There have now been five public hearings of the Belmont Planning Board to review the site plans filed by the three developers of the McLean property. The Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall has usually been filled to capacity, often with the audience overflowing into the hallway. The first half of almost every meeting has been devoted to a presentation by one of the developers; the second half, to comments or questions from concerned citizens. Two more hearings have been scheduled: March 27 and April 3, both Tuesdays. They will be in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m.

The Belmont Citizens Forum, the McLean Open Space Alliance, and individual citizens have delivered oral and written comments on a wide range of significant issues. Some town committees - including the Historic District Commission, the McLean Implementation Committee, and the Traffic Advisory Committee - have also participated. It is now up to the Planning Board to decide which of the issues will be addressed through formal, legal conditions attached to approvals of the site plans.

Like other groups, the Belmont Citizens Forum is proposing conditions for the Planning Board to consider. The forum has asked the Planning Board to publish its draft summary of the conditions to give the public a chance to comment before the board's position becomes final.

Here is a brief summary of some of the major issues:

Alternative transportation. The developers of the site are not legally bound to any specific traffic mitigation measures, such as car-pooling or shuttle-bus service to Waverley Square and Alewife station. Yet the developers of the senior community and the R&D complex readily admit that it will be difficult for them to comply with the peak-hour traffic limits defined in the Traffic Monitoring and Mitigation Agreement. For example, ARC, the developer of the senior complex, expects to have 500 or more residents and 200 employees (100 on the main day-time shift alone). Yet it must comply with a thirty-trip limit during the morning rush hour. Belmont Technology Park, the R&D facility, plans to build 525 parking spaces to accommodate 500 employees, yet it is limited to 206 trips during peak morning rush hours. Unless these developers make a binding commitment to alternative transportation, the town would face a long-term conflict over compliance with the Traffic Monitoring and Mitigation Agreement.

Stormwater. Attendees at the hearings were concerned about stormwater and pollution runoff into the open space from the large paved parking areas. Also, the retirement community plans to build a storm-retention facility beyond its property  line on the conservation land, in apparent violation of the conservation restriction. Furthermore, it appears likely that the remaining trees downhill from the ARC development will be cut off from natural water flows and could die as a result.

Projected traffic volume. Detailed design plans for the two intersections closest to the site (Pleasant Street and Trapelo Road, and Pleasant at the new McLean site drive) have not yet been revealed to the public; they have been promised soon. But it seems questionable whether these intersections will be able to handle the increased volume from McLean.

McLean's last traffic forecast for this area was conducted in 1998 and assumed a growth of only 1 percent in background traffic. Yet the Metro-West quadrant has experienced a 13 percent growth in office construction since then. Major new developments have been completed or are proposed in every direction from this site, including Belmont (the O™Neill site near Route 2), Waltham (along Waverley Oaks Road and on the old Met State property), Watertown (the Arsenal office complex), Arlington (the Mugar parcel), and Cambridge (Alewife).

Pedestrian safety. Consultants have recommended the use of concurrent signaling rather than exclusive signaling at the intersection of Trapelo Road and Pleasant Street. This means that pedestrians, including senior citizens from the new complex and from the town's nearby Waverley Oaks development, will have to try crossing at the same time that cars are making left or right turns through the crosswalks. The developers' traffic experts say that if exclusive signaling is used to stop all vehicles so that pedestrians can cross safely, traffic will back up. The town needs to decide if the priority is good traffic flow or pedestrian safety.

Steep driveway. The main site drive from Pleasant Street is steep, with sharp curves. Yet it will be the road used by senior citizens, many emergency vehicles, and trucks carrying hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Accidents seem likely.

Downed trees. The senior community and its adjoining site driveway will take up so much of Zone 3 that an estimated 90 percent of the trees in this area will be cut down. The developer has made much of the dozens of specimen trees that will be saved, but there has been no formal count of the thousands of mature trees that will be lost. Large retaining walls will interrupt the current vista of trees from the Waverley section of town.

Exterior lighting. The developer of the R&D property has presented an external lighting plan that will be visible in the open space, disturbing wildlife and evening strollers. The current plan fails to take advantage of new designs that can significantly limit light pollution. There are even plans to light up trees on the property.

Accommodations for bicycle commuters. Although the developers are responsible for mitigating traffic increases, the R&D developer has not made a binding commitment to provide lockers and showers, which encourage commuter to use bicycles. The developer has said only that he will discuss the idea with his tenants at some unspecified date.

Shuttle-bus access. Shuttle buses would be more effective if they served the entire development, including the townhouses and the hospital. This would require an amendment to the current McLean by-law, which does not allow buses to pass through the traffic gates that separate the R&D and senior complexes from the hospital and townhouse zones.

Fixing intersections. McLean's traffic experts, Rizzo Associates, recommended improvements at fourteen Belmont intersections that are already at or near full capacity. McLean is providing funds to improve only two of these intersections: Pleasant and Trapelo and the new intersection of Pleasant Street with the site driveway that will serve the senior and R&D complexes. The Planning Board has made no mention of plans or estimates to improve the remaining twelve intersections, including the congested ones in and around Belmont Center. The town seems to be counting on real estate taxes from the McLean site to help cover existing school and maintenance expenses. How do we plan to pay for the traffic improvements recommended at the remaining intersections?