harvard science complex pnf comments

8/14/2019 Harvard Science Complex PNF Comments

1/115


2/115


3/115


4/115


5/115


6/115

December 4, 2006

Boston Redevelopment AuthorityOne City Hall Square

Boston, MA 02201

Attn: Gerald Autler

Re: Harvards Allston Science Complex PNF

Dear Mr. Autler:

Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) has reviewed the Project Notification Form

(PNF) for the above mentioned project (the Project) submitted by Harvard University

(Harvard) and offers the following comments to assist the Boston Redevelopment

Authority (BRA) and Harvard as the planning process moves forward.

At the outset, our general concern remains that Harvards decision to proceed with the

review process for the Science Complex before completing a new Institutional Master Plan(IMP) makes it difficult for the public, and regulators, to review the project in an

appropriate context. Harvards campus expansion plans are extensive, and will radically

transform this part of the City. Appropriate design of the Science Complex buildingmassing, transportation infrastructure, water resources, and open space is dependent on

and significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood. The IMP process is intended to

provide a meaningful context in which project-specific decisions can be made. Since

Harvard has filed a PNF for this project without a new or amended IMP in place, the BRAneeds to fundamentally restructure the requirements for its Scoping Determination for the

Draft Project Impact Report (DPIR) so as to include information that would customarily be

detailed in an IMP.

We are aware that Harvard is in the process of preparing a new IMP, as well as amending

their existing IMP. But these documents are not available for review, so the burden is

upon Harvard to provide all of the information that members of the public, and regulators,need to evaluate the Project as a part of the DPIR. In these comments therefore, we

highlight several areas where significant, detailed information is needed in the DPIR. Weurge Harvard and the BRA to ensure that the DPIR includes a clear indication of how the

Project will fit into the larger campus plan, and indeed, into the restoration efforts for the

entire neighborhood. It is particularly important that the Science Complex, a major new

construction, will not be simply incorporated into the existing IMP as a stand-aloneproject. This would contradict the scope, purpose and function of the BRAs IMP process.


7/115

Infrastructure planning for the new campus is particularly important and should not be

considered only at the site-specific scale. All three projects covered under the Amendmentmust be evaluated within the larger context of the overall campus plan, and the

infrastructure planning, design and development should match the long-term needs of the

campus and the neighborhood. Economies of scale are especially relevant, and

opportunities should be sought through the planning process to design infrastructureimprovements for a long time scale and a large spatial scale. CRWA therefore believes that

the DPIR should contain sufficient detail on how the Science Complex ties into the largerinfrastructure network for the campus and the neighborhood so that the design of the site

fits within a more comprehensive planning context. Design of the building and the

landscape for the Project should thus include consideration of open space corridor plans;transportation networks; utility plans; energy planning and stormwater management at a

sub-watershed or a larger watershed scale.

The scope for the DPIR should require Harvard to address how the Project is promotingenvironmental restoration at a neighborhood scale rather than simply mitigating the

impacts at the site scale. Instead of addressing sustainability as a stand alone section, thescope for the DPIR should require Harvard to spell out how the guidelines and indicatorsfor sustainability will be incorporated in each of the areas that the project will impact:

transportation, environmental protection, urban design, historic resources and

infrastructure. Specific standards need to be adopted both at the site specific level as wellas at a campus-wide level for a variety of environmental quality aspects, and metrics must

be developed to reflect how impacts are being measured and the strategies being adopted to

achieve these standards cumulatively. It is crucial that the Allston Sustainable Design

Guidelines inform the design of the Science Complex and thus the DPIR should not befiled before the work on the guidelines is completed and the appropriate sustainability

standards established for both the Project and the overall campus. CRWAs specific

recommendations are as follows.

Science Site and Planning Context

The PNF does not provide enough detail on how the Science Complex fits into either thenew campus master plan or the planning framework laid out by the North Allston Strategic

Framework for Planning (NASFP). CRWA is concerned about the lack of commitment

expressed in it to the larger planning concepts that have been agreed to in principle by so

many stakeholders during the past several years. The language used to describe therelationship of the Project to the Campus Wide Concept Plan is very vague and full of

general vision statements without a commitment to specific strategies or action plans to

implement these visions of a ...green, welcoming and environmentally consciouscampus1. The DPIR needs to provide more details regarding specific projects that the

Science Complex will initiate as a part of the Projects commitment to public realm

improvements and to enhance the areas open space system and to develop newcommunity amenities with the participation of neighborhood representatives and the

support of city and state officials and public agencies2

1PNF for Harvard Allston Science Complex. Pg 1-10

2Ibid


8/115

Transportation and Parking

The detailed transportation analysis that will be submitted as a part of the DPIR and IMPAmendment should include studies and data collection undertaken to not only alleviate the

concerns voiced by the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, but also address more

regional traffic impacts. Since transportation infrastructure and parking (especially given

the extent of underground parking being considered) have huge impacts on stormwatermanagement, these two aspects of the master plan should be designed in tandem to ensure

that the opportunities for integrative planning are maximized to the extent possible, andthat there are no unforeseen long term impacts. The design and construction of the new

Stadium Way and Rena Street extension needs to be very carefully planned to not only

minimize traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhood, but to also ensure thatappropriate Low Impact Development (LID) best management practices are incorporated

in the design of the streetscapes.

The design and construction methodology adopted for the below-grade parking structureneeds to be detailed out in the DPIR to ensure that it addresses important environmental

issues both during and after construction. The location of this project in close proximity tohistoric tidelands that were filled, and the ongoing problems throughout many areas of theCity with groundwater levels, make it all the more important that this aspect of the project

be designed with the utmost care and in anticipation of any potential impacts. Also, since a

major stormwater trunk line (36-inch) would need to be re-routed or redesigned due to theunderground parking, details of this system and how its tied into the surrounding

infrastructure layout needs to be included in the DPIR.

Environmental ProtectionIn addition to documenting the impact of the Project on various elements such as wind,

shadow, daylight, solar glare, air quality, water quality, wetland, flooding, geotechnical

and groundwater, solid and hazardous waste, noise, construction impacts, and wildlifehabitat, the DPIR should focus on how each of the elements is being improved or restored

(to approximate pre-development conditions). Given that a major part of the land under

Harvards ownership was marshland and there are now major drainage issues stemmingfrom the way the area was developed, a restorative approach is critical to ensure that the drainage problems are not further exacerbated and that past mistakes are remedied to the

maximum extent possible.

As a part of evaluating the Projects impact on the Charles River, the DPIR needs to put

together a Stormwater Management Program to ensure that every effort will be made to

protect the River from flooding and water quality impairments. It is our hope that theDPIR will study various alternatives for impact mitigation and demonstrate how

improvements will be made over the existing conditions. As a part of its efforts to mitigate

its impact the River, CRWA would also encourage Harvard to consider retrofitting notonly its own campus but also sections of the surrounding neighborhoods public realm with

LID best management practices. The retrofits would not only help with stormwater

treatment but also provide infiltration to recharge groundwater levels in the area. Theseimprovements can be easily designed and implemented in concert with other pedestrian

safety improvements that Harvard is committed to implementing with the City of Boston.


9/115


10/115

It is therefore critical that stormwater management be an important consideration in the

design and landscaping of the new Yard at the Science Complex as well as the otheropen space, parking areas and streetscape improvements that are going to be made

throughout the campus in the near future. CRWA also suggests that Harvard work with the

BRA, the Boston Park and Recreation Department, and the Allston Brighton Green Space

Advocates to develop a program to provide support for the community-wide effort that isunderway to create new open space, improve access to existing open space network and

retrofit various hard-scaped sites to make them greener and more ecologically functional.This contribution could be made as a linkage payment (as a part of the public benefits

package) or through the implementation of a specific capital improvement project for

improving access to and maintenance of the parks and for environmental restorationprojects in North Allston as a whole.

Infrastructure

It is not appropriate for the PNF to address infrastructure at the site specific level only. Toensure a system-wide planning for infrastructure, the DPIR scope should require an

analysis of neighborhood-scale infrastructure, and detail what upgrades, improvements orredesign may be needed to accommodate not only the Science Complex, but the totalanticipated campus needs over the coming decade. The infrastructure assessment should

include an analysis of what opportunities there may be to reduce impacts on infrastructure,

either through conservation measures, alternative infrastructure elements, or innovativetechnologies on a more comprehensive level.

We suggest the following be required in the DPIR and the IMP:

1 Water Supply:

an institutional water audit;

an assessment of options for reducing demand; techniques for managing peak demands;

finding alternative water supply sources for irrigation and other non-potablewater uses;

assessment of the potential for reuse.2 Stormwater Management:

assessment of existing stormwater runoff conditions (quality and quantity, forthe 2-, 10-, 20- and 100-year storms) from the areas included in the Amendment

and the final IMP;

potential stormwater management designs at the Science Complex site tominimize pollutant loads and runoff volumes from the areas included in the

Amendment and the final IMP; current watershed science suggests the mosteffective stormwater management program provides water quality treatment for

the 1 year storm and flood control for the 25- and 100-year storms.

potential retrofits or larger scale stormwater management approaches to managestormwater runoff from all of the area covered under the IMP amendment and

the final IMP;

identification of opportunities for shared stormwater management projects withpotential partners including BWSC, DPW and the Department of Conservation


11/115

and Recreation (DCR). The DPIR should include specific, detailed information

and alternatives analyses of stormwater management on the site. Stormwatermanagement should aim to maximize infiltration, slow runoff from the site,

maximize the use of vegetation, capture rooftop runoff for irrigation, and

minimize sediment and nutrient loading.

We suggest that the scoping for the DPIR and the IMP require more documentation

about the proposed Stormwater Management Program including:

Detailed information about the final design of the proposed stormwatermanagement plan, including both green and gray infrastructure. The plan

should include site-specific information about surface stormwater managementfeatures such as swales, biofiltration areas, rain gardens, green roofs, stormwater

planters, permeable pavement or vegetated storage areas. It should identify the

location and design of proposed catch basins, particle separators, drains, andadditional water quality structures, as well as details of the storm drain system

(owned by Harvard, by the City of Boston, the DCR, or any other owner) that anyflows discharged from the site will discharge into.

An assessment of how the site would meet DEPs stormwater management policyin its entirety, not just to the maximum extent practicable;

A plan to minimize the primary pollutants of concern for the Charles River,bacteria, nutrients, metals and toxic sediments;

A maintenance plan for the stormwater management plan.

3 Stream Daylighting: The DPIR should include a detailed version of the analysisdone by Harvard's consultant team Nitsch Engineering, on the Allston Creek

daylighting through the Science Complex, based on which the recommendation

summarized in the PNF was made. The DPIR should also include details of thevarious alternatives that are currently being studied for daylighting through the

campus and how the Science Complex is tied into the proposed alternatives. It isnot appropriate that the design of the Project be done independent of the design of

the Allston Creek Daylighting, since the Science Complex site is a key contributor

to how the inflow and outflow system for the stream from both the engineering andlandscape design points of view. It is thus imperative that daylighted stream form

and integral part of the building and landscape design for the Project and details of

the design be included in the DPIR, in addition to details on other BMPs like green

roofs and bio swales that form a part of the overall hydrologic cycle on the site.

4 Wastewater: The DPIR needs to include a detailed assessment of wastewater

generation; assessment of existing wastewater infrastructure and opportunities toimprove carrying capacity, reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) and reduce loadingduring potential CSO events; an assessment of the alternatives for wastewater

management, including potential construction of small-scale package treatment

plants, wastewater greenhouses, and other innovative wastewater managementtechnologies. The DPIR should analyze opportunities to recycle and reuse various

components of the wastewater stream, and to capture roof runoff for infiltration

and/or storage for slow release to recharge groundwater levels.


12/115

5 Groundwater: The Scoping Determination for both the DPIR and the IMP shouldinclude an assessment of groundwater flow directions, as well as a determination ofwhether those directional flows change seasonally. If the Project shows any

potential for altering flows, either slowing or reducing flows into the Charles River,

or conversely reducing flows back into the ground during periods of high

groundwater, or causing any groundwater mounding, the DPIR should documenta mitigation plan for any such alterations. In addition, the DPIR should specify

what source of water would be used should groundwater recharging be necessaryduring or after construction. Incase on-site infiltration of stormwater is not possible

the DPIR should evaluate the possibility of seeking off-site locations for

groundwater recharge and stormwater infiltration. Finally, a detailed plan for thetreatment and disposal of water from dewatering activities should be included in

the DPIR.

6 Other infrastructure: energy and transportation infrastructure should be evaluatedin the context of the numerous alternative design approaches that may be taken. In

addition to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Low

Impact Development (LID), other green approaches may significantly reduce thedemands on the energy, water and transportation infrastructure as the new campusdevelops. It is thus not only imperative that green infrastructure BMPs be put in

place at the Science Complex site, but the overall infrastructure system be designed

so as to meet sustainability standards for the site, the overall campus and the entiresystem of impacted sub-watersheds, which would include section of the residential

neighborhood.

While each of the above categories represents specific realms of water management, it is

CRWAs recommendation that a comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan be

developed at a sub watershed level that would incorporate the above categories as part of a

single system that would replicate the natural hydrologic cycle in comprehensive manner.

Sustainable Design

While there is some discussion on sustainability goals and the Allston Sustainable DesignGuidelines in the PNF document, the DPIR should provide specifics on what kinds of best

management practices and technologies will be incorporated at the building/ site, the

campus and the overall neighborhood level. The Scoping Determination for the DPIR andthe IMP need to explicitly define what the Project aims to achieve in terms of standards for

environmental sustainability on the three levels mentioned above.

CRWA would encourage the proponents to consider a green roof for not only the new

Science Complex, but also as a retrofit for all other existing buildings that it owns in NorthAllston. Green roofs would not only provide cleaner roof runoff, a habitat for birds and

insects and an aesthetically pleasing amenity for the building occupants but also providelong term public health benefits for the neighborhood. Green building standards should

also be adopted for wastewater reuse for flushing toilets etc. (through double plumbing the

building) as well as capturing, filtering and storing roof run-off.

While the LEED system provides one metrics for incorporating green building standards


13/115


14/115

APPENDIX 3

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC


15/115

Mr. Autler,

I'm writing in regard to Harvard's proposed plan for building a science

complex on Western Ave. in Allston.

1)I am concerned about the proposed heights of the buildings. The building

heights should conform to the North Allston Strategic plan.

2)Green space

There is courtyard proposed in the plan which I am concerned is not going to

be made available to the community.

There should be more green space planned next to the street on Western Ave

and the buildings set back from the street.

The proposed indoor gardens (green space) in the buildings sound wonderful,

however will the Allston community have access to those indoor gardens?

3)Will the residents be allowed to come into the retail space?

4)Harvard needs to provide free parking to the construction workers during

the construction of this building so that the workers don't park on the

resident streets.

5)How are the transportation issues going to be handled? Parking, traffic and

public transportation. Harvard should allow Allston residents to use the

Harvard shuttles (which are currently not available to us even though thebusiness school is in our neighborhood).

ONE of the biggest benifit I think that Harvard can provide is form a

partnership (with substantial funding) with our neighorhood school, Thomas

Gardner School. I would like Harvard to come into the school NOW and do a

needs assessment and come up with a strategic plan for the school. The money

they give to the school should be on the scale of the plans that are in place

for the science complex. These benefits should come NOW, if not before

Harvard breaks ground for the science complex.

Sincerely,

Rita Vaidya

15 Athol Street

Allston, MA 02134


16/115

December 15, 2006

Gerald Autler

Boston Redevelopment AuthorityOne City Hall Square, 9th FloorBoston, MA [email protected]

Re: Comments on Harvard Allston Science Complex Project Notification Form (PNF)

Dear Mr. Autler,

I am writing to you regarding the Harvard University Allston Science Complex Project

Notification Form that was submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).

1. This project is outside of the current, approved Institutional Master Plan (IMP) ofHarvard University for the Allston area, and so this PNF should not be approved.I propose that the PNF be re jected without prejudice pending approval of a new (oramended) IMP, meaning that Harvard could re-submit the same PNF verbatim afterthe IMP (or its amendment) is approved. There is no reason to approach Harvard'smassive Allston development in a piecemeal manner; let's get the big picture straight,and then fill in the constituent parts.

2. The design of the interiorcourtyard of the complex is not according to bestpractices for drawing neighbors into the greenspace. According to the Pe et'sCoffee Park (former marketplace in Harvard Square) criterion, this design ispedestrian and neighbor unfriendly. Instead, the building layout should be modified tohave the greenspace directly accessible from Western Avenue, thereby providing a linkbetween Harvard and its immediate neighborhood and neighbors.

3. The road surfaces within several blocks of the proposed site are in a terriblestate of disrepair and should be resurfaced priorto any construction activitycommencing. The section of North Harvard Street between Western Avenue and theCharles River is the worst it is horrendously dangerous for bicyclists, and probablycauses daily damage to automobile alignments. There is no reason to wait 25 yearsfor all Harvard Allston construction to be complete before re-paving such streets especially since they will see increased traffic due to construction and detours. Here'sa good motto: pave it now, do your construction work, and then pave it again.

4. Harvard's Allston development should be required to accomodate bicycle trafficinto, out of, and through the Allston neighborhood in a safe manner. The conceptof an improved North Harvard Street, where bicycle lanes are separatedfrom vehicular


17/115

traffic, should be brought back to the table over any nonsensical objections of theBoston Transportation Department. A similar design should be adopted for WesternAvenue from the Arsenal Bridge to the Western Avenue Bridge. Any street parkingspaces lost could easily be accomodated by having Harvard build equivalent off-streetparking spaces.

5. Harvard's Allston development mustdeal with improving traffic into and out ofthe Allston area along major routes for the employees expected to use theirproposed facility. This includes access routes on Cambridge Street and EverettStreet, in addition to North Harvard Street and Western Avenue that they seem toonly be considering. The employees for their new complex will primarily notdrivecars to work: the small number of academic and research faculty will be heavilyoutnumbered by the post-doctoral researchers, graduate students, technicians,administrative, and facility maintainance staff. For example, parking in HarvardMedical School's Longwood campus has such a long waiting list (around seven years!)that only the faculty members there generally drive to work. Their plan mustdeal withimproved bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit (bus and commuter train stations) thatwill be servicing the vast majority of their expected employees.

6. Improved access between the Allston neighborhood and the Charles Rivershould be a top priority of their development. Currently, the intersection at NorthHarvard Street and Soldiers Field Road (on- and off-ramps) is verydangerous topedestrians and bicyclists (despite limited re-paving) due to inadequate painting andpedestrian-activated lights, the intersection at Western Avenue and the StorrowDrive/Soldiers Field Road off-ramp is moderately dangerous due to limited pedestrian-activated lights, and the intersection at Cambridge Street and Storrow Drive is probablythe most dangerous one within a three-mile-radius. I urge you to visit the latter

intersection yourself on foot and try to cross every street which enters it: I guaranteeyour heart will be beating at least 150 bpm by the end of the exercise. These are theroutes that Harvard students and employees, as well as the neighbors, take to accessthe Charles River (or cross it). Do they need to die like the tragic recent case of a BUstudent on Memorial Drive? If you yourself are too frightened to cross these streets onfoot, then why should the BRA approve any PNF or IMP without requiring itsimprovement?

7. Harvard should endow a neighborhood foundation that will, in perpetuity,

alleviate the impacts of their development on the neighborhood. I believe that thisfoundation should encompass all of Allston-Brighton, and include contributions fromthe major organizations subject to the PILOT program: Boston University, BostonCollege, St. Elizabeth's Hospital, WGBH, and Harvard University. The one-timepayments into the endowment are in addition to any annual PILOT payments made tothe City of Boston. The value of the contributions to the endowment could be a simpleformula: a one-time fee based on the commercial tax rate (currently 1.950%), or$3.9M for a $200M project.


18/115

If you have questions, please feel free to call me directly at (617)216-1447, or contact me [email protected].

Sincerely,

Dr. Michael Pahre76 Foster StreetBrighton, MA 02135(617)[email protected]


19/115

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%20Documents/Ha...20the%20Science%20Complex%20Project%20Notification%20Form%20.htm

rom: Home100 [[email protected]]

ent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:18 PM

o: Autler, Gerald

c: [email protected]

ubject: comments on the Science Complex Project Notification Form

mportance: High

ear Gerald,

elow you will find my comments. I reside in 12 Hopedale Street, Allston, and therefore I will be directlfected by the Science Complex development

1) Traffic: Traffic both in North Harvard and in Cambridge Street is right now very heavy andquite dangerous. The entrance/exit to the Mass Pike by the Genzyme Buiding is quite congestedTraffic both through the construction and once that the Science Complex is functional is only goito make the traffic situation worse. The idea in the plan as proposed of the new Allston Boulevarand how to get the traffic from the Mass Pike to the new Complex is not acceptable.

2) Parking: Currently all Harvard Business School Students and most of the employees parkfree in North Allston streets. Harvard idea of promoting use of public transportation by subsidizin

MBTA passes and charging for parking is good in principle. But a lot of Harvard students andemployees dont want to give up the commodity of driving to work and/or to classes and rather pfor free than paying. This situation is only going to get worse when the construction work startssince Harvard plans to charge contractors for parking. The City should not approve Harvard planunless Harvard designates some of Harvards properties for Parking spaces and implements shservices to the construction areas. Also once that the Building is occupied parking would also beproblem. The City needs to demand from Harvard a solution before it approves the plan.3) Public transportation: The only bus that runs through Harvard in Allston and links to Harvin Cambridge and other parts of the City is the 66 bus. Right now buses are very often full and dstop to pick up passengers. That makes us residents have to wait for ever. The amount of peoplthat will have to use this bus will increase dramatically with both students and Science Complexemployees. Harvard should approach MBTA and subsidize this route and/or come up with asolution. Also the Harvard shuttles own by Harvard should increase their frequency and should bopen for free to North Allston neighbors showing proof of residency.4) Property taxes: The City of Boston is going to lose a lot of revenue from taxes since Harvais forcing all businesses to move out from Allston. At the same time Harvard is exempt and will bexempt from paying taxes. Is the City of Boston going to seek the money that is loosing byincreasing the property taxes of the long time residents of North Allston? As one resident andperson paying taxes on my property I am deeply concerned about this subject.

5) Safety during digging/rodents control: Harvard needs to offer guarantee that all drilling adigging is safe for our houses. I dont want my foundation to start moving and developing cracksAlso rodents control is very important. I dont want sewer rats and other animals running throughback yard and my garden.6) Walking neighborhood: This neighborhood wants to keep its identity. We want to be able walk and take care of errands. Among proposed businesses in the Western Ave area and in theScience Building is not enough to have coffee shops and similar venues for students. We _theneighbors_ need to have dry-cleaners, grocery stores, flower shops, newspaper stands, bakeryneeds to be safe both for pedestrians, and for bikers. And most importantly for our children.

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%2...ce%20Complex%20Project%20Notification%20Form%20.htm (1 of 2)12/6/2006 3:00:59 PM


20/115

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%20Documents/Ha...20the%20Science%20Complex%20Project%20Notification%20Form%20.htm

hanks very much.you have any questions and/or comments do nt hesitate to contact me by e-mail [email protected] or by phone at (617) 275-5567.

ncerely,

anca Lain

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%2...ce%20Complex%20Project%20Notification%20Form%20.htm (2 of 2)12/6/2006 3:00:59 PM


21/115

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%20Documents/Harvard%20Comments/Harvard%20University%20PNF%20comments.htm

rom: Priscilla Anderson [[email protected]]

ent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:06 PM

o: Autler, Gerald

ubject: Harvard University PNF comments

ovember 14, 2006

erald Autler

oston Redevelopment Authorityne City Hall Square, 9th Floor

oston, MA 02201

ear Mr. Autler:

would like to submit some specific comments in response to the Project Notification Form rece

bmitted by Harvard University for its Science Complex. I understand that it is a preliminary

anning document and that it refers only to the Science Complex (not to the whole master plan),y comments are limited to that scope. As you stated in the last HATF meeting (11/ 13/ 06), you

sponse will ask for more information, further studies, and clarifications. I hope these thoughts

ay be useful to you in writing that response.

am a home-owner in the neighborhood, a parent of a small child, and an employee of the Harva

usiness School. As a Harvard employee, I have participated tangentially in two other constructi

ojects at Harvard, and Im familiar with the kind of struggles Harvard has with the residential

ommunities it abuts. Unlike some of my neighbors, I do not view Harvard as an enemy, but I do

ant to make sure that the residents needs, rights, and preferences are taken into account whenarvard does its planning. As a parent, I want to do everything in my power to ensure that my

hilds neighborhood is a safe and friendly place to grow up.

Id like to see a more exact street plan for the streets bordering the Science Complex, both duri

onstruction and after occupancy. It has been implied but never explicitly stated that Windom St

ill become a dead end (I am in favor of this, but Id like to see it on the plans). I want to see ho

edestrians and cyclists from the Windom/ Hopedale street area might still be able to access West

ve. I would like Harvard to ensure that my neighbors and I have access by foot both duringonstruction and after occupancy, since Western Ave and the # 70 bus are major transportation

utes.

During construction, Harvard plans to have its construction trucks go over the Cambridge Stre

verpass (speed limit 40mph!), then make a very tight right/ U-turn into their property off of

Windom Street, then turn immediately left onto the theoretical Allston Way. I think this is a bad

ecause: 1. a heavy truck could tip over doing a tight U-turn at high speed; 2. It will cause even wo

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%2...0Comments/Harvard%20University%20PNF%20comments.htm (1 of 4)12/6/2006 3:00:59 PM


22/115


ongestion at the intersection of Windom and Cambridge than there already is due to increased tr

affic; 3. Running trucks close behind two blocks of Windom Street houses every morning at 7am

re to annoy those residents. Id like to suggest that Harvard look at alternate routes for its

onstruction trucks, especially Western Avenue to Hague Street, or perhaps using the now un-use

onnector between the Mass Pike ramp (near Genzyme) and Hague street along the truck yard

operty. This would keep unnecessary noise, dust, and disturbance out of our quiet residential

eighborhood, and would do a lot to improve the abutters feelings toward Harvards constructio

ojects.

Construction workers need to carry heavy tools and equipment, they often drive long distances

et to the jobsite, and therefore they should not be expected to ride public transportation or to pa

r parking when they get to the site. Harvard should provide free, convenient parking for them

ey dont clog our narrow neighborhood streets with their large vehicles during construction. I

pport restricted parking in our neighborhood, but this will take years to accomplish, so Harvard

ould take effective steps to mitigate the parking problem during construction.

Im concerned about public protests, both legal and illegal, against the stem cell research buildin

August 2004, a pipe bomb exploded at a stem cell research facility in Watertown. There have

een numerous protests at biotech firms around the country. Id like to know that Harvards secu

an for this building includes ways to keep protesters away from the neighborhood side of the

omplex. And Id like to see the plans take into account the possibility of explosions (either illeg

accidental), constructing the building so that toxic chemicals are not released into the

eighborhoods air.

Id like Harvard to specify which portions of the Science Complex will be publicly accessible (th

ocument is quite vague, with lots of maybe language). Specifically, Id be grateful for public

cess to all outdoor green spaces and to at least one of the winter gardens, and a couple of slo

e daycare center slated reserved for neighborhood children.

There was no mention in the document about geothermal heating/ drilling, although at other

esentations Harvard has suggested that this is how it intends to heat/ cool this building. The pl

o indicate four floors of below-ground space. Id like to see a study of the potential impacts on

eighborhood from drilling, digging, blasting, or whatever they have to do in order to remove sucrge quantities of earth.

Regarding biological research, I would like Harvard to publicly specify what if any highly toxic/

ontagious substances will be used or studied in this facility. Although Im confident that Harvar

aff will handle and dispose of such things legally, accidents do happen and I think we have a rig

know what we may be exposed to. I applaud Harvards effort to make the building as sustaina

possible, but Im also concerned that the ventilation systems might release toxic fumes and dus



23/115


to the neighborhood air. Id like to see both particulate and solvent-level filtration of any air th

eing returned to the neighborhood.

The loading dock and other noisy/ smelly facilities have been located in the southern building,

osest to the residential area of the neighborhood. Harvard should consider moving these activit

least to the eastern side. If not, Id like to see studies of noise and air quality impact, and what

arvard will do to mitigate those problems.

Drainage along Windom Street in the area currently adjacent to the large WGBH parking lot ha

ways been a problem. Will Science Complex construction take up the task of improving this?

0. Regarding improving public transportation, Harvard stated last night that the MBTA will be

nlikely to modify existing bus routes to accommodate the Science Complex staff. In order for

arvard to carry through on its commitment to increase public transportation use, Id like to see

oncrete plans for more Harvard shuttle buses going to this area from Harvard Square and Centra

quare, and not just during rush hours. The current shuttle system (Im now speaking as a Harvamployee) is quite inadequate in serving the HBS campus, since it does not run all day long. To

uild some good will with the residential community, I suggest that these shuttles also be accessib

the public.

. Id like to see a detailed timetable of when Harvard proposes to begin demolition and

onstruction. Other presentations have suggested that they plan to begin demolition in April of 2

nly four months from now). Does Harvard need approval of this Project Notification Form pl

efore they begin demolition? If so, then that is a frighteningly ambitious timetable, and makes m

spicious that Harvard is moving too quickly for the neighborhood to have adequate response.

ot, then is there a separate approval process for demolition? Is that plan available to the public?

also have two procedural questions not specifically related to the PNF:

When studies are done to document traffic, noise, air quality, etc, does Harvard choose and pa

r those consultants? If so, what in this process guarantees that this data is interpreted objective

I would like to know when public meetings will be held regarding the amendments to the Mastan that Harvard plans to submit later this year. As you could see from the community turn-out

e last HATF meeting, there are a lot of people interested in participating in this process. We w

ke to have ample time to review the documents that Harvard submits, then be informed of futur

eetings with enough time to hire babysitters, etc.

hank you for your attention to these few of the many details that Im sure your job requires.



24/115


ncerely,

iscilla Anderson

0 Windom St

llston MA 02134

7.254.3132 phone

mail: [email protected]



25/115

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%20Documents...20comment%20on%20Harvard%20PNG%20of%20October%2027%202006.htm

rom: Jon Holmes [[email protected]]

ent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:13 AM

o: Autler, Gerald

ubject: Public comment on Harvard PNG of October 27, 2006

Jon Holmes

29 Hopedale Street

Allston, MA 02134-1212

(617) [email protected]

ovember 12, 2006

erald Autler

oston Redevelopment Authority

ne City Hall Square, 9th Floor

oston, MA 02201

[email protected]

ear Mr. Autler:

ppreciate this opportunity to comment on the most recent version of Harvard Universitys plans for our

ighborhood. As you know from my previous comments I am distressed with the historical dishonesty of th

iversitys approach, the paucity of actual planning reflected in their documents and the reactionary attitude

ey have shown to community comments and suggestions.

y conclusion from the most recent Project Notification Form (PNF) of October 27 and the endless hours I h

ent listening to their ever-changing positions expressed in community forums is that Harvard has no plan at

. The BRA should refuse to accept this PNF as an amendment to their current Institutional Master Plan (IM

nstead BRA should hold Harvard to the same standards as other developers. If BRA has a process that dem

en-year plan, then Harvard should project its activities for the next ten years and let the community judge w

nd of neighbor they propose to become. We already know what kind of neighbor they have been so far. In

dition, any proposed IMP for North Allstonand Task Force supervisionmust include all of Harvards

ldings, including the stadium, athletic facilities, office space and retail which BRA has so far refused to inc

ecific to the PNF, I have these questions and comments:

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My...on%20Harvard%20PNG%20of%20October%2027%202006.htm (1 of 6)12/6/2006 3:01:00 PM


26/115


over Page Harvard referred to this project as a science building up until the Harvard Allston Task

Force (TF) meeting of April 26, 2006, when it was revealed to be a Science Complex.

Even that is disingenuous, since only a couple of sciences will be pursued in this site.

Perhaps it could more properly be called a cloning complex, since that is the research t

be carried on there.

No doubt the actual naming rights will belong to a major donor (or four donors for four

buildings), according to a process as convoluted as that by which the Kennedy School an

its buildings have been named.

3.1 This PNF states that Harvards Allston campus contains approximately 140acres. This is a gross understatement of the extent of Harvards holdings in Nor

Allston, much of which has been acquired by stealth using shell companies and

duplicitous individuals over the years. The neighborhood needs to know exactly

what properties are in their hands and their plans for those properties.

Harvards description of the neighborhood fails to consider or characterizemany retail facilities, though there are, of course, fewer now that Harvard has useits power to buy up so many and shut them down as a way to pressure the holdou

into selling at lower prices.

Other than a mention of residential areas, the PNF does not mention thepeople who live here or the property values their actions to date have impacted.

When the PNF says the Project provides the opportunity to provide publiclyaccessible open spaces, we are left to wonder what those might be. Certainly the

are not described in this document.

Harvards arrogance is clear in the PNF statement that the Project will prova mix of uses more suitable to neighboring residential areas than what currently

exists. Beyond the fact that they have created the wasteland that currently exists

who are they to determine what we think is more suitable?

4 The Project Summary is incomplete, listing a cafeteria but not mentioning other propose

facilities. Rumor has it that there will be a restaurant and a tavern on the site.

The interesting thing is that, while Harvards April IMPNF page 12 proposes a new fou

to-six story science complex of approximately 500,000 square feet on an approximately acre parcel of land, we are now faced with 6% more development on a lot that is 27%

smaller. The buildings, although the PNF never says so except in pictures, have now

doubled in height to eight storys at an impressive 125 feet.



27/115


5.1 As one of the long-time residents seeking to remain in the neighborhood, I am concern

that Harvard is making that impossible for us all. I have seen nothing from the city that

alleviates our concerns that gentrification associated with this and other Harvard projects

will force us out.

When they talk about newly-arrived members of the Harvard community and then say

the Project does not directly impact housing. Certainly the bulldozers they intend to ru

through Charlesview will do that job, even if that is not covered in this narrow peek at th

plans. What else do they consider more suitable?

6 While Harvard intends to envision opportunities, we in the neighborhood would like to

know the approximate cash value of the naming rights for these buildings and the ratio to

their annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT).

Harvard now characterizes the Harvard Allston Task Force as the IMP Task Force.

7 Harvard is disingenuous its description of a long history of community consultation,

starting its description in the mid-1980s. Few in the neighborhood would characterize th

relationship that way, either before or after that date. Most would call it a bald lie.

8.3 Harvard expects 1,000 construction jobs and 800 new permanent jobs at the Complex. T

City says that between 1998 and 2003 Allston lost one in every five jobsand two-third

of our higher-paying manufacturing jobs. Thats 2,282 citizens displaced, with their

families placed at hazard. Harvard certainly bears some responsibility for that, yet there

no mention of a single new job being reserved for the affected residents.

8.5 Harvard describes the Complex courtyard as not technically part of the public realm. I

that is so, then where are the publicly accessible open spaces mentioned at 1.3.1?

2.2 Harvard, at 2.1, lists six fine-sounding principles of urban design. Here, however, they s

they say they will be guided by the five urban design principles discussed above. Wha

are we to make of this? Are they committed to living by most but refusing to define the

one they will skip? Or did they just whip out this latest set of principles to buffalo Bosto

into thinking they have an actual plan?

They also claim that they have designed according to the principles of the NANSP, the

North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan, which the BRA has already violated with its

permitting of the Lincoln Street storage warehouse. Apparently none of these principleactually have much glue holding them together.

Then they try to convince us that the courtyard is publicly accessible but quieter and mo

intimate than a public park, though that remains to be seen. They speak of open

connecting spaces at the exterior edges of the parcel when in actuality, because of the

elevated connecting ramps between buildings, only 10% of the exterior edges will actual

be open to the skyand only along Western Avenue. Once again they intend to extend

what they call the spatial character of Harvards yards by circling the Voortrekker

wagons to keep out the community where they live.



28/115


able 2-2 The Anticipated Review Processes table makes no mention of applying for liquor license

or event licenses.

5.1 Harvard is careful to point out that this Project use is not allowed within the Allston

Landing North Economic Development Area, governed by Article 51 of the Boston Zoni

Code. They are careful to list the permitted height (80 feet compared to their 125-foot

plan) and floor-area-ratio limits but not that they are in violation. They do claim that on

the amendment is allowed they will be free to violate all current Area zoning codes.

1.2 What off-road bike accessibility is proposed on North Harvard Street? Do they propos

to tear down their own buildings, eliminate the sidewalks or reduce the public traffic lan

like they did for the bus stops?

1.3 Apparently Harvard people dont take the bus and do not contribute to the fact that the

Number 66 bus is frequently at capacity and running late morning and evening. Nor, we

must suppose, will any of the 1,000 Complex employees, the students and visitors take th

bus or require an increase in the MBTA service. Instead, Harvard will add new shuttlebus service and van service for their exclusive use and yet vehicle-trips along the

roadway are expected to be reduced.

1.4 Harvard lists seven benefits of reducing auto trips and lists programs already in place

which will magically eliminate those future trips. The only concrete changes they propo

are sheltered bicycle parking, more shuttles, more carpool parking signs, bus shelters at t

remaining stops possible additional Zip Car parking spaces. The result of Harvards

development and its additional traffic will actually lead to the opposite of their benefits:

more neighborhood and regional traffic impacts, more pollution, degraded street life,

increased energy consumption, more investment in parking facilities and less integrationthe Project into the surrounding area.

1.5 The April IMPNF proposes an underground parking garage with spaces for approximat

1,300 vehicles, which will not result in a significant change in traffic generation or

parking demand. Now we are told that 500-700 spaces will do the same job.

Harvards numbers say their automobile mode share in Allston is 59%. If we assume

honest 1,000 employees, plus students, graduate students, contract employees, conferenc

attendees, museum goers, performing arts rehearsers, service, maintenance and deliverie

and employees and shoppers in the proposed retail uses, this cannot possibly be adequateespecially when we realize that this does not include the museum and arts rehearsal

buildings proposed previously but forgotten in this PNF.



29/115


1.7 Table 3-2 purports that 1,000 new employees plus all the other new traffic mentioned

above will amount to only 2,770 daily automobile trips, entering and leaving. But the m

astonishing projection of all is that, according to Table 3-3, these trips, minus the displac

workers at WGBH, will actually result in 243 fewer net new trips daily on the Allston

streets. It is easy to believe that Harvard is less in need of a Science Complex than a ma

department. Perhaps figures dont lie after all.

3-14 The map, containing the only ingress/egress data in the report, is unreadable. Since it

doesnt state whether this is current or projected, perhaps it is merely meaningless.

1.10 Harvard proposes to mitigate construction and contractor employee vehicle impact by

renting off-street parking to the construction workers, making MBTA schedules availabl

and giving them access to bike racks and showers at an unidentified location. Anyone w

has tried to park or drive on Windom Street or Western Avenue during previous Harvard

projects knows that this is either disingenuous or foolish.

2.6 Harvard states, The Project site does not contain any wetlands. The reason that is true

that Harvard bulldozed, filled and paved over the wetlands during construction of theHarvard Business School. The PNF does not address the present run-off disaster caused

the Business School lots.

2.8.1 Harvard makes no commitment to a percentage of wastes to be recycled.

2.8.2 The City of Bostons experience with Boston University biological research facilities

makes it clear that hazardous waste regulations are honored most often in their breach, th

the regulations themselves are toothless and no one pays for violating them.

2.13 Yet another set of Harvard principles claims that the Project will lead to increasing thediversity of native species. We want to see how that will happen.

They claim that they are committed to developing tools to analyze sustainability and

support responsible decision-making. We want to know what those tools are, how they

have been applied to this Project and what changes resulted.

They claim to be encouraging environmental inquiry and institutional learning. We w

to know which life sciences faculty have worked on the Project, the forms of support the

have received from Harvard and the results they have achieved.

Eventually in that section Harvard says that, while the principles are in place, they have n

yet devised any guidelines for their Green Campus initiative and have no goals or metric

to measure progress toward them. Nor, they say, will they be complete before the DPIR

for the Complex is filed.



30/115


5.1 Apparently our sewers, energy systems and water supply are inadequate (no surprise to a

North Allston resident). We understand the detriment to Harvards abutters and neighbo

as streets are torn up to replace these systems. Two questions: will the community be

upgraded to the citys codes at the same time; and will Harvard pay for this work in

PILOT?

5.2.2 Projections of sewage creation are fine, but will Harvard have actual usage measurement

gauge future efforts?

5.2.3 At 3.5.2.2 Harvard says the Project will generate approximately 62,000 gallons per day

sewage. Here it says new wastewater flows exceeding 15,000 gallons per day. Which

correct? Is one subsumed within the other?

5.3.1 Hydrant flow tests, like traffic and many other metrics, are not complete and could

significantly imperil the community. Many are not even scheduled for data collection

before this project begins construction in April. This community has burned extensively

before and has less fire service now than it did then. Shouldnt we have at least the publ

safety planning complete before Harvard is unleashed?

5.4 What mitigation is intended for the stormwater runoff from the current Harvard Business

School parking lots?

any in this neighborhood are saddened, worried and even angry at Harvards failure to plan adequately and

nstant shifting of positions that have huge impacts on our lives, safety and property values. We are also

ncerned about the response of the BRA, which seems firmly on the developers side and against the

mmunity.

arvard does not deserve an extension of their current IMP. No new projects should be approved until themmunity can see and be satisfied with what Harvard plans for the next decade. This is about the money or

out the people. Either we have a legitimate ten-year IMP process or the whole BRA system is just another

stitutional PR scheme.

nally, it is hard for us to participate in these hundreds of hours of meetings. We are volunteers in the

mmunity, not hired guns. We dont like being shouted down in meetings, and we are sick of the disrespect

own by government and university. Please help us make this a better neighborhood by demanding a fair an

en process where everyone is heard.

hank you for this opportunity to comment.

ncerely,

n Holmes



31/115

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%20Documents/H...s/Re%20Harvard%20IMPScience%20ComplexTask%20Force%20Updates.htm

rom: Kate Chen [[email protected]]

ent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:51 PM

o: Autler, Gerald

ubject: Re: Harvard IMP/Science Complex/Task Force Updates

ear Mr. Autler -

would like to comment on the traffic plan for the new science complex. It is unclear to me from the

an where vehicles will enter the science complex parking garage. Current traffic, unrelated to WGmployee traffic, has a tendency already to cut through our neighborhood on Seattle and Windom Str

avoid the traffic lights on Western, Cambridge, and North Harvard. Seattle is a very small, narrow

reet, even more so than Windom, and must not be part of any plans to reroute traffic or construction

hicles. One-way Hopedale Street already suffers from "short-cutters" speeding the wrong way dow

posing a threat to residents, other drivers, and the many children who live in the neighborhood.

opefully any entrance to the garage will be located off a large street, whether an existing one, or a n

ne, and not in the middle of our neighborhood. Also, construction rucks cannot be allowed to pass p

sidential houses. the noise of construction trucks is unbearable and literally shakes the foundations

e older homes in this neighborhood. I urge you to consider having trucks also enter via large non-

sidential routes.

ur neighborhood is full of elderly couples who have lived here there whole lives, and new young

milies (like mine) moving in to establish roots. Without these residents, the neighborhood will turn

to the Allston that exists on the other side of Comm. Ave - a noisy, student renters haven of pizza

aces and nightclubs. This will not serve Harvard's purpose of create an inviting community for

searchers, faculty, neighbors, and Harvard students alike. You need to not only keep the families t

e here, but encourage more families, faculty, and staff to move here as it evolves into a viable

mmunity.

hank you - Kate Chen

t 02:31 PM 11/15/2006, you wrote:

Thank you for your interest in the Harvard's planning and development in Allston. This e-mail

list has been developed to keep you informed of future meetings, updates, and other items of

interest.

First, please note that the comment period on the Science Complex Project Notification Form

has been extended until Friday, December 15. Please submit written comments by that date to

me at the address at the bottom of this message. Comments may be sent in hard copy or by e-

mail. Remember, the most useful comments are those that are focused on specific issues about

this building that can be addressed by the Scoping Determination, which will set forth the analysis

and information that Harvard will need to provide as part of its Draft Project Impact Report on the

le:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/KatelynS/My%...d%20IMPScience%20ComplexTask%20Force%20Updates.htm (1 of 3)12/6/2006 3:01:00 PM


32/115


Science Complex. Many of the questions posed at Monday evening's meeting will be answered in

the Institutional Master Plan filings that Harvard will be making in December and January, and

there will be other opportunities to look at the larger planning issues.

The Project Notification Form, along with other information about the planning efforts and

process to date, is available on the BRA's website at:

http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/bra/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?

action=ViewInit&InitID=115

Hard copies are available for viewing at the BRA and at the Honan-Allston Library. Some copies

will also be made available at the library for interested persons to take home.

The Task Force meeting schedule is posted on the website above. The schedule of meetings

through March is as follows:

q November 29

q December 11q January 8

q January 24

q February 12

q February 28

q March 12

q March 28

Unless otherwise noted, all meetings will be held 6:30-8:30 at the Honan-Allston Library. All

meetings are subject to cancellation or change.

In addition to the regular Task Force meetings, at which public attendance and participation is

welcome but which have specific agendas, we plan to hold informational/update meetings and

workshops beginning in January in order to ensure that the broader community has opportunities

to view and discuss all the information submitted in a comprehensive manner.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Regards,

Gerald Autler, Senior Project Manager/Planner

Boston Redevelopment Authority

One City Hall Square

Boston, MA 02201

P: 617.918.4438

F: 617.742.7783



33/115


The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be

confidential, legally

privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts

law. It is intended

solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, pleasecontact the sender and

delete the material from any computer.

____________________

ate Chen6 Hopedale Street

llston, MA 02134

617-782-7506



34/115


35/115


36/115

Comment on the Harvard University Project Notification Form for the Harvard Allston Science Complex

December 1, 2006Harry Mattison

Harvards development in Allston offers great opportunities for Harvard, the North Allston Neighborhood, andthe City of Boston. For all three of these parties to share the benefits of this first project and Harvards futuregrowth, there must be openness and clarity around this project and past promises must be honored.

The proposed project conflicts with past agreements made with the City and the Allston communityPublished in 2004, the North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning (NASFP) was the product of four yearsof collaborative effort by Allston residents, the City of Boston, and Harvard University. The Science ComplexProject Notification Form (PNF) describes this project as being consistent with the NASFP. While there areareas of agreement, the proposed project is directly opposed to the Framework in several ways. Theseconflicts must be discussed so all parties are confident that the goals of the Framework - a strong residentialneighborhood, a vibrant area of economic activity, and an exciting hub of intellectual teaching and research -are not compromised. The Allston community understands that the Framework will not be precisely followed,but deviations such as those proposed by Harvard in this PNF deserve collaboration between Allstonresidents, the City, and Harvard. A decision by Harvard alone that these aspects of the Framework no longerapply is not acceptable.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) said the following in its June 15 Scoping Determination of theHarvard University Allston Campus Institutional Master Plan Amendment:

The overriding criteria that the BRA will apply to its review of the IMP Amendment is the degree towhich the Proposed Projects are consistent with existing neighborhood planning principles, the degreeto which they are seen to fit into a broader plan for the Allston campus, and the degree to which theyexpand, reduce, or maintain planning options.

The NASPF is the clearest and most recent statement of existing neighborhood planning principles. Thereforethe Scoping Determination for the Science Complex must instruct Harvard to modify its plans for the ScienceComplex to resolve these conflicts with the NASFP. Without these modifications the IMP Amendment and thisproject cannot move forward.

1) Building Height The NASFP establishes a height limit of 95 feet at the site of the proposed Science

Complex. The Science Complex PNF proposes buildings 125 and 110 feet tall.

2) Roads and vehicular circulation The NASFP proposes a system of city blocks very different than whatis in the Science Center PNF. New local streets must match the NASFPs vision of smaller city blocksthat create a pedestrian-friendly environment. Harvards proposed extended Rena Street and StadiumWay are straight-shot roads that are more engineering and vehicle oriented.

North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning Science Complex Proposal


37/115

3) River WalkConnections to the Charles River are a key theme to theNASPF. The NASFP proposes a river walk promenade as atree-lined extension from Cambridge Street along WindomStreet, through Harvards existing campus to Smith Field.The proposed location of the Science Complex, the proposednew road (Stadium Way) and the lack of any mention of theRiver Walk suggest that Harvard has quietly rejected thisimportant feature of the NASFP.

Sciencecomplex

New roads

River Walk

4) Allston Landing North Special Study AreaA portion of the science complex site and the proposed newroad (Stadium Way) are in the Allston Landing North SpecialStudy Area defined by the NASFP. This study has not startedand no development should happen in this area until thestudy is completed.

AllstonLandingNorth SpecialStudy Area

5) Land UseThe NASFP identified this location as a potential site forgraduate student housing, not for a 500,000 square footscience complex.

Public SpacesWhen creating new amenities as part of their upcoming projects, how can Harvard design and program thesespaces so that both Harvard-affiliated people and Allston residents can benefit f rom these resources? Whatare the pros and cons for Harvard-affiliates and Allston residents of creating these as "secondary" uses in ascience building instead of creating larger, dedicated facilities such as a day care, f itness, etc.?

Please provide a complete and unambiguous list of the parts of the building and site that will be open to the

public. The PNF says the project will include various public amenities, which may include commercial andretail space, a science exhibit space, and a cafeteria. Can the public have access to the roof gardens, bar,and restaurant?

Public SafetyUsing the Center for Disease Controls 1-4 scale, what will be the Biosafety Level of the facility?

What is Harvards plan for managing protests that will likely given the controversial nature of the stem-cellresearch and animal experimentation proposed for the site? Will Harvard reimburse the city for protest-relatedpolice expenses? How will police response to protest activity not dilute police protection and response for therest of the neighborhood? Will there be a designated area where protests will be allowed?


38/115

The Allston community needs a description of what willhappen as part of this projectThroughout the PNF are conditional words such as may, might, could, and other terms that give animpression of a certain result but give no assurances about what Harvard will actually do. These terms do notgive the community confidence that Harvards project will meet the expectations that Harvard impliesthroughout the PNF.Below are examples of such statements, all of which Harvard needs to clarify. In caseswhere Harvard is unable to state with certainty what will happen, contingency plans should be offered or thereport should discuss the various situations that could lead to a range of outcomes.

1. The Project may generate chemical, biomedical, radiological, and infectious wastes2. While not technically part of the public realm, the Project also includes the creation of a central

courtyard between the buildings that make up the Science Complex. This new space is intended to bepublicly accessible

3. Land uses include: WGBH offices and parking (which, as noted previously, should be vacated in 2007),4. Vehicular access to the on-site parking and loading facilities will be from a newly built extension of

Rena Street, which will be constructed along the southerly edge of the site and might connect TravisStreet to a proposed street presently referred to as Stadium Way on the easterly edge.

5. The following buildings currently occupy the site and may be vacated and demolished to enable theScience Complex to proceed

6. Although the Science Complex has sufficient public transportation access for commuters, the Universityintends to provide supplemental transit services to enhance connectivity between Allston andCambridge and Allston and the Longwood Medical Area

7. The Project will include various public amenities, which may include commercial and retail space, a

science exhibit space, and a cafeteria.8. It is anticipated that construction of the Project may increase daylight obstruction values due to

increased height.

Demolition of Existing BuildingsSection 1.3.3 of the PNF lists buildings that may be demolished as part of this project. In future filings for thisand other projects, a land parcel map should be included. The parcel ID # and size in square feet should begiven for each building and parcel. All street addresses listed should be consistent with Bostons onlineassessing database (http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/). For example, a building at 118 WesternAve is listed for possible demolition in the PNF but that address is not in the Citys database.

The lot area for this project is approximately 200,000 square feet. The total size of the lots where buildings are

listed for possible demolition is greater than 500,000. Therefore more than 300,000 square feet (7 acres) ofdemolished and vacated space might be created around the project site.

Harvard needs to detail specifically what buildings will be demolished, justify all demolition beyond theboundaries of the project site, explain what will be done with this land during and after construction of thisproject and how this will not detract f rom the quality of life for Allston residents.

The demolition on these sites should be considered an institutional use and these sites should be included inthe Institutional Master Plan Amendment before this project can proceed.

168 WESTERN AV 73,133156 WESTERN AV 15,000

28 TRAVIS ST 273,954100 WINDOM ST 67,093

140 WESTERN AV 89,756148 WESTERN AV 26,279

TOTAL 545,215

Location of proposeddemolition shown in gray


39/115

Improve distribution of information about this project and future projectsEveryone in the North Allston community should be given ample opportunity to understand these projects.

1) Many people in North Allston do not read English. Project documentation and notifications should beavailable in a variety of languages.

2) It takes hours to review these documents to understand the proposed projects. Having only non-circulating copies of the project documentation at the Honan Library is not sufficient.

3) A 32 megabyte file cannot be realistically accessed by people with dial-up internet connections

4) The current websites with information about this project are a combination of incomplete, hard to find,and hard to understand(http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=115andhttp://www.allston.harvard.edu/). The public should have access to a simple, clear, and frequently updatedwebsite that explains deadlines for public comment, an overview of the regulatory process, and theprojects and plans under consideration.

5) Current technology makes it easy for Harvardto share rich, three-dimensional informationabout their proposed projects. The software

needed to view this information is freelyavailable to the public. In fact, downtownBoston has already been modeled and can beviewed in the Google Earth software as shownhere. Computer models of Harvards plannedbuildings already exist, but they are not beingshared with the public. Harvard should createa model of the existing North Allstonneighborhood and make it, and models of theirproposed projects, available to the public forreview.

Three-dimensionalmodel of BoylstonStreet viewed with

Google Earth softwarehttp://earth.google.com

Building HeightPlease provide information about the heights of other buildings in North Allston that most closely match theheight of the four proposed buildings. Please provide the height measurements of these buildings, side-by-sideelevation drawings or photographs made to scale, and a discussion of each buildings set-back from thesidewalk and other design considerations that affect the perception of their height and visual impact.

The current plan has the tallest buildings on Western Ave and the shorter buildings further from the street.Please discuss the pros and cons of having shorter buildings on Western Ave and taller buildings on the southside of the site. This approach has the benefit of reducing the Science Complexs height impact on theWestern Ave public realm. It does bring taller buildings closer to the Hopedale St neighborhood but the impact

of these taller buildings could be buffered by future development. Please provide 3D drawings and elevationviews such as those below to help us collectively evaluate these two options.

Western Ave ScienceComplex

FutureDevelopment

Hopedale Stneighborhood

Western Ave ScienceComplex

FutureDevelopment

Hopedale Stneighborhood


40/115

Parking and TransportationHow will Harvard insure that there is no adverse parking effect on the nearby residential neighborhood? Thisexplanation should cover the construction of this project and after the project is complete. This analysis shouldinclude:

1. Harvard employees, staff, faculty, and students2. Employees of other companies to whom Harvard may outsource operation of the restaurant, fitness

center, coffee shop, etc.3. Workers who will perform landscaping, cleaning and other regular maintenance4. Visitors to the facility

5. Conference attendeesPlease provide specific numbers for each of these groups and any other applicable groups that show how theparking capacity of 500 will not be exceeded.

What does Harvard expect to charge for parking? Will members of the public unaffiliated with the ScienceComplex be allowed to park there? If not, what mechanism will Harvard use to enforce this policy? If so, howmight this result in a lack of parking capacity for users of the Science Complex?

The PNF states that Harvard will provide off-street parking at market rates for construction workers. What ismarket rate? Why does Harvard expect workers will pay for parking when there is unrestricted, free parking inthe adjacent residential neighborhood?

Section 3.1.4 of the PNF states that The Science Complex has targeted an automobile mode share of 50percent, which is expected to be achievable by continuing the current TDM program and improving thepedestrian, bicycle, and public transit networks to/from the Science Complex. What room for error is there is inthis mode share target? For example, what if the actual automobile mode share is 60%? How will the ScienceComplexs parking capacity and the areas transportation network handle such a scenario? In reality, modeshare will vary from day-to-day and across seasons as the Boston weather makes walking or bicycling more orless feasible. The mode share and parking capacity assumptions should therefore use a range of numbers toconsider weather conditions ranging from a warm, sunny day when more people will walk or bicycle to a cold,rainy day when cars will be the preferred method of transportation for many.

According to the PNF, the automobile mode share by Harvards Allston employees is currently 59 percent.Please provide a mode share percentage specific to Harvards employees at Teele Hall and 219 Western Ave,

as these locations are most comparable to the Science Center site. Mode share data for existing Allstonemployees should also be provided by job type (faculty, staff, student) and a job type breakdown for theScience Complex should be provided, as people at different employment levels may be more or less likely touse public transportation.

Please also provide detailed information about the improvements planned for the pedestrian, bicycle, andpublic transit networks. These improvements should consider that Harvard currently rates the Larz AndersonBridge and much of North Harvard Street as a less suitable bicycle route(http://www.commuterchoice.harvard.edu/bike_racks_and_routes3.pdf).

What types of traffic calming are appropriate for Windom Street and other nearby streets to reduce cut-throughtraffic and other negative impacts of the increase in traffic that this project and the build-out of Western Ave will

cause?

Please discuss the pros and cons of having access to the parking garage on the east side of the buildinginstead of on the south side.

Stadium Way What negotiations have been held in an effort to eliminate the temporary configuration of the road

near the end of Hopedale Street? For how many years is this temporary configuration expected to beused?

Harvard should provide a noise impact study for residents of Charlesview and the residents of Seattle,Hopedale, Amboy, and Windom Streets. This study should predict the noise impact both at ground leve


41/115

and 30 feet above the ground (top floor of a 3 story house) at the back lot lines of the houses on theeast side of Windom Street and other locations where vehicle or construction noise will be at amaximum. Values should be provided for L10 and Leq between the weekday hours of 8 AM and 5 PM.Comparisons to the existing noise level should be included.

Please provide 60 foot turning radius diagrams for Stadium Way at Cambridge Street, Western Ave,and the entrance to the parking garage.

If tree planting is planned as part of any mitigation, please include information on the species of tree,tree height at the time of planting, and a detailed planting and maintenance plan.

Please provide a traff ic volume report estimating the number of vehicles per hour estimates duringmorning, afternoon, evening, and nighttime hours. Breakdowns by vehicle type should be included dueto the difference in noise generated by heavy trucks (3+ axles), medium trucks (vehicles with 2 axlesand 6 wheels), and cars. All data should include estimates for the period of Science Complexconstruction and after building occupancy.

Please provide an air pollution impact study predicting the affect the Stadium Way vehicle traffic willhave on the residents of Windom Street. This should include all pollutants regulated by the federalgovernment.

Proposed Conference CenterThe PNF includes a 40,000 sq ft conference center. How many seats will there be in this center? How often wilconferences be held? What will the parking and traffic impact on the surrounding area be when conferencesare held in addition to the regular uses of the facility? Can members of the public rent the facility for non-Harvard related functions?

Animal Storage for ExperimentationHow many of each species of animal will the vivarium facility be capable of storing?

Construction Staging and Material StorageWhere will construction staging occur? Where will building materials be stored after they are brought to thesite? Where will demolition debris be stored before it is removed from the site? Please provide photographsfrom comparable construction projects or other means to describe the appearance of these areas.

Construction MitigationWhat types of construction mitigation are appropriate? For example, sound barrier walls to visually screen theentire site and block noise from reaching the residences to the south and north, tree planting and landscapingaround the perimeter of the construction site, grants to neighbors to purchase sound-proof windows tominimize the noise impact of the construction, etc.

Construction of this project will necessarily discourage cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians from using WesternAve. This will force North Allstons other main arteries to handle additional traffic load. Harvard shouldundertake a comprehensive study of feasible short-term improvements and implement mitigation measuresbefore construction starts on the Science Complex site. These measures should include, but not be limited to:

1) North Harvard Streeta. Repave the street and replace sidewalks north of Western Aveb. Work with the City of Boston Transportation Department to decrease the number of unregulated

on-street parking spaces to facilitate the movement of cars and bicyclists

2) Everett Street - Rebuild the street with concrete sidewalks and granite curbs3) Cambridge Street

a. Safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists and roadway enhancements to increase theefficient flow of traffic including realignment of the eastbound traffic lanes between WindomStreet and Soldiers Field Road to eliminate the right-hand lane drop and merge near theSoldiers Field Road intersection.

4) Franklin Street - Traffic calming and safety improvements near the intersection with North Harvard St5) Lincoln Street Traffic calming and safety improvements


42/115

Construction ScheduleWhat is Harvards intended schedule to start demolition of the existing buildings? How many years isconstruction scheduled to last, from the first demolition to the opening of the facility? Please provide as mushdetail as possible.

Opportunities for Permanent EmploymentHow many jobs will this project create that will not require a specialized graduate degree? For example, pleasespecify the number of laboratory technicians, cleaning staff, secretarial staff, janitorial staff, landscapers, etc.How can Allston residents be given preference for these jobs?

Opportunities for Construction EmploymentHow can Allston residents be given preference for jobs during the construction of the facility?

Opportunities for Temporary EmploymentWhat opportunities will be created for summer internships or other temporary jobs with educational and trainingpotential? How can Allston residents be given preference for these opportunities?

Anticipated Review Processes, Permits and ApprovalsTable 2-2 of the PNF lists permits and reviews that may occur for this project. Please provide all filings forcommunity review and inform members of the Allston community of all upcoming hearings relevant to thisproject by sending email to [email protected].

Environmental ImpactPlease provide information about all trees with a trunk diameter greater than 3 that Harvard plans to cut downas part of this project and the associated construction of proposed new roads. For each tree please providedetails about its species, approximate age, trunk diameter, and new plantings of comparable trees that Harvardwill make to mitigate the removal of the existing trees.


43/115

Mr Autler: The primary concerns of my husband and I who live at 65

Hopedale street (corner of Windom) are as follows:

1) Will the buildings cast a shadow on the homes in the neighborhood?

2) How will the traffic on Windom street be affected?