Alewife Study Group > W. R. Grace site > community feedback > summer 1996, City Council committee preliminary report Search 

Grace Site Advisory Committee - Preliminary Report - Summer 1996

(presented to the Cambridge City Council during Summer 1996
and signed by 7 of the Committee's 16 members)

Sections of report:

Hazardous waste issues

Recommendations by the Grace Site Advisory Committee submitted to the Cambridge City Council during Summer 1996.

1. Conduct independent environmental (new soil, sediment, surface and ground water sampling data) and traffic studies (including air quality) before permitting of any building construction.

2. Conduct independent off-site ground water monitoring (Clifton St., Whittemore Ave., and Rindge Ave neighborhoods).

3. Conduct an independent study and sampling for the entire Lehigh Metals Site, Babo's Site (corner of Rindge Ave. and Alewife Brook Parkway), and Harvey St. Extension area. Little or no data has been collected for these areas.

4. With community consultation and oversight, the Grace Co. should provide an improved ground water model to include recharge rates and the effects of the MBTA tunnel on ground water movements.

5. Extend independent environmental study to include the subway tunnel.

6. Observation wells need to be rehabilitated and expanded to include all parts of the site, Russell Field and other off-site locations including but not limited to existing submersible pump wells in surrounding neighborhood basements. These wells should be of varying depths and independently monitored. (As noted in the Spengler Report of April 1966, "ground water samples were taken from 44 wells in and around the W. R. Grace property from 1984 to 1988 with the bulk of the samples taken in 1986 and 1987." "Sampling of 9 wells continued between 1990 and 1994." The mapping of these wells were primarily located only on the boundary of the site.)

7. The possibility of' sewer lines, utility lines, and storm drains acting as conduits for site contaminants should be thoroughly examined independently before any construction begins. The issue of sewer and utility lines is referenced in the Spengler Reports of April 1996 and February 1987. "The 'footprints' of sewer and utility connections must be determined and detailed chemical analyses performed on soil and ground water samples taken at intervals along these routes. At a minimum, this will be needed to determine appropriate disposal alternatives for the materials excavated." (Spengler, February 1987, p. 8).

8 All areas where new ground water and soil sampling occurs should include pH testing (acidity and alkalinity). Averaging of pH results from different areas on the site is problematic and should be avoided.

9 The practical "base-line" for characterizing the extent of contamination at the W. R.Grace Site should begin with the developer's own characterization of the site as stated in the Hazardous Materials Section of the January 16,1996 Notice of' Project Change document prepared by Spaulding and Slye and submitted to the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs (See Attachment 7): "This [the Shopping Center Proposal] is in sharp contrast to the hundreds of Thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soils previously proposed to have been excavated for the initial project." (Note: "the initial project" referenced in this statement is the Office Park Project of' the late 1980's. The developer has removed the shopping center proposal from consideration, and is currently attempting to revive & repermit the Office Park Project of the late 1980's.)

10. Conduct indefinite downgradient boundary groundwater monitoring. Installing barrier remediation systems when development takes place at the site so that they can be commissioned rapidly if contaminants are observed at the boundary monitoring wells.

11. Conduct additional independent sampling of soil & groundwater to confirm the findings of Grace consultants. All samples should be analyzed for pH.

12. A complete comprehensive map designating all known "hot spots" overlaying ground water, surface water, sediment & soil testing areas should be provided. The 'testing areas' well designations should be comprehensive and should not omit the 'Test Pit Report' data included in Volume One of' the Environmental Data Report of 1988. Test Pit numbers contained in this report should be fully and legibly designated.

13. A data base for surface and groundwater basement flooding needs to be established prior to construction. This issue is referenced in both the Spengler Reports of February 1987 and April 1996.

14. Establish pre-construction data for surface water flooding and contaminants entering basements on Clifton St., Jackson St., Harvey St., Dudley St., Rindge Ave., Seagrave Rd., Madison Ave., Kimball St., Kassul Park., Harrison Ave., Magoun St., Whittemore Ave., and etc. (Establishing baseline data is referred to in both the 1987 and 1996 Spengler Reports.)

15. Ground water contaminant issues and ground water flow uncertainties have been well documented. These issues have been referenced in both Spengler Reports of April 1996 and February 1987, the NUS Corporation Superfund Division memo dated July 8,1985 regarding a preliminary assessment of the W. R. Grace Site for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (See attachment 4), the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated November 1987, North Cambridge Stabilization Committee (NCSC) communications to the Massachusetts Executive Office of' Environmental Affairs dated February 22, 1987 and January 12, 1988, and etc. Ground water contaminant issues and ground water flow uncertainties should be thoroughly defined by an independent agent or agents before any construction begins.

16. The recommendation for ground water monitoring should include independent monitoring as well as Grace Co. monitoring. The ground water monitoring recommendations should include, but not be limited to those found in the Spengler April 1996 Report.

17. Provision of a Ground water model should be done independently rather than by Grace Co.

18. Consider a bypass of water flow from Parkway Pond to any other body of water, or consider a bypass of Parkway Pond, and\or install a decontamination system for this body of' water.

19. Per the recommendation by the April 1996 report by Environmental Health and Engineering, more information on groundwater flow patterns in the Russell Field area is needed. Such information should be gathered and assessed independently. The neighborhood should be involved significantly in the design and implementation of' this study. The selection of any independent consultant with respect to this concern should be determined in full consultation with the affected neighborhood and should be commenced only with their explicit approval. The related issue of basement testing for both the Clifton\Harvey St. neighborhood and the Whittemore\Seagrave Rd. neighborhood should be similarly addressed.

20. A 10,000 gallon toluene tank is apparently still underground in the northeast section of the site. The extent of its contents have not been fully explained. This area should be considered a hot spot, and independently surveyed. All underground storage tanks should be removed from the site unless it can be proven that greater health risks would occur as a result of their removal.

21. Any necessary and\or desirable soil remediation should coincide with site development . If excavation should occur the neighborhood would recommend that the developer first submit an acceptable plan to the neighborhood regarding any and all remediation procedures for approval.

22. The developer should test and propose to the surrounding neighborhoods and the City, a full range of options for addressing hazardous waste issues on the site (cost, etc.) before any construction begins.

23. In keeping with state regulations neighborhood residents must be notified of' any field work before any activity is scheduled to begin.

24. Barrier systems should be installed (to prevent contaminants from moving off-site) or decontamination systems as needed (especially along the site boundaries, and\or between the site and Russell Field).

25. The impact of site contaminants upon any proposed development (commercial, residential, recreational) should be examined independently.

26. The risk assessment for the Grace Site was to some extent developed by averaging site contaminants (hot spots, low level contaminant areas, and "clean" areas). This method is at best problematic, for it doesn't accurately highlight the dangers of the hot spots. It can not and should to be relied upon as the basis for conclusions regarding the scope and danger of hazardous waste contamination on the site. Any independent environmental study should avoid using this methodology as the basis for its conclusions.

27. The bulk of the soil sampling data reviewed for the April 1996 Spengler Report was the same data reviewed for the February 1987 Spengler Report. Chemical analyses for the bulk of these soil samples was performed on composite samples. The Spengler Report of 1987 was highly critical as to the usefulness of chemical analysis on composite samples. This methodology should be avoided in any independent environmental samples. (Note: The Spengler April 1996 Report notes that "the soil samples" data set contains the results of soil analyses collected mainly in 1986 and 1987 with a few samples from 1984 and 1985. ")

28. Both the CONCLUSIONS Based on available data there is no reason to consider the W. R. Grace Site, as it currently exists, to be a health concern to the neighboring community, which includes residents and recreational users of the Russell Field Facilities." -and the LIMITATIONS (See Attachment 9) - "The observations and recommendations contained in the Report are based on limited environmental sampling and visual observation...... the sampling and observations were limited in scope, and therefore cannot be considered representative of areas not sampled or observed..... Where sample analyses were conducted by an outside laboratory, EH & E has relied upon the data provided, and has not conducted an independent evaluation of the reliability of' these data." - of the April 1996 Spengler Report (EH&E Report #95.415, April 23, 1996) should be recognized.

29. Any development of this Site should receive prior written approval from the director of the City's environmental program and the Assistant City Manager for Community Development.

30. Clean and neutralize contaminated soils as necessary. Prevent contaminants from moving off-site, and\or decontaminate contaminants which are moving off-site.

31. Identify and remediate site contaminant hot spots making use of bioremediation or excavation and removal as needed.

32. Advocate for a Tier I site classification. The Grace Site is currently classified as a Tier 2 site. As a Tier 2 site, hazardous waste concerns are overseen by a Licensed Site Professional hired by the owners or developers of the site. A Tier I site classification would effectuate the direct involvement of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Grace Site was initially scored by the LSP, and missed being classified as a Tier I site by less than 20 points. In Section 8 of Dr. Spengler's April 1996 Report, conditions that could raise the site's scoring by as much as 265 points were outlined and discussed. (Note:The Grace Site's Tier classification is currently being audited by the DEP.) Editor's Note: In September 1996, the classification of the W. R. Grace Site was changed to a Tier IC site following audit findings by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

33. The Grace Site should be a no salt, no pesticide, no herbicide zone.

34. Accept the Brown\Malenfant Environmental Issues recommendations with the following additions:

  1. The recommendation for ground water monitoring should include independent monitoring as well as Grace Co. monitoring. The ground water monitoring recommendations should include but not be limited to those found in the Spengler April 1996 Report.
  2. Provision of a ground water model should be done independently rather than by Grace Co.
  3. New wetlands delineation and wildlife habitat survey should be part of a broader focus (whole area) and should be independently reviewed.
  4. Hours restrictions should include deliveries as well as construction and should be expanded to include weekends as a restricted time.
  5. Air quality monitoring during construction should be independently conducted, and regular reports should be prepared for the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the City.
  6. A bond should be posted for traffic\police officer details as well as for maintenance.

35. Independently examine the impact of site contaminants upon any proposed development (commercial, residential, institutional, recreational)

36. Subsurface soil samplings should be taken at varying depths by an independent agent or agents. Some samples should be taken at depths exceeding thirty feet ( the average depth of acidic contamination according to Camp Dresser and McGee's July 27,1979 estimate).

37. The issues of' contaminated soil being stored and treated on Russell Field and used as backfill for the MBTA subway tunnel have been well documented. These issues have been referenced in the FEIR, the NUS Corporation Superfund Division memo dated July 8, 1985 (see attachment 4) an MBTA memo to the Cambridge Conservation Commission dated September 27, 1983 (See attachment 3), and etc. Therefore, the potential for hazardous waste & site contaminants existing anywhere on the site including Russell Field should be considered in any new groundwater & soil sampling study.

38. The recommendations and rationale from David Bass (who is a nationally recognized expert on site remediation, and he is currently the Director of Technology Development for Fluor Daniel GTI) should be included in the Committee's Environmental Report Recommendations. (See attachment 12). His recommendations include:

  1. Capping the site with clean fill. Construction of buildings on concrete slab at grade level. Deed restrictions should be agreed to preventing future excavation at the site.
  2. Indefinite downgradient boundary groundwater monitoring. Installing barrier remediation system @ when development takes place at the site so that they can be commissioned rapidly if contaminants are observed at the boundary monitoring wells.
  3. 3)Additional independent sampling of soil and groundwater to confirm the findings of Grace Co. consultants. All samples should be analyzed for pH.

39. Until complete hazardous waste manifests relative to contaminant excavation, materials handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at and surrounding the W. R. Grace Site during the MBTA construction in the early 1980's are produced for public review, the W. R. Grace Site characterization and the current Health Risk Assessment analyses should be viewed with extreme skepticism at a minimum. This documentation has yet to be produced. The Spengler/EH&E April 1996 Report notes "there arc community concerns about past activities at Russell Field. Specifically, it has been reported by community members and in file documentation that contaminated excavate soil was stored on portions of the Russell Field property during excavation of the MBTA tunnel. Detailed information on the methods of excavation, materials handling, storage, and disposal has not been available for review. No information on the chemical nature of contamination in the excavate has been available. In addition, records of the reported off-site disposal (hazardous - waste manifests), which are required by Federal and State -regulations, have not been- available for review." (Spengler/EH&E April 1966 Report, Section 8.4 RUSSELL FIELD)

40. Adopt the full range of recommendations as outlined in Section IV of the February 1987 Spengler Report, P.'s 8 through 22. (Note: All GSA, Committee members were given a copy of this report. Additional copies can be provided as needed.)

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Hydrology and flood plan issues

41. A hydrological study of' the site should be undertaken in order to evaluate the impact that any proposed development at the site would have on the flood plain and the watershed system.

42. A clearer presentation of actual plans for compensatory flood storage should be provided by the developer

43. Flood Plain issues should be viewed as to their impact upon site contamination and vice versa. This issue is referenced in the Spengler Report of February 1987 (p.5). "Impacts of construction, excavation, movement of contaminated soils on site, and other aspects of the development project on flooding of the site and the potential for flood water mobilization of' contaminants should be addressed."

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Wetlands and wildlife habitat issues

Recommendations by the Grace Site Advisory Committee submitted to the Cambridge City Council during Summer 1996.

44. A new wetlands delineation, using the current methodology, should be performed, so that accurate wetlands boundaries can be determined.

45. The project proponent should be responsible for the long term maintenance of any replacement wetlands, flood storage areas, and drainage structures, and this requirement should be included in any eventual or current permits regarding this site. Both the Cambridge Conservation Commission and the Community at large should be included in routine review of these and other related matters.

46. Any schemes for "wetlands replication" should be fully developed and explained in full to the abutting neighborhood, the City and all other interested and informed parties. The Committee would express its preference for preservation and protection of existing natural areas including but not limited to wetlands rather than artificially conceived replications.

47. Research the feasibility of creating a direct fish spawning waterway to Jerry's Pond from Yates Pond or Alewife Brook.

48. Conduct a study of' the habitats of owls, hawks, and osprey.

49. Habitat areas should be appropriately protected. Consider fencing and shielding from lights and traffic.

50. Develop and locate a habitat interpretive center near Jerry's Pond. Since this idea was discussed in the recent Alewife. area planning effort, it should be conceivable.

51. New wetlands delineation and wildlife habitat survey should be part of a broader focus (whole area), and should be independently reviewed.

52. Any plans for clean up, planting, and wetlands mitigation should be fully developed and fully discussed with abutting neighborhoods and the City prior to the commencement of' these activities. When agreed upon and approved, such activities should be commenced and completed prior to the initiation of any other construction. Any and all failed vegetation should be replaced within one year of failure.

53. Site drainage measures should be installed before construction of any structures. All drainage and wetlands protection measures should be in place throughout all phases of construction.

54. Wetlands, Watershed, Flood Plain and Habitat studies should all be conducted.

55. The impact of construction at the WR Grace Site on wetlands, floodplains, habitat, and watershed issues should be independently reviewed before, during and after any new construction at the site. Specific attention should be paid to the legal issues relative to commercial and/or residential development in these areas. Additional focus should be directed toward the intent of the legislative acts which govern these issues.

56. Maintain wetland vegetation and habitat with limited public access to these areas. (e.g. benches and tables could be allowed in some areas of Jerry s Pond but a complete walkway around it would not be allowed.

57. An independent habitat study should be conducted. This study would include an inventory of the existing habitat of any migratory species.

58. Habitat, wetlands, floodplains and recreational uses for the area should be preserved.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Construction and maintenance issues

59. Limit any site excavation to the optimal season.

60. If construction is to occur it is the preference of the neighborhood abutting the site that the site be first capped with clean fill. Buildings should be constructed on concrete slab at grade level. Placing deed restrictions on future excavation at the site would be additionally desirable. The Committee would further recommend that the Cambridge Planning Board be immediately notified of this preference.

61. Use best practices to protect workers, passersby children at tot-lots and elsewhere at and near the site, recreational users and neighbors from airborne particulates.

62. Provide air quality monitoring within the site and on its borders during construction with regular reports to the neighborhood and to the City.

63. Air quality monitoring during construction should be independently conducted, and regular reports should be prepared for the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the City.

64. Prohibit any and all construction and\or related vehicles from utilizing neighborhood streets. Prior to construction it should be explained fully how this aspect of' the construction process will be adhered to in writing.

65. Construction and\or related non-productive activity should be prohibited before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m.

66. Rigorous health and safety and contingency planning must be completed prior to the initiation of remediation and\or construction in compliance with state regulations.

67. The owner of the site should post a maintenance bond as an incentive to assure proper maintenance.

68. Measure to prevent erosion and sedimentation should be in place before any earthworks (including remediation work).

69. Discontinue snow storage in the Russell Filed area, especially in the parking lot adjacent to Comeau Field, just off Rindge Avenue.

70. Before, during and after construction, Permanent regular inspections (at least monthly) of' all surface and groundwater pumping equipment relative to the W. R. Grace Site (including the MBTA subway tunnel). Inspection reports are to be forwarded in a timely fashion to the Cambridge Department of Public Health, DPW, and the Conservation Commission. The public is to have open access to these reports. Permanent regular monitoring (at least monthly) of all surface and groundwater associated with this pumping equipment should be established. Inspections and inspectional reports should be completely and immediately available to any and all interested parties.

71. Any developer of the Grace Site should post a bond to cover all damages to public & private property as a result of construction at the site. An independent agency (paid for by the developer) for claims filing should be established prior to the commencement of any new construction at the site. Examples of damages to public & private property would include but not be limited to rodent extermination, structural cracks and damages from pile driving & etc., dirt damage to interior and exterior of public & private property, contamination of surface and groundwater entering neighborhood basements, and etc.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Public health issues

72. Conduct an epidemiological study of the Rindge Ave., Clifton St., and Whittemore Ave. neighborhoods. The study should include but not be

limited to cancer and reproductive health risks. (Note: There continue to be persistent anecdotal stories of high cancer rates in these neighborhoods, especially the Clifton St. neighborhood.) 73. Any development of this site should receive prior written approval from the City's Commissioner of Public Health (or Acting Commissioner).

74. Warning mechanisms with audible alarmed devices/sirens would be activated when airborne contaminants reach danger levels to be placed in surrounding neighborhoods. site borders, and at the MDC pool. These devices should be monitored by an independent agency on a daily basis with regular reports made readily available to the community. (The community is to have open access to this information.) Air monitoring devices should be installed at selected neighborhood locations in close proximity to the site. These locations should include the Clifton, Rindge Ave., and Whittemore Ave. neighborhoods. These devices should be monitored as outlined previously. The written approval of the owners/ tenants of the properties would have to be secured before these interior devices could be installed. (NOTE: The Center for Environmental Studies at MIT may have a federally funded program which could perform this service gratis.).

75. The community reserves the right to shut down construction for community uses of the Russell Field area. (The MDC pool may become a very sensitive area during construction at the site.)

76. Independent daily testing of the MDC pool water during any construction at the Grace Site. Reports are to be made readily available, and the community is to have open access to them.

77.The Health Risk Assessment for the W. R. Grace site should only be based upon a new independent environmental study using current 1996 (or thereafter) toxicological risk dosage guidelines.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Independent report outlines

78. It is recommended that both Independent Environmental and Traffic Reports be done. It is recommended that the process for such reports include the following:

  1. Conducted by independent agent or agents with no prior association to the City of' Cambridge, the Developers of the site, or the land owners.
  2. Prospective agents should be interviewed and approved by the North Cambridge Community at large.
  3. The independent agents that are selected should be prepared to provide regular progress reports to the City Manager, the City Council, and Community at large.
  4. Public meetings should take place in order to provide information to the Community, ensure public input and due process, and to address neighborhood questions and concerns.
79. The suggested outline for proceeding with an Independent Environmental Impact Report is as follows:
  1. Perform surface and subsurface soil testing, and ground water testing at and around Russell Field; and on all public lands surrounding the Grace Site.
  2. Perform surface water ad sediment soil testing at Jerry's Pond, Parkway Pond, Yates Pond, and Alewife Brook.
  3. Perform air quality testing for the area.
  4. Perform a complete hydrological study to define and resolve ground water flow uncertainties.
  5. Establish baseline data for surface water and ground water flow into surrounding neighborhood basements.
  6. Conduct appropriate environmental testing and study in the MBTA tunnel.
  7. Perform surface and subsurface soil testing and ground water testing on the W. R. Grace Site if legally permissible.
  8. Institute a permit moratorium for all new construction at the site until both the independent environmental and traffic studies have been completed.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Traffic and Parking issues

Recommendations by the Grace Site Advisory Committee submitted to the Cambridge City Council during Summer 1996.

80. A comprehensive traffic impact study of the. proposed development is necessary. The study area must be defined by the affected community and should include not only Route 2\Route 16, but also the inclusive area from Massachusetts Avenue to Concord Avenue. Analysis must be undertaken to determine the traffic bypass routes that would result from the proposed development and the impact of those routes on area streets including without limitation Massachusetts Avenue, Concord Avenue, Rindge Avenue, New Street, Walden Street , Sherman Street, Sargent Street, Fayerweather Street, Huron Avenue, Whittemore Avenue, Columbus Avenue, Seagrave Road, Madison Avenue, Magoun Street, Harrison Avenue, Harvey Street, Clifton Street, Jackson Street, Clay Street, Reed Street, Montgomery Street, Dudley Street, Cedar Street, and any streets requested by the Cambridge Highlands and Area 9 neighborhood associations.

81. Complete and timely disclosure should be made of' all raw traffic counts and analysis undertaken in connection with traffic studies of' the proposed development.

82. Any development of the site must present a viable traffic management plan. The plan, including the definitive I vehicular entry and exit scheme for both customer and commercial traffic, must not be narrowly focused. It must address in a satisfactory manner the proposals several impacts and in particular, it must protect the residential nature of the immediate neighborhood in its proposed non-residential traffic method.

83. The impact of increased traffic volume (passenger, vehicle and truck) upon the several affected roadways in East Arlington should be included in any independent study of traffic impacts.

84. In addition to a comprehensive study of automotive traffic, a separate study of non-automotive transportation uses at the Grace site should also be undertaken.

85. Access by commercial vehicles to or from the site via Whittemore Avenue should be strictly prohibited. Any future legal claim to this Avenue as a truck route should be prohibited prior to the negotiation of any and all commercial leases at this site. It should be understood that an and all truck exclusions which may be imposed in the future on Route 16 shall not affect the prohibition proposed for Whittemore Avenue nor shall such potential exclusions affect any vehicular prohibition currently in effect at this site(e. g. Harvey Street).

86. A serious effort should be made to resolve the technical differences between the Pell, Abend, and Kaiser reports regarding the current estimates of traffic levels affecting the site. Are there traffic related issues which all three reviewers are in agreement? Where exactly are the disagreements?

87. A traffic accident and safety analysis should be a manifest component of any independent study.

88. The scoping for the Pell report remains a mystery. What was agreed to for this scope.

89. The Abed analysis of the Route 2\Alewife intersection, the outbound ramp from the MBTA station and the driveway on the ramp was unsatisfactory. A better way needs to be found so that capacity calculations accurately reflect the number of cars getting through the merges and moving on the short lanes.

90. The developer needs to demonstrate a strategy such that congestion at the driveway does not result in blockage of' the ramp.

91. More extensive and detailed counts need to be done to provide a clearer picture of how cars will queue up given increased volume.

92. The question of how many additional vehicles will use other routes to sneak around congestion at Alewife - specifically using North Cambridge Streets needs to be addressed and answered satisfactorily. Any traffic study must identify these routes.

93. Vehicle entry to the site from any residential neighborhood should be prohibited.

94. Include a deed restriction in perpetuity (i.e., a restriction binding on subsequent owners and\or their lessees) preventing the extension and opening of Harvey St. into the site as long as the site is non-residential.

95. For emergency vehicle access, make the right of' way at the end of' Harvey St. into the site as narrow as the Fire Department will accept and use rough pavement (e.g. cobblestones) to indicate that it is not a through street.

96. If a market is built on the site, provide order and delivery services to encourage less traffic at peak hours.

97. Implement mitigation measures to decrease employee commuting by car.

98. Parking on nearby neighborhood residential streets should be prohibited .

99. Shield parking areas from neighborhood view by berms and landscaping.

100. Employ a site design that discourages auto use.

101. Present several parking scheme options and provide planting islands throughout the parking lot.

102. Provide pedestrian/ bike access from the neighborhood with discreet but attractive gateways. Where sensible, consider a gate card system to restrict entry to local residents and deer non- resident parking in the neighborhood.

103. Local area parking stickers should be considered if any new development occurs at the Grace Site. This will lessen the impact to local residents on neighborhood streets close to the site.

104. Endorse the Brown/Malenfant vehicular access restrictions (see p. 21 of the original CDD 3 column report) with the following addition: Install removable posts at road access points with keys made available to police and fire departments.

105. No construction of deliveries before 8 AM or after 5 PM. No construction or deliveries on weekends. (NOTE: This restriction is more restrictive than previous suggestions.)

106. An affirmative plan for pedestrian site safety, particularly with respect to bicycle and automotive uses, should be in lace before any new construction begins at the W. R. Grace site.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Site design

107. Discourage blank walls. Maximize window area.

108. Do not situate loading docks and\or dumpsters against abutting neighborhoods.

109. Lighting should be adequate for safety but designed to minimize glare and effects on abutting residences.

110. Consider benches and a walkway around Jerry's Pond., if recommended by habitat study and Conservation Commission.

111. Design roof areas that shroud mechanicals.

112. Where possible, use native plants. Avoid generic suburban landscaping.

113. To the greatest extent possible, design the site with maximum site-lines to deter crime and enhance safety.

114. No super-sized supermarket should be built at the proposed development site under any circumstances.

115. Buildings should be situated as far from the neighborhood and as close to the "T" as possible.

116. Clean up Jerry s Pond-landscaping, litter and water.

117. Research the feasibility of construction natural berms along the site boundaries (especially he Clifton St. and Russell Field edges). This will help prevent surface water runoff to the Field and/or neighborhood basements. A natural berm did exist at one time between the Clifton St. edge and old Russell Field.

118. Any commercial development should maintain the primary goals of enhancing and maximizing recreational and open space, while preserving and protecting the natural environment.

119. - 122. These sections are not available. They may not have existed in the original.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Process issues

123. Future city sponsored advisory group processes should be provided with professional transcription services.

124. Any and all significant development in the Alewife and abutting areas should proceed only after a sincere and meaningful masterplan has been designed and implemented. Such a plan must be comprehensive and it is imperative that such a plan be optimally informed by neighborhood residents. The proposed development site should be included in the Alewife Master Plan or its most current incarnation. The plan should include those areas currently under permit as well as those areas of North Cambridge outside of the study area but directly affected by its impacts. The plan's scope should be revisited and broadened to include residential as well as institutional and recreational developments near and adjacent to the site. Wider participation should be achieved through utilization of' multi-group sponsorship, survey, small business focus groups and neighborhood based planning seminars.

125. All matters pertaining to the status of permits issued to current or previous developments at this site should be reviewed comprehensively. The general public should receive a full and credible accounting of all matters pertaining to the legal status of development beginning with the first building permits issued and all subsequent transactions with municipal and state granting authorities. This review should be fully independent as well as exhaustive.

List of sections of report, at top of this page

Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at