the first visitors would have "normally" vacated. If Mills projects do indeed induce long visits and thus require unusually large parking facilities the impact that such facilities will have on the environment (both in terms of runoff and induced traffic) should be considered in the EIR.
The EIR must include a more detailed analysis of pedestrian and bicycle issues, including access to and from surrounding areas.
The plans in the EIR and the draft master plan glimpsed at the scoping session offer little hope that a direct pedestrian or bicycle connection can be made across the site. Evidently some very limited effort is going into creation of winding paths in some of the passive recreation areas around the perimeter of the site but no effort is being made to knit together a system that allows for true multimodal travel across the site. The presence of the massive parking facility and mall it supports in the center of the site under the proposal of the proponent clearly plays a role here. The Scope should require that a true open space network, not just buffering of abutting properties be incorporated into all alternatives for redevelopment of the site.
COMPARE (Citizens Opposing the
Megamall and Proposed Access Road Extension)
Box 890024 Weymouth, MA 02189
[email protected]
For related info, see http://www.geocities.com/nomegamall/ and http://www.rethinkthebase.com and http://hometown.aol.com/rethinkthebase/