13 Villages & One Goal...
Newtonville: Austin Street Timeline & Process Questions
Newtonville: Austin Street Timeline & Process Questions
The residents and business owners of each Newton village have the most at stake in terms of the use of public property in their village. The Austin Street parking lot is public property. Newtonville residents and business owners are the most affected stakeholders when it comes to the Austin Street parking lot. They and residents in every other village in Newton have reason to be deeply concerned about the process of declaring the lot surplus, rezoning it from public use and selecting Austin Street Partners (ASP) to be awarded control over this valuable parcel of public land. The process has lacked transparency and seems deeply flawed. The timeline below, from the most recent developments working back through time, documents the troubling problems with the Austin Street process:
June 2, 2015: The City Hall Aldermanic Chamber was filled for the opening of the “Public Hearing” (PH) on the petition (#119-15) for a Special Permit (SP) for “redevelopment” of the Austin St. Lot. The public hearing is part of the process in which the Board of Aldermen (BOA) determines whether to grant a special permit. Among other things, the PH gives the public an opportunity to provide input to the Aldermen about the pros and cons of the project. Eventually the BOA will vote on whether to grant the SP. If the BOA do not approve, it’s generally assumed it will remain a parking lot. The BOA could also approve a modified project and/or impose various conditions. This is the public process. It seems, however, that there is an ongoing parallel not-so-public process between the Mayor and the developer (see May 12, 2015 Ground Lease Preliminary Term Sheet).
May 12, 2015: The Mayor and the developer signed a “Ground Lease Preliminary Term Sheet.” It is curious that the Mayor has executed this agreement prior to the approval of the Special Permit, particularly given some of its provisions. It contains a section “LEASE TERM” that says in its entirety: “Ninety Nine (99) years from the Commencement Date. Tenant shall have the option to extend the Lease Term for up to an additional Ninety Nine (99) years.” Notice that there is no mention of further payment or negotiation, and no option of the City to deny the extension. The Tenant is given an unrestricted option. The 99 year lease concept has been mentioned in the public process, but I have not seen any discussion of the unrestricted Tenant option to extend it another 99 years in the public process. Is this a common provision in such situations? The Mayor has already signaled his willingness to agree to this by signing the preliminary lease document, so any discussion is probably fruitless.
What if the Special Permit is not approved? There is another section “APPROVAL PERIOD” that addresses this possibility. It’s a long section, but here is a key provision contained in the fourth paragraph: “If at the end of the Initial Approval Period …the Tenant has not yet obtained the Permits and Approvals for the Project…then the Landlord and the Tenant shall enter into …negotiations…for amendments to the Development Agreement …to develop the Project or a different project at the Lease Parcel.” What the “different project” might become given this section is unclear, but the mayor and the developer believed specifying an option to continue this non-public process is an important enough contingency to include it in this document. In reading this document what seems to be happening is that there is an ongoing non-public process that is making decisions without public input, and probably without input from our Aldermen, and that this will continue if the “Permits and Approvals” are not quickly obtained. It does not appear that the mayor envisions the Special Permit will be rejected, or if it is, that it would end the process.
June 2, 2015: The City Hall Aldermanic Chamber was filled for the opening of the “Public Hearing” (PH) on the petition (#119-15) for a Special Permit (SP) for “redevelopment” of the Austin St. Lot. The public hearing is part of the process in which the Board of Aldermen (BOA) determines whether to grant a special permit. Among other things, the PH gives the public an opportunity to provide input to the Aldermen about the pros and cons of the project. Eventually the BOA will vote on whether to grant the SP. If the BOA do not approve, it’s generally assumed it will remain a parking lot. The BOA could also approve a modified project and/or impose various conditions. This is the public process. It seems, however, that there is an ongoing parallel not-so-public process between the Mayor and the developer (see May 12, 2015 Ground Lease Preliminary Term Sheet).
May 12, 2015: The Mayor and the developer signed a “Ground Lease Preliminary Term Sheet.” It is curious that the Mayor has executed this agreement prior to the approval of the Special Permit, particularly given some of its provisions. It contains a section “LEASE TERM” that says in its entirety: “Ninety Nine (99) years from the Commencement Date. Tenant shall have the option to extend the Lease Term for up to an additional Ninety Nine (99) years.” Notice that there is no mention of further payment or negotiation, and no option of the City to deny the extension. The Tenant is given an unrestricted option. The 99 year lease concept has been mentioned in the public process, but I have not seen any discussion of the unrestricted Tenant option to extend it another 99 years in the public process. Is this a common provision in such situations? The Mayor has already signaled his willingness to agree to this by signing the preliminary lease document, so any discussion is probably fruitless.
What if the Special Permit is not approved? There is another section “APPROVAL PERIOD” that addresses this possibility. It’s a long section, but here is a key provision contained in the fourth paragraph: “If at the end of the Initial Approval Period …the Tenant has not yet obtained the Permits and Approvals for the Project…then the Landlord and the Tenant shall enter into …negotiations…for amendments to the Development Agreement …to develop the Project or a different project at the Lease Parcel.” What the “different project” might become given this section is unclear, but the mayor and the developer believed specifying an option to continue this non-public process is an important enough contingency to include it in this document. In reading this document what seems to be happening is that there is an ongoing non-public process that is making decisions without public input, and probably without input from our Aldermen, and that this will continue if the “Permits and Approvals” are not quickly obtained. It does not appear that the mayor envisions the Special Permit will be rejected, or if it is, that it would end the process.
March 1, 2015: 3rd community input meeting at NNHS is a science fair-type display of renderings of the ASP proposal, that many residents protest as misleading and untruthful. Input response sheets direct participants to provide “positive” feedback.
Winter 2015: ASP gives private briefings to Engine 6, LWVN, and other pro-high-density-housing groups. At Beautiful Newtonville-hosted public meeting, developer Scott Oran criticizes Newtonville business owner for attracting too many customers and cars into the village. Newtonville audience angrily defends village businesses that have revitalized the village, now threatened by ASP.
November 3, 2014: Ballot Question 5, against surplusing of public property with the direct consent of voters, passes by an almost 2-to-1 margin.
July 28, 2014: 2nd community input meeting is scheduled for peak vacation week when many residents are away on vacation, yet all speakers but one oppose ASP proposal.
June 24, 2014: 1st community input meeting, the “Dotmocracy”, is widely criticized for stifling meaningful input.
May 2014: Mayor Warren selects ASP, but says he rejects their plan. Claims it’s a “clean slate”, with a new design to be based on community input.
2013: The Administration's appointed Project Evaluation Team recommends ASP. Project Evaluation Team Member: Phil Herr. ASP Member: Robert Engler.
May 2013: TAB publishes renderings of developers’ massive proposed builds in response to the RFP. Newtonville residents and merchants, most unaware of surplusing process to date, protest at a May 23, 2013 neighborhood meeting. Alders Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson promise meeting with Mayor soon, but fail to deliver on that promise. (The Mayor finally takes questions from public in front of audience on July 28, 2014, after a full year of public outcry against development.)
February, 2013: The Administration's Request for Proposals (RFP) states the lot will be re-zoned MU4, and asks for a minimum of 18 housing units, 25% of themaffordable, and sets no maximum. The highest bid in is $5m for 96 units. ASP bids $1.5m for 80 units.
2012: Despite the lack of an official parking study, Real Property Reuse Committee, and full BOA vote for sale or lease of Austin Street lot to developer.
2010-11: Joint Advisory Planning Group (JAPG) appointed to advise on how to dispose of Austin St. lot. JAPG appointees are mostly pro-high-density housing advocates. Two neighborhood abutters on JAPG later say they were “window dressing”, and development was the JAPG's sole, pre-determined agenda. JAPG recommends 18-30 units. JAPG Vice Chairman: Phil Herr.
2010: HAPI helps City prepare Request for Interest (RFI). Ward 2 Aldermen-at-Large Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson sign letter with “distinct pleasure” to report BOA’s Real Property Reuse Committee recommends surplusing. Mayor’s Commissioner of Public Works signs letter giving up the lot, but states 85 public parking spots must remain (which indicates the parking lot is needed, and not actually surplus).
2009: In an unusual move, Housing Action Plan Initiative (HAPI) – rather than a City department, as is standard procedure - initiates surplusing of Austin St. lot. The HAPI chairman recommends lot be offered at no cost to developers. HAPI Chairman: Phil Herr. HAPI Member: Robert Engler of SEB, LLC and Newton Community Development Foundation (NCDF).
2007: Without any parking study, Austin St. lot is listed as a site for high-density subsidized housing in Newton’s Comprehensive Plan. Lead Author: Phil Herr.
Winter 2015: ASP gives private briefings to Engine 6, LWVN, and other pro-high-density-housing groups. At Beautiful Newtonville-hosted public meeting, developer Scott Oran criticizes Newtonville business owner for attracting too many customers and cars into the village. Newtonville audience angrily defends village businesses that have revitalized the village, now threatened by ASP.
November 3, 2014: Ballot Question 5, against surplusing of public property with the direct consent of voters, passes by an almost 2-to-1 margin.
July 28, 2014: 2nd community input meeting is scheduled for peak vacation week when many residents are away on vacation, yet all speakers but one oppose ASP proposal.
June 24, 2014: 1st community input meeting, the “Dotmocracy”, is widely criticized for stifling meaningful input.
May 2014: Mayor Warren selects ASP, but says he rejects their plan. Claims it’s a “clean slate”, with a new design to be based on community input.
2013: The Administration's appointed Project Evaluation Team recommends ASP. Project Evaluation Team Member: Phil Herr. ASP Member: Robert Engler.
May 2013: TAB publishes renderings of developers’ massive proposed builds in response to the RFP. Newtonville residents and merchants, most unaware of surplusing process to date, protest at a May 23, 2013 neighborhood meeting. Alders Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson promise meeting with Mayor soon, but fail to deliver on that promise. (The Mayor finally takes questions from public in front of audience on July 28, 2014, after a full year of public outcry against development.)
February, 2013: The Administration's Request for Proposals (RFP) states the lot will be re-zoned MU4, and asks for a minimum of 18 housing units, 25% of themaffordable, and sets no maximum. The highest bid in is $5m for 96 units. ASP bids $1.5m for 80 units.
2012: Despite the lack of an official parking study, Real Property Reuse Committee, and full BOA vote for sale or lease of Austin Street lot to developer.
2010-11: Joint Advisory Planning Group (JAPG) appointed to advise on how to dispose of Austin St. lot. JAPG appointees are mostly pro-high-density housing advocates. Two neighborhood abutters on JAPG later say they were “window dressing”, and development was the JAPG's sole, pre-determined agenda. JAPG recommends 18-30 units. JAPG Vice Chairman: Phil Herr.
2010: HAPI helps City prepare Request for Interest (RFI). Ward 2 Aldermen-at-Large Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson sign letter with “distinct pleasure” to report BOA’s Real Property Reuse Committee recommends surplusing. Mayor’s Commissioner of Public Works signs letter giving up the lot, but states 85 public parking spots must remain (which indicates the parking lot is needed, and not actually surplus).
2009: In an unusual move, Housing Action Plan Initiative (HAPI) – rather than a City department, as is standard procedure - initiates surplusing of Austin St. lot. The HAPI chairman recommends lot be offered at no cost to developers. HAPI Chairman: Phil Herr. HAPI Member: Robert Engler of SEB, LLC and Newton Community Development Foundation (NCDF).
2007: Without any parking study, Austin St. lot is listed as a site for high-density subsidized housing in Newton’s Comprehensive Plan. Lead Author: Phil Herr.