May 5 CPPC
Highlights:
Michalak admits there is a Channing Rd. drainage problem
MBTA agrees with abutters that location of BCP next to live rail is unsafe.
MICHALAK REPORTS
1. Abutters
Nitsch’s BCP project manager Michalak attended to give updates. He was taken to the woodshed by Muson, Friedman, Sugarman and others (background here). Leino hardly spoke.
Michalak has been "checking the box" needed to submit the 25% design plan to the MPO. To do that, he has met with abutters at 40 Brighton (French-Mahoney) and 710 and 692 Pleasant St. Strangely, he skipped visiting 722 Pleasant which is the property that will be most heavily impacted by the BCP including permanent "easement or "taking' of a southern portion of the lot besides having the 10' high path ~24' or less away and at LR window height.
Friedman gloated when Michalak said that Mr. French - once again - acknowledged the DCR's ROW next to this building. It was odd since that ROW is not in question but what is troubling is the fact that the town aims to take additional land that will negatively impact the French-Mahoney business.
Michalak said that 722 Pleasant St had requested updated plans due to concerns with the (eminent domain) easements. Michalak said he had sent detailed answer that he repeated to us at the meeting. The gist of it seemed to be that easements would not be set until the 25% design plan is submitted followed by a lengthy review and approval process by MassDOT.
Fact-check: 722 Pleasant said that Michalak only replied that they had "not determined the exact location of the easements … required for construction”. I spoke to a senior MassDOT official who said that the 25% design plan when submitted has to indicate all eminent domain seizures deemed necessary. Although it is true that the land seizures (whether permanent or temporarily for a period of years) need the final approval of MassDOT, Michalak is essentially weaseling out on 722 Pleasant. In addition, Leino has stated that the CPPC planned to proceed with appraisals+registration in the summer. However, the MassDOT official told me that the town has to wait for MassDOT's approval of the 25% design plan before the town can proceed with appraisals.
2. Soil borings
A year and half later [thank you, MBTA!], borings are scheduled for first week of June but Michalak said he is at the mercy of Keolis implying that it may be delayed. Drilling will take 3-4 weeks, 1 month to analyze and then ~1 month for Nitsch to work up into plan. Michalak said that retaining walls* will be "very expensive"
and that he needs time to evaluate the final cost.
[* More and probably higher retaining walls will be needed since Michalak says that the MBTA requirements has thrown the path towards abutters, But Clancy claims there is no change.]
Once again, Michalak suggested separating the underpass from the park itself. He said it is cheaper and easier to find funds for it and the park can be connected to it later. [Brownsberger insists on leaving tunnel and path linked because he feels that,on its own, the path is not as likely to be state funded.]
1-2 borings in Pleasant St will affect traffic. 3 borings by the tracks on Alexander Ave to be done on the weekend. 1 boring on the BHS side. Impatient with the boring delay, the CPPC has brought up using the BHS borings - it was Bowen’s turn today. Clancy in the past and Michalak today have explained that it can’t be done: the soil profile is different [the tracks were built on imported material - the shortcut the CPPC is proposing would endanger the commuter rails]. In answering Bowen, Michalak said what the CPPC probably did not want to hear: the HS borings revealed “a clay layer that explains the abutters’ complaints about drainage”.
3. MBTA meeting - March 16
Michalak said he and Clancy met with MBTA’s senior staffers. Nitsch planned to build the underpass entrance at the edge of the stone ballasts (gravel bed that underlie the tracks). MBTA agreed to the underpass’ tunnel jacking but needs a gravel road next to the RR so the underpass’ mouth must be moved (this means a few trees they planned to keep will be also clear-cut). MBTA wants a minimum 14’ ROW at Alexander and they do not want asphalt because it would then require maintenance by the town. (MBTA also prefers chain link fence separating ROW from BCP.)
Besides the Alexander area, Michalak said that MBTA’s ROW requirements means that the BCP has shifted 2’ towards abutters. Later, in replying to Stanton, Michalak said that the BCP originally was set at 22’ but needs to be shifted an additional 2-4’.
Fact-check with senior MBTA official: The MBTA is concerned about the Brighton crossing and wonders why Belmont does not try connecting to the Alewife Bike and Pedestrian bridge. They are very concerned with how unsafe it is to have the BCP next to the rails where 70 mph trains run. One concern is children/teens throwing junk on the rails that may cause a derailment; another concern is objects coming off the trains ("It happens sometimes", the senior official said). The MBTA is concerned that the BCP will affect proper rail maintenance. Hence, the MBTA recommends a 25’ buffer from center rail but there is some flexibility as long as there is space - at a minimum - for a pickup truck and room to open doors without a train clipping the door. This means that 22' or so is acceptable.
Michalak has not shown ANY design plans to the MBTA so they have no clue as to what Nitsch is designing. They have only seen some vague sketches. In the March 16 meeting, Michalak only showed an aerial view of the Alexander area indicating desired drilling locations for soil borings. From the aerial shot, MBTA realized that Nitsch planned to have the underpass entrance right at the edge of the stone ballasts, a completely unacceptable plan. MBTA pointed out that they require a maintenance road with a minimum 14’ clearance so the underpass entrance has to be moved. The Alexander Ave site is very sensitive due to the rail switches and propane tanks located there. Once the 25% design is submitted, it will be reviewed by multiple MBTA departments. It is possible for a plan to be rejected due to a "fatal flaw”.
4. 25% design plan schedule
Michalak plans to submit by end of August. MassDOT takes [up to] 3 months for review and then comments are sent back to Michalak who will have to answer them. MassDOT will have public hearing winter/spring in 2022. Paolillo seemed unhappy about that BUT it could be delayed even more: Michalak explained that MassDOT will let the public hearing slide depending on a project’s TIP year. [BCP is not on the TIP schedule and the earliest it may get on the TIP will be 2026 - reported here. So Michalak is actually saying that it is unlikely that the public hearing will happen in 2022.]
5. Making room for a fire truck in the BCP
[Belmont Fire Dept. sent Michalak fire truck specification earlier this week.] Michalak says that the BCP has to accommodate a large fire truck making a 3-point turn. Paolillo was particularly shocked by this. Garvin said that the town plans to buy smaller fire trucks to fit into the BCP, Somebody said that this small fire trucks were used in the Minuteman. Stanton mocked the idea saying that nobody bothered with fitting a fire truck in the Fitchburg Cutoff. Somebody criticized former Fire Chief Frizzell for this requirement. Paolillo defended Frizzell and said he would meet with Fire Chief Stefano soon.
Fact-check: I researched this today - info is in public documents. Belmont ladder trucks are 45’ long and 8.3’ wide and don’t have rear steering which reduces turn radius. This means that this fire truck requires a 55’ wide road to do a 3 point turn and this was confirmed by a Cambridge Fire Captain. The pump trucks are 30’ long and require 40’ to turn. To safely open truck doors, you need about 14’. Garvin’s smaller fire trucks are actually ATVs; these are used to access and scope an accident site and maybe bring out one victim. The ATVs are used by Lexington and Arlington in the Minuteman but the Minuteman is not next to a live rail. Stanton’s comment is moot because there is a frontage road that runs parallel to the Fitchburg Cutoff that can be used as an access road.
MICHALAK EXITS THE MEETING - CPPC TALKS
Paolillo wants "delays no longer" - he has "wanted this project since 2010" - he wants to “move forward as expeditiously as possible” - “community is frustrated” - “BOS is committed to this”.
Stanton, Friedman crowed over the 350 public comment letters in favor of BCP received by the MPO [not hard to get 350 when backed up by the powerful MassBike and the town itself.] Leino wants to present to the public the 25% plans after submittal to impress the MPO. Bowen misunderstands what submittal means and fretted because she fears that the meeting will lead to a change in the submitted plan. Bowen is upset that Paolillo plans to meet with abutters. Paolillo told her that "what did it matter" since he has a year to kill until the MassDOT public hearing in 2022.
Phase 2 - Stanton presented his list of Phase 2 stakeholders. WCI is included because it manages a house (104 Clark) for 8 disabled individuals that - with laughter in his voice, he said “sits on the path” implying "Can you believe that?! What a silly house!". The CPPC has to be careful because demolishing the house affects the BCP’s “equity scoring” as per the MPO. A PR letter has been drafted to send to all "stakeholders" including the WCI.
