September 7, 2001
Bob Durand, Secretary, EOEA
Attn: Janet Hutchins, MEPA Analyst
251 Causeway Street
Boston, MA
VIA E-MAIL
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Attn: John O'Brien, Project Manager
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA
VIA E-MAIL
Re: Fan Pier Development FEIR/FPIR
MEPA #12083
Ms. Hutchins and Mr. O'Brien:
The Fan Pier Development proponent has issued the project's Final Environmental Impact Report during a summer vacation period, and has refused requests by our organization and others to move the MEPA comment deadline to match the October 17 BRA comment deadline. The brief comment time after the vacation period makes it virtually impossible to provide a thorough public review and comment. It is unfortunate to end the public review process of this very large and significant project without a full opportunity for public input. We note that the BRA first issued the proposed Municipal Harbor Plan with a late August comment deadline. This kind of timing has the effect, and we must presume, the intent, of curtailing effective public oversight, and we respectfully suggest that, in the future, such comment deadlines might be discouraged by EOEA.
However, a cursory review indicates some critically important issues that render the proposal non-compliant with EOEA requirements, necessitating further work by the proponents and a Supplemental FEIR.
Civic and Cultural Uses
The Decision on the City of Boston's South Boston Waterfront District Municipal Harbor Plan states (p 28): "The City has committed to a planning process for civic/cultural uses and programming in the Inner Harbor subdistrict and along the Fort Point Channel. The planning must begin expeditiously with the help of an advisory group that represents broad civic and cultural interests in the waterfront area and citywide." ...the City [is] to certify to DEP, prior to Chapter 91 licensing, that such use is consistent with public principles arising out of the civic/cultural uses masterplanning process" (emphasis added). The explicit requirement that civic and cultural resources be master-planned by the City, with a broadly representative advisory group, was central to the Secretary's effort to prevent privatization of the public waterfront resource, and is critical to the balance of public and private interests.
However, the proponent has quietly assembled a "Friends" group of five "institutional partners," representing existing waterfront venues and organizations, to be both the advisory group and the users of the hard-won civic/cultural spaces in the project, without opening the process to any others who wished and expected to have a role in the planning. Three of these "partners" were members of the MHP Advisory Committee, and at the same time were "collaborating" with the proponent, as the FEIR states, "for the last two years to refine the concepts for these spaces" (page I-7). This is clearly a conflict of interest, and was so evidenced during the Advisory Committee meetings, which I attended regularly. While these five organizations are entitled to participate in the planning with everyone else, they are not entitled to a pre-arranged internal allocation of the site's civic/cultural resources. No public notice went out inviting membership to this so-called "Friends" group, and no information was provided when I called the proponent to inquire about rumors that such a group had been formed without public participation. In fact, my call to the Aquarium administration was met with an assurance that no planning had been done and no civic/cultural space commitments had been made to anyone.
Moreover, the BRA has helped the proponent to close this process. The Waterfront Information Network (WIN) formed a committee many months ago to search citywide for a diverse array of advisory group nominees, from the arts and from the neighborhoods, and presented a lengthy list to the BRA (list is available to the Secretary). WIN repeatedly asked the BRA about its progress in forming the master-planning advisory group, and was repeatedly told that the BRA is forming this group, and would notify WIN when it is time to participate. Meanwhile, the proponent was proceeding, as the BRA fully knew, to plan the uses of all the public spaces without any public input at all. The FEIR lays out a civic/cultural "mall," with pre-ordained attractions, lease arrangements, fees for common areas, private security, etc. The opportunity for inclusiveness, innovation, and diversity is foreclosed. The Secretary's Decision is recognized only briefly in the FEIR: "If any of the organizations should be unable to develop and operate the planned facility or activity, the proponent will work with the BRA (presumably through the civic and cultural committee called for by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in his approval of the Municipal Harbor Plan) to identify an appropriate substitute organization and activation." This casual mention of the publicly representative committee stipulated by the Secretary as a condition for licensure is not acceptable; the public must not be left behind as a last-resort participant, to be dealt with by the BRA if it chooses, in the event that the proponent's arrangements with his tenants of first choice fall through.
This is a bad-faith gesture by both the proponent and the BRA, violating the letter and spirit of one of the central requirements of the Decision. On behalf of the many civic and cultural groups WIN contacted in searching for participants, and of the public whose interests have been ignored, we request that the Secretary reject the proponent's arrangements for the civic and cultural resources on the Fan Pier, and request a truly open and inclusive public process. If this is the way the proponent and the BRA plan to treat the most explicitly public of the site's resources, we are deeply concerned about their future treatment of the less clearly protected aspects of the interface between public and private interests on the waterfront.
Public open space
The Decision increased the open space setback along the cove and Public Green by removing the road and reducing the footprint. The FEIR Illustrative Site Plan shows the road and, although the dimensions aren't certain, the apparent same distance from water's edge to the building face. This is a direct violation of the MHP Decision.
Baseline public space maintenance standards
Page 16 of the Secretary's Decision notes the requirement to form a working group to make recommendations related to baseline open space maintenance and management requirements that should be required for approval of any project in the harbor planning area. (This group is separate from the required civic/cultural group.) Again, no genuine working group was formed for this purpose, nor were any standards formulated other than those to be made by the proponent's "Friends" group. For reasons involving aesthetic standards, operating procedures and security practices, this is not an acceptable response to the Secretary's directive.
Land Use Zoning
The Decision requires the City to draft amendments to the Boston Zoning Code to codify the Municipal Harbor Plan substitutions allowed in order to carry out the intentions of the City's Public Realm Plan, together with any offsets required. In this case, as often occurs in Boston, the City is letting the developers do their own zoning through the PDA mechanism. However, the State, through the Decision, has jurisdiction on certain planning issues normally simply negotiated between the BRA and the developer.
One such issue includes parking and transportation management, on which we comment below.
Another is the mix of uses that is required to create the vibrancy for which the BRA ostensibly sought height substitutions and maximum density. For example, an office park, no matter how dense, will never constitute a lively urban environment. The Mayor, through an Executive Order, limited the office component to 33%; yet, the proposal contains 40% office space. The residential square footage is about one-third, as the Order required, but the unit sizes are so large (average over 1600 square feet) that the number of actual residents will be a tiny fraction of the site's daily occupants. The Public Realm Plan on which this Harbor Plan rests was written to justify development density (or rather height) purportedly to create a vibrant neighborhood for five to eight thousand residents. Who will house the people needed to turn the district into a neighborhood? Mark Maloney was reportedly chosen as BRA Director because he comes from a housing background; when he became Director, he promised in a public speech that when a developer comes to him with a project, he will ask, "Where's the housing?" Mr. Maloney's question is long overdue.
Further, at the proponent's estimated market price of $650/sf, housing units will sell for over $1,000,000. Neighborhood diversity by any criterion is impossible in this situation, and privatization of the public realm in areas of very high home values is inevitable, since property values are increased by exclusiveness. Ordinary working people will thus be kept out of both the interior and exterior places in this development.
We also question the variety of retail this population can support; retail "facilities of public accommodation" on the ground floors may not be viable, except for day-time lunch restaurants and tourist shops. A diverse residential base, of a critical mass, is needed to support retail uses that in turn support a 24-hour neighborhood.
(Note discrepancies in the square-foot numbers for the uses in the table Figure II-2.)
Affordable housing
The quantity and rental/purchase price of on-site affordable housing is not specified in the FEIR. The document states (p. I-8) that the project is "committed to providing the appropriate level of affordable housing within the District of South Boston." The Mayor's two executive orders regarding affordable housing are cited, with a statement that the "proponent intends to meet the intent of all three documents" (the third, besides the two executive orders, is not specified). However, the document does not state what the proponent is actually providing in terms of on-site affordable housing. At an MHP Advisory Committee Meeting many months ago, the proponent indicated that there would be "affordable units" priced at $250 per square foot. Even for 1,000-square-foot units, this price is hardly affordable by any standard. Now no mention is made of even these units.
Nor does the proponent specify a commitment for off-site affordable housing, indicating vaguely that this will be taken up later with the City. This is not an acceptable response to the problem at this late date.
This proponent joins others on the seaport (and elsewhere) in seeking to off-load affordable housing to distant sites. ABN is concerned with the implications for socio-economic segregation in the city as affluent buyers are systematically spared the property-value-threatening obligation of mixing with ordinary working people. It is extremely damaging to a community to polarize its living areas into ghettos and private enclaves; it is intolerable to do so in public-trust tidelands. We strongly urge that any affordable housing associated with projects in the South Boston Waterfront MHP district be built within the developments. Quality of life issues resulting from an entire neighborhood of million-dollar homes raise community sustainability and environmental justice issues. Bringing middle and lower income units into the area is necessary, to meet the city's urgent housing needs, to assure a waterfront environment welcoming to all, and to support a mix of other uses that will build a 24 hour community.
On p. I-9, section 6.2.2, the proponent implies that the square-foot linkage payment is a substitute for the "direct (on-site or off-site) housing creation option." However, the linkage as cited is required for the non-residential project components, independent of affordable set-aside units built within the project or elsewhere. This brief and vague discussion, under the title of "Statutory Public Benefits," requires clarification.
Again, we emphasize that access to housing on this site for a socio-economically diverse population is essential if we are to create the genuine living neighborhood promised by the Public Realm Plan -- the City's basis for the Municipal Harbor Plan and its substitutions, rather than an exclusive enclave that will privatize the benefits of the public tidelands.
Job creation
Section 6.1.3, Job Training, states that the Hyatt Hotel will create 520 jobs, but also that the "Grand Hyatt will create over 1400 jobs." Section 6.2.5, Anticipated Employment Levels, again mentions 520 jobs in the hotel component. What are the "thousands of permanent jobs" in which the project will result, according to 6.2.5? Presumably, the proponent is not counting as a "Statutory Public Benefit" the thousands of jobs in the office towers that would be created for suburban commuters, unable to find housing in Boston, and driving in morning and evening traffic jams through Boston neighborhoods.
Transit, traffic and parking demand management
The proponent states that the project is in conformity with the South Boston Parking Freeze. However, the Freeze regulations are still in public review, and are far from final. Major issues have yet to be resolved on the Freeze Plan before compliance can be judged. One of these unresolved issues is the concept of "grandfathering" existing parking spaces as an entitlement, rather than considering requests on the basis of environmental impacts.
The proponent's claim that parking capacity of the project is constrained to encourage transit is dubious. The proposed 1.5 parking spaces per condominium and 1 per apartment, 1.17 per 1000 sf of office, .82 per 1000 sf of retail, and .5 per hotel room are not, as the proponent claims, "constrained" ratios in an urban setting, and will not make the project function as a transit-oriented development. The parking capacity allotted to individual developments must be considered not only on the basis of "demand," but on the basis of impact on the environment and the public realm; 14,440 daily automobile trips is a heavy burden on an already over-loaded area.
The maximum Silverline capacity, which MBTA projects at 89 bus trips per hour, is certainly over-stated, and transit capacity for the hoped-for millions of square feet of waterfront development is far from assured by any planning to date. The Secretary's Transportation Summit brought forth much information, and much skepticism, about the Silverline bus as the solution to an already over-burdened traffic situation. This FEIR does not recognize that more realistic transit capacity levels must be assumed. The Decision requires all proponents in South Boston to ensure that transportation demand is in balance with capacity, both in the short term and the long term, and, if demand exceeds capacity, to adjust the development program or add to capacity. Individual proponents cannot and should not be expected to provide public transit; this is a State obligation. However, absent an immediate State investment in 21st century (i.e., rail, not bus) transit, developers must adapt their use mix to assure a jobs/housing/commercial balance that will reduce trips into and out of the district. Fortunately, the solution to the transportation problem is the historic "walking city" fabric that makes Boston so livable and attractive, and for which models abound all around the project site. (Unfortunately, the proponent is assiduously ignoring them in favor of a development scale and use mix which will, in the short run, be more profitable.)
The intersection congestion analysis of this project, like virtually all others in Boston, concerns itself with only the most local intersections. For projects such as this one, which will have regional draw, MEPA should require a full catchment-basin analysis of congestion impacts. Neighborhoods throughout Boston are cut through by approach/exit corridors for tidal traffic flows of these huge projects, suffering severe air pollution and pedestrian hazards in family residential areas. We have requested more comprehensive impact analyses of projects in the past; developers' protests that this is a "regional" issue should not deter the EOEA from demanding such analysis. Regional, indeed global, impacts begin at the project site; if they are not examined there, they will never be solved.
Mayor Thomas Menino has written a letter to Abby Young, Director of the US Cities for Climate Protection, pledging to "develop and implement a local action plan which describes the steps we will take to reduce both green house gas and air pollution emissions." He states, "I understand that air pollution and climate change associated with the burning of fossil fuels pose multiple threats to human health and the environment. In the City of Boston, we have many programs underway that address the threats of air pollution and we have recently stepped up our efforts to decrease asthma among our residents." The Mayor's pledge is a commendable one. Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled should be on the top of his list of programs, as vehicle emissions are one of the major sources of greenhouse gases. Development control is probably the Mayor's greatest opportunity to contribute to the protection of the earth's climate, and of his constituents' health.
Phasing
The FEIR states (p. II-28) that the construction of the project will be sequenced from west to east or the reverse, in site sections demarcated on Figure II-15; temporary Harborwalk connections would be provided on the side to be developed second. The final public realm improvements would remain incomplete, therefore, until the entire development is finished. This may be very problematic in terms of the public use of any of the spaces, and certainly puts the public interest very much at the mercy of real estate market conditions.
More troubling, the FEIR states (p. II-29): "Individual buildings may be completed and occupied at different times within either the western or eastern portion of the site. The public component described above will be completed no later than the completion of the private improvements in the respective portion of the site." This negates the proponent's concept of sequencing, and means that construction could continue anywhere on the site for the entire project build-out period -- for an indefinite time -- with neither "west" nor "east" side completed to the point where the permanent public improvements must be provided.
The public interest is extremely insecure in this plan, and is held hostage to the proponent's development calendar. The ABN has long warned that making the public realm a by-product of private development (public space as a "community benefit" in return for regulatory relief) is an inappropriate way to build common ground. As the City of Boston increasingly shifts responsibility for public space to private developers, we see the meaning of a statement by Ed Logue (Boston's first BRA director), spoken just a few years ago at a Harvard GSD guest lecture: "We should not try to do public things with private money."
In conclusion, we find that the proponent, and the BRA which has guided and supported this proposal, are presenting a proposal that still, after such a long and arduous review process, violates the spirit and the letter of the abundant planning and regulation that have been devoted to protection of the public interest on the waterfront. The proponent has had ample time, and a great deal of public input and official agency direction, with which to craft a project that properly balances private and public interests in this area. Yet the project has changed little in qualitative character from the original proposal.
We urge the Secretary's Office to find that the FEIR/FPIR shows a proposal far from ready for final MEPA approval, and to insist on the highest standards of environmental protection, environmental justice and community-building on this site, which will set the precedent for all development in the South Boston Waterfront. In view of the BRA's collaborative relationship with the proponent, EOEA is the authority to which the people of Boston turn to protect the public trust on our public tidelands.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kressel
President
Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods
Cc: Mark Maloney, Linda Haar, Rebecca Barnes, BRA
Waterfront Information Network
Stephanie Pollack, Conservation Law Foundation
Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association
Valerie Burns, Boston Natural Areas Fund
Seaport Alliance for a Neighborhood Design