Schofield Resigns from BC Task Force Following BRA Board Decision

Tim Schofield today submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority his resignation from the BRA's Boston College Task Force today following last night's approval of BC's Institutional Master Plan by the BRA Board.

His move followed the task force's reversal of its position on the 150-bed dormitory along Commonwealth Avenue proposed for BC's new Brighton Campus. Up through September 2008, the task force continued to be on record opposing all dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land, but recently changed course with the majority on the task force supporting the 150-bed dorm -- with conditions -- following a secret meeting held by the group.

The task force was left dangling at Thursday's public hearing when Mayor Thomas Menino's aide announced that he wanted the dorm proposal removed from the IMP; Councilor Mark Ciommo and State Representatives Kevin Honan and Michael Moran subsequently reversed course from the positions they held earlier in the month to oppose the dorm proposal as part of this IMP.

Schofield declined to talk about his decision beyond the reason given in his resignation letter that "running a business in these difficult economic times requires all of my time and attention." Other members of the task force noted that he was in the minority on the dorm issue and that he appeared quite frustrated with the internal dynamics on the task force.

During their secret, internal deliberations in the past week and a half leading up to last night's meeting, several members are revealing that there has been a great deal of infighting.

Schofield led several of the task force's public meetings during the public comment periods and, other task force members note, was instrumental in drafting the text of the task force letters and trying to build consensus within the advisory group. He has been on the task force since March 2007, although he stepped down for several months in 2007 while running unsuccessfully for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor.

Globe Moves Brighton to Newton to Appease GateHouse

Last night, the Board of the Boston Redevelopment Authority approved Boston College's 10-year Institutional Master Plan, despite objections from Brighton neighbors.

In a head-scratching move, the Boston Globe published the story online in their YourTown Newton website, even though the BRA's decision only impacts development of BC's property owned in Boston, not Newton.

Brighton just became a mini-battlefield in the conflict between the New York Times Company, owner of the Boston Globe, and GateHouse Media, which runs the WickedLocal sites and well over 100 community newspapers in New England.

The Times and GateHouse recently settled a lawsuit by the latter alleging that the Globe violated fair use practices through aggregation of GateHouse stories onto the Globe's new YourTown websites. Evidence in support of GateHouse's allegations were the large number of GateHouse stories that at times appeared on the Globe YourTown websites alongside very little originally Globe content.

In the settlement, the Times appears to have agreed to change from an automated aggregation format -- where GateHouse story titles and ledes were automatically inserted onto the YourTown webpages -- to a curated aggregation format more akin to blogging, where a short, human-written description accompanies the link to GateHouse content.

By putting a Brighton story into the YourTown Newton, the Globe appears to be trying to beef up the quantity of Globe content on their YourTown Newton website, probably so that it doesn't appear to be so heavily dominant on a competing newspaper's content.

The Boston Globe's City Weekly has regularly covered the debate between the university, neighborhood, and the City of Boston over proposed dormitories and athletic stadiums for the university's new Brighton Campus (the former St. John's Seminary site purchased from the Archdiocese of Boston in 2004-7), but, as far as I can remember, has done so by categorizing the stories with Brighton, not Newton, bylines. Nothing in today's story described how the process will impact Newton, which has its own project-by-project approval process -- as opposed to the master planning process found in Boston. The advance boston.com story was solely located on the YourTown Newton website, while another advance story on the BRA's BC Task Force was on the boston.com website. The story linked to from Friday's online Globe itself was then separately categorized in the higher education category.

BRA Board Approves Boston College Master Plan -- But Rejects Brighton Dorms (For Now)

After a three-and-a-half-hour hearing, the Boston Redevelopment Authority's Board today approved Boston College's 10-year Institutional Master Plan -- but without the 500-beds of undergraduate dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land (aka Brighton Campus).

The move came after Dan Roan, Allston-Brighton Coordinator from the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, notified the board that Mayor Thomas Menino was requesting that the 150-bed dormitory along Commonwealth Avenue be removed from the IMP. Instead, the 150-bed dorm and another 350-bed dorm further inside the Brighton Campus will be the subject of a future study in order to determine a suitable location for them.

More details to follow.

"Broken Promises": Globe Op-Ed on BC's Institutional Master Plan

Two Brighton residents have an op-ed appearing in Thursday's edition of the Boston Globe which lists a series of reasons the Boston Redevelopment Authority should reject Boston College's Institutional Master Plan at the BRA Board's meeting on Thursday afternoon.

Ram Rao and Abigail Furey detail some of the broken promises from the university:

Among the most significant examples are its promises not to expand further into Brighton and not to build dormitories for undergraduates on the former archdiocese site. It also claimed it would not accept high-density housing for its students, but subsequently purchased, without notice to the city or the community, a 17-story high-rise about a half mile from campus for dormitory use.

When the college purchased the archdiocese property in 2004, the Globe reported that college officials "do not foresee using the land for core campus functions."

Yet in 2007 BC made a hard turn and is now insisting on putting those "core campus functions" -- dormitories, athletic fields and stadiums, parking garage -- onto their new property. By shifting from low-impact, day-time use facilities -- like administrative buildings, classrooms, offices, laboratories -- to high-impact, night-time uses, BC chose a path of confrontation with the surrounding neighborhood.

500 Residents Petition BRA and Mayor on BC Master Plan

A petition with 438 signatures regarding Boston College's Institutional Master Plan was hand-delivered to Mayor Thomas Menino's office and sent to the Boston Redevelopment Authority last week; several additional sheets of signatures were delivered later, upping the signature count to roughly 500. Several other petitions were also circulating in the neighborhood -- including one organized by condo owners at a Commonwealth Avenue apartment building, and apparently another one (which I haven't seen) from the Jewish Orthodox community -- supporting many of the same points.

The petitions were submitted as part of the public comment period that closed last Friday on the revised IMP that BC filed with the BRA in June 2008. The number of signatures expressing opposition to key elements of BC's master plan will likely raise eyebrows in Brighton -- and in City Hall, too.

The main petition read:

"I support Boston College housing 100% of its students. I do not agree with BC's proposed plan to house students on the Brighton Campus and in a 575 bed off-campus dormitory at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue.

I support low impact athletic use on the lower Brighton Campus. I oppose the construction of a 1500 seat stadium on the Brighton Campus due to its impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise and additional traffic.

I oppose the reconfiguration of the traffic patterns as proposed by Boston College without further study by an independent traffic consultant as requested by residents and Task Force members."

I have seen many other public comment letters sent separately which make many or all of the same points, suggesting that the number of Brighton residents supporting these positions is significantly higher than the roughly 500 on these petitions.

Inspecting the petition, I see that most signers are abutters or living within a few blocks of Boston College-owned property in Brighton, particularly the Brighton Campus (former St. John's Seminary land). Examples from some streets mostly having large numbers of off-campus student apartments:

• 17 residents of Kirkwood Road;
• 31 residents of Radnor Road;
• 12 residents of Lane Park;
• 14 residents of Lake Street; and
  
• four residents of Glenmont Road.

By comparison, during the previous round of public comments in February 2008 on BC's IMP Notification Form, 454 people or organizations wrote or signed petitions in opposition of the Brighton Dorms:

• Six elected officials;
• The BRA's BC Task Force;
• Seven organizations and civic groups;
• 61 individual comment letters; and
  
• 379 signatures to petitions.

There were 186 people or organizations who wrote or signed petitions in February 2008 asking for BC to house all of its undergraduates on their main campus, so the new petitions substantially increases the number on this issue.

Comparing both sets of petitions (February vs. September 2008) shows that there is a substantial number of signers on only one or the other, indicating that the total number of Brighton residents who have signed their name to these positions on undergraduate housing is significantly higher than 500.

It takes little analysis to figure out that a significant fraction of the people in owner-occupied residential property in Brighton have signed onto these petitions. Voting trends usually find higher turnout among such long-term residents than the so-called "transient" population, so I wouldn't be surprised if a number of elected officials in City Hall are taking careful note of these numbers.


Image of The Interactive Museum of News by afagen provided through a Creative Commons license.

Headed in Reverse on Construction Management Plans

In what is hopefully not a bad omen for Boston College's proposed ten-year, $1 billion capital construction project, questions surfaced in the last week over the city approval process for renovations underway at the library on BC's new Brighton Campus.

How did neighborhood residents sense something was going awry? A week or two ago a construction truck drove down one-way Lake Street, the driver probably realized his mistake, and then he backed up several hundred feet in order to get to an entrance into the Brighton Campus -- the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by BC in 2004-7.

At the October 16, 2007 meeting of the BC Task Force at which the library renovations were discussed, I had mentioned that construction vehicles ought to enter the Brighton Campus only through the Commonwealth Avenue entrance. A logical extension is that no construction trucks should travel down Lake Street or Foster Street -- particularly since the latter has a posted 2.5 ton weight limit banning heavy trucks. BC officials seemed to nod in agreement.

After seeing the truck go in reverse up Lake Street, several residents thought that there ought to be a construction management plan (CMP) for the renovation work -- and that it ought to say that there would be no truck traffic on Lake Street. Queries to BC and the BRA caused city workers to scramble for a few days to figure out what was going on -- and if the city's processes regarding the construction work were being followed.

The BRA requires large development projects to negotiate a signed CMP with the Boston Transportation Department after BRA Board approval but before construction begins. The problem: there wasn't a CMP on file for the library renovations.

In the end, everything appeared to be OK: BC told the BRA that renovation work on the library only started after the city issued a building permit on June 18th; and the BRA determined that a CMP was not required for the renovation work because the BRA had issued a "notice of exemption" for the work on May 14th.

And BC officials apparently told their contractors in no uncertain terms what entrance they should be using.


Update on BC's IMP Amendment

The renovation work on the library provided an opportunity to get an update on BC's institutional master plan amendment first filed in October 2007.

The revised IMPA of April 2008 requested approval of temporary occupancy of Bishop Peterson Hall as the offices and classrooms for the new School of Theology and Ministry, along with renovations of the library and St. William's Hall. After the renovations of St. William's Hall are complete, the STM would move there permanently. (St. William's Hall was already approved as the site for the STM in the 2006 IMPA, so BC returned to this previous plan.) The Bishop Peterson Hall kitchens will be permanently used jointly by STM seminarians and the diocesan seminarians at St. John's Seminary. (The former rector of St. John's Seminary won't be happy!)

The "notice of exemption" of May 14, 2008 was issued by the BRA because the library renovations, with the exception of a handicapped access ramp, were entirely interior to the building. While the library renovations are still formally part of the IMPA, the notice meant that BC could proceed with them without waiting for approval of the IMPA itself.

The public comment period for the IMPA closed on June 6, 2008 without any letters received, according to BRA project manager John Fitzgerald.

Since that date, BC and the BRA appear to have been too busy with other issues to follow-up on the IMPA. Even though Article 80 review dictates that a BRA Board vote should follow soon after the close of the public comment period, it has not yet taken place. Nor has the Zoning Commission taken it up.

Fitzgerald offered his assurances that, when the St. William's renovations are approved, the BRA will make sure that a construction management plan is signed with BTD prior to the start of any construction work.

And that no more trucks would be backing up on Lake Street.


Image of a dump truck by cindy47452 provided through a Creative Commons license.

Animated and Angry Crowd Confronts Boston College's Revised Master Plan

"No dorms on Brighton Campus! Change this plan, please!" [Referring to proposed dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by Boston College in 2004-7.]

"You're taking your problem and making it our problem!" "It's not on-campus!" [Referring to BC's purchase of the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, which they intend to turn into an off-campus undergraduate dormitory.]

"That's blackmail!" [Referring to attempts by Jack Dunn, BC's Director of Public Affairs, to withhold more popular elements of their master plan unless the entire plan would be approved by the city and neighborhood.]

"Build them higher!" [Referring to five-story dormitories proposed to replace the two-story Mods dormitories on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill.]

These were repeated shouts from the audience that time and again interrupted Boston College's presentation of their revised institutional master plan Monday night at the Yawkey Center on BC's campus.

Neighborhood meetings can often be total yawners, where residents argue for hours over the smallest details of setbacks, zoning variances, brick color, and window design.

Not so on Monday night. The meeting was nothing short of a raucous affair. The air was theatrically punctuated by rapid-fire flashbulbs from two news photographers.

Thirteen months ago, Thomas Keady, Jr., Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs at BC, said at one such meeting that he didn't enjoy getting his "head kicked in." There was little question: Monday night was more than just another head-bashing.

BC officials, Boston Redevelopment Authority project managers, and BC Task Force members struggled to keep order in a room crowded with 200-250 people who kept shouting out their anger, frustration, exasperation, and profound disagreement with the undergraduate housing proposals that BC presented as their response to the Scoping Determination on their 10-year IMP issued in February by the BRA.

The university passed a significant milestone Monday by embracing the concept of providing university-owned housing for 100% of their undergraduate students.

University officials insisted that the neighborhood's price for this achievement would be accepting conversion of an off-campus apartment building into a dormitory and construction of new dormitories for the former St. John's Seminary land. Many neighborhood residents disagreed strongly with both premises, insisting that the solution lies in constructing more and/or taller dormitories on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill.


BC Proposes 100% Undergraduate Housing -- But Some Will Be Off-Campus in the Neighborhood

Keady explained to the audience that there were two major changes to their undergraduate housing proposal.

First, he confirmed that approximately three weeks ago BC entered into a purchase and sale agreement to buy the 17-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue. While Keady claimed the purchase was "one of the worst-kept secrets in Allston-Brighton," many residents of nearby buildings spoke -- or shouted -- that they knew nothing about it until the last few days. "I haven't heard anything about it," said a resident of nearby 1988 Comm Ave.

The obvious reason why they hadn't heard about the purchase? The story broke a month ago online, but was not picked up by the mainstream media -- in part because BC officials refused to speak about the topic at two neighborhood meetings earlier this month.

Second, BC was now presenting a plan that would house 100% of their undergraduates in university-controlled housing -- some of which would be that new building at 2000 Comm Ave. "It's not on-campus!" came the audience replies.

It was this second point that was met with repeated, yet measured, praise from many in the task force and audience.

"The fact that this is now BC's goal is a huge achievement, because it has been the neighborhood's goal for about 15 years," said task force member Paul Berkeley.

"I applaud the 100%" target for undergraduate housing, said task force member Kevin Carragee. He gave his biggest praise to the residents, however, who kept pushing for the goal. "I want to thank the people who have been at these meetings for 15 years," he said.

Radnor Road resident Bruce Kline summarized the meeting at the end, saying that, aside from the addition of 2000 Commonwealth to their plan as a new undergraduate dormitory, the plan "is basically the same" as before.

Kline appeared accurate in his observations. In this revised plan, BC only added 110 additional beds to their main campus -- while many in the neighborhood wanted them to add between 500 (to move all the beds in the Brighton Dorms to the main campus) to 1450 (to house all their undergraduates in on-campus, rather than in off-campus, university-controlled housing).

The BRA required BC to explore two alternate studies for housing 500 additional undergraduates on their main campus, which would eliminate the need for dormitories on the former seminary land. BC's presentation offered no fundamental impediments uncovered by either study, yet rejected both in favor of a plan that was only slightly changed from the IMPNF -- and kept the Brighton Dorms in nearly the same configuration and size as before.

"I'm a little perplexed about the consideration of options," said task force member Tim Schofield. "It did sound like [the other two options] were feasible."


2000 Comm Ave: BC Official Tries Unsuccessfully to Play One Neighborhood Against Another

A significant number of residents in buildings near to 2000 Comm Ave attended Monday's meeting and expressed their displeasure with BC's pending purchase of the property.

"It's going to lower the quality of life in the neighborhood," said Lamya Shahabuddin, a board member of the building at 1933 Comm Ave. "When we bought those condos, we didn't sign up to live on campus."

Even BC Professor of Mathematics Mark Reeder, also a board member at 1933 Comm Ave, expressed his opposition to the purchase. "BC is trying to transfer their problem [to be] Brighton's problem," he said, in apparent reference to the difficulties in controlling student behavior.

One of BC's explanations for the basis of their housing plan was to create more open space on their main campus by moving some uses, such as student dormitories, further away onto the Brighton Campus -- or now at 2000 Comm Ave. "Not enough wild grass [for students] to play in?" said Reeder. "That's BC's problem, not Brighton's problem."

Keady had suggested earlier in the evening that converting the building to undergraduate dormitories was something that the neighbors of the Radnor Road, Lane Park, and Kirkwood Road area were supporting.

Lane Park resident Sandy Furman only partially backed him up. Furman said that, if faced with competing options of students in houses versus students in 2000 Comm Ave, he would choose the latter. "But it doesn't have to be that way," he said, indicating that BC had other options available, such as taller buildings on their main campus.

Shelby Marshall, Furman's Lane Park neighbor, indicated that the apartment building is already 40% occupied by BC students, which Nick Fondas, another Lane Park resident, speculated might otherwise tip over to 75-80% student-occupied within a few years. "I would rather it be a supervised than unsupervised dorm," said Marshall.

Other residents wanted nothing of Keady's attempts to pit the Radnor Road/Lane Park neighbors against those on Commonwealth Avenue. "I resent that BC would play the Radnor Road neighbors against 2000 Comm Ave," said Kirkwood Road resident Lisa Lieberman to audience applause.


"We Are Now in a Question Of How"

Task force member Kevin Carragee said these words to describe how the debate between the neighborhood, BRA, and BC was no longer focused on whether or not BC should house 100% of their undergraduate students. The discussion has now switched to where those dormitories should be located -- i.e., "how" to achieve the agreed-upon goal of full housing.

In short: location, location, location.


Repeated Neighborhood Proposals for a Tall Dormitory on Mods Site

Carragee continued with his proposed solution: "Why not go high on the Mods site?" He referred to the location of the two-story Mods dormitories, constructed as temporary housing in the 1970s -- yet eleven of those buildings would still be standing in 2019 in BC's proposed plan.

In the strangest recurring theme of the evening, Keady didn't answer Carragee's question. When asked if he was going to answer it, Keady simply replied, "No."

Shouts from the crowd requested him to answer, but more silence followed. Later questions by the audience repeatedly brought up the same question, demanding an answer -- any answer at all -- but still drew no response from Keady.

Jack Dunn, BC's Director of Public Affairs, eventually stood up out of his front-row seat, grabbed a microphone, and answered the question. "The issue for us is an issue of density," he said. "Our conclusion was that 4700 students in 40 acres [on the main campus] was the limit."

Dunn remained standing next to the podium. Every time the same question resurfaced, he repeated the same answer, and Keady stood by watching. Dunn's stock answer began to be met by laughter from the crowd.

Falkland Street resident Donal Carroll offered a comeback, noting that BC has paid its consultants probably hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of dollars to draw up the designs for the master plan. "If you're unable to house 12 extra individuals per acre on a 40-acre site," he said, then BC probably needs to find some different consultants, you know, to get their money's worth. Laughter ensued, drowning out Carroll's words.

One resident went to the projected map on the screen and demonstrated how small a footprint the 17-story building at 2000 Comm Ave would form if an exact, duplicate copy were constructed on the Mods site.

A version of his visual is displayed here to the right. The 2000 Comm Ave apartment building footprint is the small, gray, L-shaped building above and to the right of the proposed, new recreation center (building #19).

The implication is clear: very little green space on their main campus would be sacrificed to put 560 beds of undergraduate housing in such a building. BC could still have their wide-open main campus.


Are BC Officials Themselves Exhibiting NIMBY-ism?

In watching the meeting unfold, I couldn't help but think: if BC would agree to build such a dormitory at the Mods site on their main campus instead of the Brighton Dorms, they might very well be able to convert heavy neighborhood opposition against their housing proposals into broader support.

But, for some reason, at least one BC official on Monday night was persistently refusing to consider the option of constructing such a building on their own campus.

Several months ago, BC's Dunn resorted to name-calling by labelling neighborhood opponents of the Brighton Dorms as holding a position that amounts to "NIMBY-ism" (Not In My Back Yard).

Have the tables now turned?

When BC decided to pursue purchasing 2000 Comm Ave, they probably viewed it as a tactical victory that would curry favor from the city and quiet down neighborhood opposition to their plans in the near term.

Once BC showed their hand by expressing interest in purchasing 2000 Comm Ave -- with the intention to convert it into an undergraduate dormitory -- they stumbled into what I can only see to be a vast, strategic blunder on their part.

If such a tall building is a perfectly acceptable dormitory for their students off-campus, then they have implicitly accepted the proposition that it is an equally acceptable model for a dormitory on-campus. But BC officials are racked by inconsistency. They want the tall dormitory in the neighborhood, but they don't want an equally tall dormitory on their own campus.

Is the rejection of a tall dormitory on the main campus an act of NIMBY-ism on the part of BC officials?


The Silent Type

While Keady's silence on the issue of a tall dormitory was noticeable, somebody else's silence probably escaped the notice of most Brighton residents.

Patrick Keating, BC's Executive Vice President, who is in charge of long-range planning for the university, attended Monday's meeting of the BC Task Force. It is the first time I have ever seen him in attendance at a meeting of the task force.

I have long wondered how the neighborhood opposition to key elements in BC's undergraduate housing plan filters through the usual attendees from Governmental and Community Affairs (and Public Affairs) to the top university officials in charge of making decisions on the long-range plan, i.e., Executive VP Keating and Fr. William Leahy, S. J., President of BC. Do the intermediaries down-play residents' opposition? Do the absent executives not believe in the neighborhood opposition because they don't hear it first-hand?

Even though Keating was completely silent throughout the meeting, there was no filtering of the neighborhood's positions on the issues. Keating heard every shouted word himself.

Leahy, however, did not. He issued a press release instead, saying that the plan is:

“a manifestation of BC’s desire to be a good neighbor by taking students out of the neighborhood and providing increased stability for local residence [sic], while also addressing Boston College’s most pressing needs.”

Mainstream Media Pick Up the Story

The Boston Globe has a brief story up about BC's revised plan; a longer story is here. Monday's meeting occurred after their deadline, so it is not mentioned. WBZ radio has an audio story on the revised proposal which quotes Dunn but fails to pursue any alternative viewpoints. Boston Herald reporters have now been seen in Brighton for the first time covering the BC student housing story; they appear to have later deadlines than the Globe.

UPDATE: Allston-Brighton TAB makes reference to the mayhem. The Herald had a second story the following day which focused on the meeting. (The first article focused on BC's press release.) Expect a story from the Boston Bulletin later this week.

UPDATE: Here's the Bulletin story.


Image of shouting woman from ronsho provided through a Creative Commons license.

Boston Magazine Sees Dead Bodies in the Seminary

The latest issue of Boston Magazine carries a story ("Over His Dead Body") about Boston College's recent institutional expansion -- and the bodies that might be buried underneath. Reading the story is worth it just for the amusing artwork showing a cutaway of William Cardinal O'Connell's grave with his skeletal hand reaching up out of the ground. Melrose Place, anyone?

The hook for the story is the supposed problems that BC might have with Cardinal O'Connell's buried remains in their massive expansion plan into 65 acres of former St. John's Seminary land that they purchased in 2004-7, which was previously reported in the Boston Globe.

Yet in neither BC's 10-year proposed institutional master plan nor their 20-50 year long-range plan do they show any plans for construction at the site of Cardinal O'Connell's mausoleum; moving his remains is not really necessary for the other plans to go forward. Why BC officials insist on moving the remains is another issue, and is bound to stir up animosity from its Catholic constituency who look fondly upon the Cardinal.

Other graves on the site, however, may pose a more immediate problem, as was first reported here at Brighton Centered based on a letter written by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Boston Redevelopment Authority. A number of Sulpician priests were buried on the site and subsequently disinterred for reburial in Maryland, but the records of the disinterment are apparently either too vague or missing altogether.

Result: there might be unmarked graves somewhere on the site, but you don't know exactly where, so the Massachusetts Unmarked Burial Law may apply and therefore require an intensive search for the remains. That's a far worse problem than the remains of Cardinal O'Connell's at a location not currently slated for development.

Writer Paul McMorrow spells out the steps from graveyard to courthouse:

The college will likely try to tap some form of public funds in its quest to build out the chancery grounds, and if it does, that will give the historical commission a) statutory oversight, and b) standing in court. This means [Secretary of the Commonwealth William] Galvin can reserve the right to sue BC.

I'm not sure if there is a legal distinction between using public funds for purchasing the property and developing it, but BC has already tapped state support in the form of tax-exempt bonds issued last year by MassDevelopment, the state's finance and development authority, to the tune of $177 million for the express purpose of purchasing 18 acres of the former St. John's Seminary land. And I would also be surprised if there would be any problem getting standing when the Massachusetts Unmarked Burial Law applies to possible graves of the Sulpician priests. But those are questions for the lawyers and the courts, which just supports McMorrow's thesis that the graves constitute one way that opponents of BC's expansion could tie up their plans in court for quite some time.

The Boston Magazine story spins a good yarn, although the references to graves, and most of the other content, is not new. BC officials wouldn't speak to McMorrow on the record, and "one prominent alum" would only talk anonymously and on the condition that he be considered not to speak on behalf of the university. (I'd place a bet at Deval Patrick's Suffolk Downs Casino that he's talking about a well-to-do member of BC's Board of Trustees, but I could be wrong.)


Trying to Convert Beer Can Hill Into BC Flatland

There is some new content, however, in the continuation of the story about BC's longstanding attempts to purchase "Beer Can Hill," a four acre plot of state-owned land adjacent to Edmonds Hall:

According to a source close to the talks between Boston College and the MWRA, the school has said it wants to level the hill and use it for nothing more than soccer fields. A bit cavalier, considering that if Beer Can Hill collapsed, some 2 million people would lose water for days, if not weeks, says one MWRA [Massachusetts Water Resources Authority] source.

I would be surprised if anyone in the neighborhood believes that BC only wants to build soccer fields there; one BC student even reported after a 2006 planning session with Sasaki that BC wanted to build dorms on the site. In 2005 BC was unsuccessful in their attempts to gain ownership of the parcel in exchange for a promise to maintain the Chestnut Hill Reservoir. McMorrow continues:

BC knew that it would face opposition to its plans, so it hired an engineering team that told the MWRA's engineers, "We could do it safely." When the agency's board disagreed, the college brought in some political muscle: Jack Brennan, a lobbyist, former state senator, and close ally of ex–Senate President (and BC alum) William Bulger. Brennan's 2007 filings with the state show him performing work on BC's master plan and other unspecified "property issues."

McMorrow seems to have missed the point about why Brennan filled out paperwork registering as a lobbyist for BC. The answer would've helped tie together his story... but, alas, that tale is best left for another day. McMorrow continues:

But those efforts notwithstanding, his firm's lobbying of the MWRA board on BC's behalf—"It was some heavy stuff," the MWRA source says—didn't work. Last November, the board passed a resolution condemning the proposed plans, citing the potentially dire consequences of any damage to the water lines.

Still, no one thinks that setback will really stop BC. Asked whether the college is still interested in buying Beer Can Hill, Moran replies, "I haven't asked, but I don't have to ask that question to get an answer. They were interested in it 30 years ago, and they'll still want it 30 years in the future."

The MWRA's Advisory Board's minutes for the November 2007 meeting spell out concerns not narrowly concerned with Beer Can Hill, but with their general development plans in and around "Shaft 7", which supplies 2/3 of the drinking water for 2.1 million people in the Boston area:

Whereas, there is currently inadequate redundancy for Shaft 7; and

Whereas, any failure of Shaft 7 would have catastrophic consequences;

Therefore, be it resolved that on this 14th day of November, 2007, the MWRA Board of Directors, reaffirms its prior opposition to proposals by Boston College to develop a portion of MWRA-controlled property in and around the vicinity of Shaft 7 at Chestnut Hill unless and until redundancy is first constructed and fully operable...

Chairman [Ian] Bowles stated that he visited the site of Shaft 7. He noted that he felt less comfortable with Boston College’s proposal after the visit.

Bowles is not just the chairman of the MWRA's Advisory Board; he's also Governor Deval Patrick's Secretary of the Executive Office Of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

That is a damning development: that the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs is increasingly concerned the more he learns about BC's development proposals near that water main.

Councilor Ciommo on BC's Bid to Purchase Apartment Building at 2000 Comm Ave

Boston College has confirmed that they are pursuing purchasing the 16-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton, according to a written statement by Jack Dunn and published reports at GlobeSt.com and the Allston-Brighton TAB. This follows news broken by GlobeSt.com last week that BC was secretively pursuing the property at a purchase price in the vicinity of $68 million.

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor Mark Ciommo has now expressed the problems with the purchase. "I think the neighborhood has been clear about not taking residential stock [off the tax rolls]," he said last week in an interview.

The purchase of 2000 Comm Ave is "not something we want to encourage," Councilor Ciommo continued.

Construction of the building in 1987 was opposed by then-District 9 City Councilor Brian McLaughlin -- but supported by then-District City Councilor Thomas Menino, now Mayor of Boston.

BC previously tried unsuccessfully to purchase the property in 1993 because of strong neighborhood opposition -- and opposition of Paul Barrett, then-Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

"If [purchase of the building] wasn't in the best interests of the neighborhood then, why would it be now?" said Theresa Hynes of Brighton earlier this week.


Converting Tax-Paying Housing Into a Student Dormitory

Director of Public Affairs Jack Dunn emailed GlobeSt.com to confirm that the university is interested in turning the building into an undergraduate dormitory:

Boston College’s interest in 2000 Commonwealth Ave. reflects the university’s desire to improve the quality of life for our neighbors and our students, by housing as many undergraduates as possible in university controlled residence halls.

The 190 or so units are a mix of 1- and 2-bedroom apartments. Assuming two students per bedroom means that roughly 600 students could be housed in the building.

BC's purchase of this building, followed by conversion to undergraduate dormitory use, would take approximately $400,000 off of the city's tax roll. (190 or so units averaging a bit over $2000 per unit per year.) By comparison, BC currently only pays $215,000 per year in Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to Boston.

When asked if the potential removal of approximately $400,000 from the city's tax rolls is appropriate compared to the $215,000 in PILOT, Councilor Ciommo answered, "No."


BC Official Refuses to Meet With Neighborhood Civic Organization Over Issue

The Brighton Allston Improvement Association invited Thomas Keady, Jr., Boston College's Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs, to meet with their group on Thursday, June 5th to discuss BC's possible purchase of the building.

Dick Marques, President of the BAIA, confirmed the invitation and that Keady declined the offer, saying that BC would instead only meet once the issue was more finalized.

Marques and Hynes interpreted Keady's refusal to attend the civic group's meeting as an attempt to meet with the neighborhood only after the deal was over and done with -- not in advance, when the neighborhood might provide input into whether or not the deal should happen in the first place.


Delays In Discussing Revised Institutional Master Plan With Residents

The BRA sent out a message two weeks ago canceling the May meeting of the BC Task Force, which caused head scratching amongst a number of neighborhood residents.

John Fitzgerald, project manager at the BRA overseeing BC's IMP filings with the city, wrote back to me:

It was rescheduled because BC has been working closely with the BRA, even as recently as last week where suggestions were made by the BRA on some options for BC. We just wanted to make sure that BC has had time to respond to our issues rather than holding a Task Force meeting where BC would not be ready to present anything concrete.

Adding two plus two together, I suspect that BC did not inform city officials about the purchase of 2000 Comm Ave until very recently, and that the city responded by asking BC to make modifications to the IMP by factoring in undergraduate housing at the new apartment building into their plans.

Councilor Ciommo confirmed that BC had been pursuing the purchase secretly, because he only found out about it by reading the story last week at the Brighton Centered Blog.


An obvious conclusion from all of this: there is now absolutely no need for a Brighton Dorm. By expressing their interest in 2000 Comm Ave as undergraduate student housing, BC is clearly stating that 16-story dormitories are an acceptable housing model for their undergraduates. The move to purchase 2000 Comm Ave directly contradicts repeated statements by Keady to the Brighton community that on-campus student behavior is poor in tall dormitory buildings.

BC can easily achieve 100% on-campus housing for their undergraduates by simply adding a few stories to dormitories already envisioned for their Main Campus, particularly at the current site of the Mods dorms. No need for any new dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land -- or even purchasing 2000 Comm Ave -- to reach 100% on-campus housing.

St. Elizabeth's Easter Egg Hunt Saturday Morning

St. Elizabeth's Medical Center is hosting their annual Gerry McCarthy Memorial Easter Egg hunt this Saturday morning. The event will take place on the former St. John's Seminary grounds -- now Boston College "Brighton Campus" -- near the Chancery and Gymnasium buildings.

Saturday, March 15th, 2008
2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135

Preceding the egg hunts: Visits by Mayor Thomas Menino and the Easter Bunny, as well as displays by Fire Department and Ambulance Services

9:30 am -- Toddler Easter Egg Hunt
10:00 am -- Older Children Easter Egg Hunt

BYOB (bring your own basket)

Not only is Easter very early this year, but the hunt is a week before Easter, probably resulting in the earliest date on record for an Easter Egg hunt. Weather forecast? Rain and snow Saturday morning.


St. Elizabeth's Medical Center press release:

Saturday, March 15, 2008 - the week before Easter - St. E’s joins local children and families in festivities; commemorative gifts will be given to each child who attends

Caritas St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center celebrates Easter with its 25th Anniversary of the Annual Gerry McCarthy Memorial Easter Egg Hunt. During the 15-minute hunt, approximately 1,000 neighborhood children and their parents will search for more than 16,000 trinket-filled eggs. A special Toddlers’ Egg Hunt will also be held for children ages two and younger. Event location is the Archdiocese Chancery/Boston College at 2121 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton.

Morning activities include a scheduled appearance by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and a visit from Mr. and Mrs. Easter Bunny. There will also be demonstrations by the Boston Fire Department and Armstrong Ambulance and refreshments

Egg hunting for toddlers begins promptly at 9:30 a.m, Hunt for older children begins promptly at 10 a.m. Event will take place rain, snow, or shine.

The annual egg hunt is named in memory of the late Gerry McCarthy, an Allston-Brighton resident and youth activist, who started it in the 1960’s.

Civics Lesson on Zoning

The Boston College student newspaper, The Heights, published an op-ed by freshman Kelly McCartney under the title, "University Has a Right to Expand":

What does come at a cost is BC's 10-year plan, a $1.6 billion effort to better the University. In addition to increasing the range of academics and activities available to undergraduates and the community, BC is also spending precious funds to increase the number of students on campus per the city of Boston's new recommendation.

Unfortunately, putting more students on campus is not enough for the neighborhood of Allston-Brighton. They also want to decide when, where, and how we do so. A popular opinion of the surrounding neighborhoods demands that BC add additional stories to residence halls on the Chestnut Hill campus to dissolve the need for housing on the Brighton Campus [former St. John's Seminary land].

Does an institution of higher education in Boston have the "right to expand" as they see fit?

In response to this question, (Professor) Harry Mattison, a quick-draw on the Allston Brighton Community Blog, delivered a civics lesson on the concept of zoning:

Actually, BC has no such right.

I have no right to buy some coin-operated washing machines and run a laundromat out of my basement. I have no right to buy my neighbors homes, combine the lots, demolish the existing homes, and build a 10 story apartment building. And regardless of whether or not it is a good idea, Boston College has no "right" to build dormitories, athletic stadiums, or anything else that does not pass the City's review.

Like it or not, we are all governed by Boston's Zoning Code and Boston and every other town and city in America does have the right to limit and restrict development and use of property.

What McCartney fails to recognize is that Boston has, for the past 15 years, has been about the most institutional-friendly Zoning Code that could be invented.

What do I mean? Article 80 of the Zoning Code dates back to 1992, and contains the guiding statutory language governing institutional master plans and other large and small project reviews. Article 80, in a nutshell, establishes a process by which any institution can re-zone their land to build absolutely anything. Yes, literally anything can be built on such land, regardless of the existing zoning.

If BC were to propose a 100-story building at the former St. John's Seminary land, for example, then Article 80 review is basically all they would need to get approval to break ground. Before Article 80, the underlying zoning for the land ("Conservation Protection Subdistrict") under Article 51 of the Zoning Code would have applied, which forbids skyscrapers.

The example is extreme, but the parallel is real. BC is currently proposing dormitories for the same seminary land, which are "forbidden uses" under Article 51 of the underlying Zoning Code -- just like a skyscraper is a forbidden use. That BC proposed dormitories at all for that land is an indication of how permissive Boston's Zoning Code is, in practice, towards institutions.

It might be appropriate for McCartney instead to thank the city of Boston profusely for having a Zoning Code so lax that BC could even consider proposing building those two dormitories.

BC Task Force and Elected Officials Comment on BC's Master Plan

Allston-Brighton and Boston city-wide elected officials submitted public comments last week in response to the December 5, 2007 filing by Boston College of its Institutional Master Plan Notification Form.

Letters were sent to the Boston Redevelopment Authority by Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor Mark Ciommo, Boston City Councilors-At-Large John Connolly, Michael Flaherty, Steve Murphy, and Sam Yoon, State Representatives Kevin Honan and Michael Moran, and State Senator Steve Tolman. Councilor Ciommo and Representatives Honan and Moran wrote a joint letter.

The BC Task Force also submitted an extensive, 12-page letter. The task force usually meets monthly, but met weekly during January in order to gather additional community input prior to writing their letter. Their letter is phrased in terms of summarizing the issues on which there is broad community consensus; they then made recommendations which directly follow from the consensus they identified.

As described below, one letter -- from Senator Steve Tolman -- appears to differ substantially from the others.

The other letters struck common themes, which I summarize here (although slightly different language was sometimes used on a given issue among all the letters):

1. No undergraduate housing on the former St. John's Seminary land, referred to by BC as their Brighton Campus (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly, Murphy, Yoon; Flaherty called for BC first to "exhaustively show" that they cannot house the students on their main campus before allowing any Brighton Campus dorms);
   
2. BC should have the goal to provide on-campus housing for 100% of their undergraduate students (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly, Murphy; Flaherty called for housing more, but without a specific target);
3. Buffer zone from the Chestnut Hill Reservoir for Shea Field housing (Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Murphy; BCTF noted a diversity of community opinions about Shea Field dormitories, requesting scoping of several alternative options);
4. Building taller dormitories (than four stories) on the Lower Chestnut Hill Campus, and explore construction on Upper and Newton Campuses (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly; Flaherty called for BC to "exhaustively" investigate options like this on the main campus);
5. Exploring options other than just demolishing Edmonds Hall, such as renovation or on-site replacement (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran);
6. BC should top purchasing residential houses in Brighton, and divest themselves of past purchases (Murphy; BCTF called on BRA to "carefully evaluate the consequences" of the practice);
7. Study alternate siting options for the baseball stadium, further away from neighboring houses (BCTF, Connolly, Murphy; Ciommo/Honan/Moran asked for an alternative);
8. Mitigate impacts on the neighborhood of athletics fields and stadiums (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Tolman);
9. Artificial turf for the Brighton Athletics Fields (BCTF, Connolly opposed; Ciommo/Honan/Moran ask about environmental impacts);
10. Nighttime lighting for the Brighton Athletics Fields (Connolly opposed; BCTF opposed lighting for multi-purpose fields; Ciommo/Honan/Moran questioned the need for the lights);
11. BC should assess alternative locations for the recreation center (BCTF);
12. Guarantee beyond 10-years that the Foster Street housing will have only theological student/faculty uses (Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Murphy; BCTF called for scoping of several alternative options including such a guarantee);
13. Preserving, rather than demolishing, the three Foster Street houses (Murphy; BCTF called for scoping of an alternative option);
14. BC should stop purchasing Brighton houses, and divest themselves of past purchases (Murphy);
15. Requiring an independent, peer reviewed traffic/transportation/parking study paid for by Boston College (BCTF; Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Tolman; Flaherty called for "comprehensive traffic studies" but without specifying who should pay for review of them);
16. Questioning the idea of moving the MBTA B-line BC Station to the center of Commonwealth Avenue (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly);
17. Not closing St. Thomas More Road, even if a newer extension is built alongside the Evergreen Cemetery (Connolly, Murphy; Ciommo/Honan/Moran question the idea; BCTF opposed re-alignment altogether);
18. Improved Transportation Demand Management program at BC (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly);
19. Oppose footbridge over Commonwealth Avenue (BCTF);
20. More parking spaces are needed to match anticipated demand (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran; Flaherty called for BC to meet the anticipated demand for parking, but was unspecific as to whether or not the proposal did so);
21. Use Articles 51 and 29 of the zoning code, which describe underlying zoning at the Brighton Campus, as specific guidelines for assessing the IMP's proposals (BCTF); and
22. Including a permanent conservation easement on part of the Brighton Campus buffer zones to protect against future development (BCTF, Ciommo/Honan/Moran, Connolly).

Senator Tolman's Letter Differs From the Others

Inspecting the itemized list above, it is immediately apparent that the content of Senator Tolman's letter differs substantially from the others. A few examples illustrate the differences:

The hot-button issue in BC's IMP is undergraduate housing. Should BC move all their undergraduate students on-campus (#2)? All of the elected officials except Senator Tolman (and Councilor-At-Large Yoon) agree that BC should provide housing for 100% of their undergraduates on campus; Senator Tolman's letter was silent on this issue, neither supporting nor opposing it.

Where should the new dormitories go? All the elected officials except Senator Tolman stated that none of the new dormitories should go on the Brighton Campus (#1). Senator Tolman's letter was nearly silent on the issue, only stating, "New and reconfigured housing and its occupants must respect the quietude that the surrounding area residents have come to expect." The positions of all but one elected official on this issue are consistent with their positions as of a previous post on December 4, in which Senator Tolman chose not to take a position. (Councilor-At-Large Murphy has now taken a position; his letter indicates that he has now come out in opposition to the Brighton Dorms.)

How tall should the dormitories be? Councilors Ciommo and Connolly, and Representatives Honan and Moran, all indicate that BC should accomplish the on-campus housing goal by building dormitories taller than four stories on their main Chestnut Hill Campus (#4); Senator Tolman's letter is silent on this issue.

How about the siting of the Brighton Athletics Fields? Councilors Ciommo, Connolly, and Murphy, and Representatives Honan and Moran, all requested, at a minimum, studies of alternate siting for the highest-impact athletics use, i.e., the baseball stadium (#7). Senator Tolman's letter only said that "the effects of new athletic fields [on surrounding neighborhoods] must also be minimized."

Should open space on the Brighton Campus be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement? Councilors Ciommo and Connolly, and Representatives Honan and Moran, say yes in their letters (#22); Senator Tolman is silent on the issue in his letter, writing instead that "to the greatest extent possible this open space [on the Brighton Campus] should be maintained and accessible to the neighborhood."

These are significant differences among the elected officials representing Allston-Brighton residents both at the city and state level. Senator Tolman indicated in his letter that he was well-aware of the differences, but was not prepared to sign onto the positions taken by the other elected officials, presumably Councilor Ciommo and Representatives Honan and Moran. In his letter, Senator Tolman writes:

I am well aware of the opinions expressed by my colleagues in their letter and I am supportive of the principles contained therein. However, further review is necessary for resolution of appropriate uses of the Brighton Campus.

It appears as though Senator Tolman wants to leave open, at least for the time being, all of the proposed uses for the Brighton Campus -- which would include dormitories, a baseball stadium, etc.

Mass Historical Commission on BC's Expansion: Watch Out for Unmarked Graves

The Massachusetts Historical Commission has submitted a letter to the Boston Redevelopment Authority related to Boston College's proposed expansion into the former St. John's Seminary land raising questions about whether unmarked graves of Sulpician Fathers may still be present on the land. The letter also raises the possibility that other archaeological sites associated with Native Americans and two historical estates are present.

The possibility of unmarked human graves on the site may complicate BC's proposed expansion into the former seminary grounds (referred to by BC as their new "Brighton Campus") because "unmarked human burials are protected under the Massachusetts Unmarked Burial Law," according to the letter.

The letter of January 18, 2008, was written by Brona Simon, Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Office of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and addressed to John Palmieri, Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. It was written in response to Boston College's Institutional Master Plan Notification Form, which was filed with the BRA on December 5, 2007.

Copies of the letter were brought to the January 29, 2008 meeting of the BC Task Force by Brighton resident Mark Alford.


Possible Unmarked Graves of Sulpician Fathers

The Sulpicians are a Roman Catholic diocesan order which traces its spiritual history back to 17th century France. The historic Church of Saint Sulpice in Paris is well known in recent years due to its role in the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code. The Society of St. Sulpice in the U.S. has a mailing address in Maryland.

Historical records referenced in the letter state that the graves of Sulpician Fathers were originally located near Cardinal O'Connell's Mausoleum and Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on the St. John's Seminary grounds. The graves may have been disinterred in 1928 and reburied in the Evergreen Cemetery, located across Commonwealth Avenue from the seminary grounds, or in Maryland. The MHC letter reads:

However, the records are not clear whether any or all of the graves were in fact removed, or if they were removed in whole or in part. There have ben instances in other locations in the state where historical accounts state that graves were disinterred and relocated elsewhere, but, in fact, that had not been the case (e.g., Saint Joseph's Cemetery in Roxbury). Since this area has never been systematically tested by archaeologists it is impossible to know whether human burials or other significant archaeological remains may exist within the project area.

One long-time Brighton resident I contacted indicated that he remembers as a child seeing grave stone markers in the general vicinity on the seminary grounds. I am aware of no such markers at present, however.

BC officials have previously stated on several occasions that the remains of Cardinal O'Connell have been removed from the site. That removal was presumably sometime after BC agreed to buy the land in 2004. [EDIT: One person has since informed me that Cardinal O'Connell's remains have not yet been removed, but that the Archdiocese will do so at some time in the future.] The MHC letter raises no questions about the removal of Cardinal O'Connell's remains.


Possible Other Archaeological Deposits

The letter also states that the seminary grounds are "likely to contain archaeological sites associated with the Native American occupation of the area" as well as "archaeological deposits associated with the 18th and 19th century Hildreth Farm Estate and Stanwood Estate. The website of the Brighton-Allston Historical Society provides a short summary of the estates:

During the early 19th century, a farm called the Hildreth estate was located atop the hill just to the east of Lake Street. Jacob Stanwood, a wealthy Boston merchant acquired the Hildreth estate in 1864.

Jacob Stanwood was a wealthy Boston merchant, who was the brother-in-law of Maine Governor and United States presidential candidate James G. Blaine. The 1875 Brighton Atlas shows the estate of the Jacob Stanwood heirs with a large main house and five stables situated at the center of the tract bordered by South, Lake, Glenmont and Foster Streets.

Potential Impact on BC's Expansion Into Brighton

The letter appears to raise the possibility that BC might be required to undertake extensive archaeological excavation at the site as part of their proposed expansion onto the land.

According to the letter, "to date, the property has not been subjected to an archaeological survey... MHC requests that an intensive (locational) archaeological survey (950 CMR 70) be conducted at the former Chancery-St. John's Seminary property and Evergreen Cemetery... to locate and identify any historic or archaeological resources or unmarked graves that may be affected by the poposed projects."

In December 2007, BC announced their filing of a proposed, 10-year Institutional Master Plan Notification Form that includes $800 million in construction costs and a similar expenditure over ten years in increased annual budgets. In the master plan, BC proposed to construct undergraduate dormitories, baseball and softball stadia, an underground recreation facility, art museum, auditorium, fine arts department building, and a 500-car parking garage on the Brighton Campus. The parking garage and one of the fine arts/auditorium buildings are the proposed new buildings closest to Cardinal O'Connell's Mausoleum.

Massachusetts Law is referenced at the end of the letter, indicating the possibility that these issues related to archeological remains may need to be resolved "should any state agency funding, license, or permit be required" for the projects proposed in the IMPNF.

I can think of one kind of state agency funding that might be sought by BC as part of their proposed expansion: issuance of tax-exempt state bonds, issued by MassDevelopment (the state's finance and development agency), to raise cash for construction costs. BC won approval of a $177 million tax-exempt bond in August 2007 which they used, in part, to pay for the $65 million to complete the purchase of the seminary grounds.

If the MHC requires, through application of the Massachusetts Unmarked Burial Law, significant archaeological excavation in portions of the former seminary grounds, then this could pose potentially time-consuming delays in the new building construction in BC's proposed institutional master plan.

While St. Elizabeth's Medical Center has begun construction of their new emergency room at the corner of Washington Street and Cambridge Street in Brighton, construction of a new access road was held up last year while archaeological excavation proceeded on the site.

BC Task Force Meeting Today at 6:30 pm: Open Space and Academic/Administrative Buildings

BC Task Force Meeting
Tuesday, January 22, 2008, 6:30-8:30 pm
Brighton Marine Health Center, 77 Warren Street, 3rd floor, Brighton MA 02135

For more information, contact: John Fitzgerald, Project Manager, BRA, 617-918-4267

Public comments on the IMPNF: Due February 5, 2008 to the BRA

Note: The BC Task Force has requested that attendees, if possible, provide them with written comments at their meetings. It doesn't have to be a formally-written letter, etc., but anything to help them assemble information in addition to verbal comments at the meetings. Address letters to Jean Woods, Chair, BC Task Force.

Agenda: The following elements of BC's 10-year institutional master plan

• Open Space
  
• Academic Buildings and Usage
• Administrative Buildings and Usage
• Summary

BC's master plan website with electronic version of their project notification form. Current summary of their campus is in Chapter 2; proposed new projects in the 10-year IMP are in Chapter 3; sustainability issues are in Chapter 8.

Open Space. In 2004-7, Boston College acquired approximately 65 acres of land (the former St. John's Seminary land, now referred to by BC as their "Brighton Campus") from the Archdiocese of Boston. This land has been previously inventoried by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department as part of the privately-owned open space in Allston-Brighton (see, for example, the previous master plan by the department). The Brighton Campus comprises more than 10% of all the open space in Allston-Brighton.

The Brighton Campus has an underlying zoning of Conservation Protection Subdistrict under Article 51 of the city's zoning code. (Article 51 defines the zoning for Allston-Brighton.) BC's Institutional Master Plan Amendment of 2006 put an institutional master plan overlay onto portions of the Brighton Campus. Their IMPA of October 2007, which is still undergoing Article 80 review by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, might seek to extend the IMP overlay to the entire site; alternatively, the IMPNF of December 2007 might do the same. (Article 80 defines the review and re-zoning process for large developments and institutional master plans.)

While the Article 80 IMP review allows re-zoning of the site, the underlying zoning is not ignored in the process. As Gerald Autler, Senior Project Manager of the BRA, wrote in April 2007:

"We certainly take aspects of the underlying zoning into account during the IMP process -- for example, the goals of the Conservation Protection Subdistrict would not be forgotten, even if the zoning provisions of the CPS do not literally apply."

According to Article 51, development in a CPS-zoned property should cluster buildings at the interior of the site an avoid impacting natural features of the property. As in any zoning, there are a series of permitted, conditionally-allowed, and forbidden uses for a CPS-zoned property under Article 51.

• Allowed uses under Article 51 include: museum; open space; "group residence, limited", single- and multi-family houses, or townhouses; "accessory parking" (connected to another lawful use); "accessory cafeteria"; and "accessory dormitory".
  
• Conditionally-allowed uses include: art gallery; auditorium, concert hall, or theater; conference center or bed-and-breakast; office space (except for retail); grounds for sports; open space recreational building; "outdoor place of recreation for profit"; research laboratory; and lodging house.
• Forbidden uses include: stadium; "dormitory not accessory to a use"; hotel, motel, or "executive suites"; restaurants and other retail uses; outdoor storage of junk, scrap, fuel, minerals, etc.; trade shops (carpenter, electrician, machine, etc.); and parking garage or lot (unless an ancillary use connected to another lawful use).

Conservation Restriction. A conservation restriction is a legally-binding document, operating outside of the zoning process, that can preserve open space in perpetuity. A public agency is typically charged with monitoring compliance, and the restriction can only be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the State Legislature.

A number of private developers have seen these conservation restrictions as good for both themselves and the surrounding community. The EF International School, for example, has worked with the Brighton community to development a pair of conservation restrictions on their Lake Street property to preserve open space in exchange for an expansion of their facilities. Harvard University has also entered into an 875-year conservation restriction on a parcel connected to the Arnold Arboretum, in exchange for a proposed development project.

Boston College has not included a conservation restriction in their IMPNF or presentations to the community.

A number of Brighton residents have proposed particular sites for conservation restrictions that could be part of the Article 80 community benefits related to BC's IMP:

• Wooded hillside along Lake Street;
  
• Athletic fields on the Brighton Campus; and
• Orchard near the southeast corner of the Brighton Campus (i.e., bordering Greycliff Road).

The Boston Globe's editorial board has already weighed in on this issue:

BC’s president, the Rev. William Leahy, points to a buffer zone of trees between the two proposed dorms and homes on Lake Street. But he is unwilling to pledge that the buffer zone will remain a permanent fixture. Such a stiff-necked approach is likely to invite the same inflexible attitude on the part of neighbors.

Preserving Natural Features. Many aspects of the Brighton Campus proposed development follow these CPS guidelines in clustering the buildings in interior locations and avoiding (or preserving) natural features of the land: the athletic facilities use existing flat field space; the parking garage avoids the steep, hillside meadow nearby; all the development avoids the wooded hillside along Lake Street; and the Foster Street development does not modify the Foster Rock or the ledge near Portina Road houses.

Other aspects of the development do not appear to preserve features (or at least require clarification): the undergraduate dormitory site on or near a rock outcropping along Commonwealth Avenue; and the removal of a substantial length of the stone wall on both sides of Commonwealth Avenue.

Academic and Administrative Buildings and Uses. Three new buildings (possibly connected together as only one or two buildings) are proposed along the Brighton Campus's southern edge on Commonwealth Avenue as part of this 10-year IMP:

• Department of Fine Arts, 4-5 stories, 60-70 feet tall, 30,000 square feet;
  
• Art Museum, 3-story, probably also 60-70 feet tall (e.g., compare with Harvard's proposed HUAM at Barry's Corner, which is also very tall even though only three stories), 21,000 square feet; and
• Auditorium, 1200 seats, 25,000 square feet.

Uses for the auditorium are unclear in the IMPNF; possibilities could include academic conferences and seminars, musical concerts, rock concerts, theater plays, etc. On-site parking related to some of these uses might be an issue to be raised.

Renovations are also planned for number of buildings on the Brighton Campus purchased from the Archdiocese. The Chancery, Creagh Library, and part of St. John's Hall (?) are listed as being converted to administrative use, while Bishop Peterson Hall would be converted to administrative and academic use. Note that Bishop Peterson Hall's renovation and subsequent use is currently in question: the IMPNF states that the IMPA's proposed use is infeasible for office and academic uses of the School of Theology and Ministry, such that St. William's Hall will be used for the STM instead.

Those many administrative office buildings in the Brighton Campus may house a potentially large number of employees who would presumably move from their current offices elsewhere at BC. No indication is given in the IMPNF as to which offices would be moving, or what the employees' previous offices would be used for after they are vacated.

The 10-year IMP for BC's campus in Newton contains many academic projects. On the main Chestnut Hill Campus, five projects are proposed:

• Academic building for the Humanities;
• Academic building for Graduate School of Social Work and Connell School of Nursing;
• Stokes Commons, a student center and dining facility;
  
• New Science Center (first phase) replacing Cushing Hall; and
• Renovation of Carney Hall (academic and administrative).

Two academic and administrative projects are proposed for the Newton Campus (i.e., Law School site):

• Replacement of Smith Wing; and
  
• Renovation of Stuart Hall.

BC Task Force Meeting Tuesday 1/22 at 6:30 pm

BC Task Force Meeting
Tuesday, January 22, 2008, 6:30-8:30 pm
Brighton Marine Health Center, 77 Warren Street, 3rd floor, Brighton MA 02135

For more information, contact: John Fitzgerald, Project Manager, BRA, 617-918-4267

Public comments on the IMPNF: Due February 5, 2008 to the BRA

Note: The BC Task Force has requested that attendees, if possible, provide them with written comments at their meetings. It doesn't have to be a formally-written letter, etc., but anything to help them assemble information in addition to verbal comments at the meetings. Address letters to Jean Woods, Chair, BC Task Force.

Agenda: Housing Issues in BC's 10-year institutional master plan

BC's master plan website with electronic version of their project notification form. Current housing is summarized in Chapter 2; proposed housing in the 10-year IMP is in Chapter 3; and "Residential Life" is in Chapter 5.

Undergraduate Housing. BC has proposed a series of new construction of undergraduate dormitories, and demolition of current dormitories, that results in a net increase of 610 beds of undergraduate on-campus housing over the next 10 years. Currently, approximately 1200 undergraduate students live off-campus in neighborhood rentals.

Existing dormitories proposed to be demolished:

• 790-bed Edmonds Hall, which would be replaced with a new student Recreation Center; and
• approximately 40% of the "Mods" buildings (i.e., demolish 185 beds out of 444 in the total Mods buildings), which would be replaced by 175 beds of new construction.

New dormitories proposed to be built:

• Mods partial replacement (175 beds replacing 185 current beds, see previous paragraph);
  
• Two sets of dormitories, comprising 500 beds, on the former St. John's Seminary land (now called the "Brighton Campus");
• 420 beds on the More Hall site, at the southeast corner of St. Thomas More Road and Commonwealth Avenue; and
• 490 beds on part of the Shea Field, at the northwest corner of St. Thomas More Road and Beacon Street.

No housing additions or modifications are being proposed for BC land in Newton.

One corner of the site of the current Flynn Recreation Center ("Rec Plex") -- which is proposed to be demolished once the proposed new Recreation Center is built -- would be occupied a proposed new "university center" with space for "dining, student organizations, offices, conference center, and theater"; the remainder of the Rec Plex site is proposed to be converted into open space.

Seminarian and Graduate Student Housing. BC has proposed to build 75-beds of "Jesuit faculty and graduate student housing" on the property at 188-196 Foster Street, adjacent to the Foster Rock, primarily in order to house the students (including Jesuit seminarians) and faculty from the Weston Jesuit School of Theology who are re-affiliating with BC in Fall 2008. Three houses -- occupying one corner of the site, dating from the late 19th century, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places -- are proposed to be demolished to make way for the new housing.

No other graduate student housing is proposed to be constructed in Brighton or Newton.

The university holds master leases on 186 units in the Cleveland Circle area which it uses for graduate student housing. (My estimate is that they comprise 203 beds of graduate student housing.) These master leases end after six years; there is no indication in the IMPNF of what will happen after that date within the remaining four years of this master plan.

Faculty Housing Purchases. Since the time of the previous IMP in 2000, BC has acquired a number of houses in Brighton on Wade Street and Foster Street. The Foster Street houses are proposed to be demolished (see above), while the Wade Street houses have been extensively rehabilitated during the past year to provide BC faculty housing. The Wade Street houses, in particular, are for "residential use," not for "institutional use," thereby remaining on the city's property tax rolls.

In a January 16, 2007 letter from Thomas Keady, Jr., BC Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs, to the BC Task Force he referred to the Wade Street (and similar) houses. "If approached," he wrote, "the University will consider opportunities for other strategic acquisitions."

Employee Mortgage Assistance Program. At public meetings of the BC Task Force, BC has proposed a new program to assist employees in purchasing housing in Brighton. (Since the program is not described in the IMPNF itself, as far as I can tell, or in any other available document, I have no further information.)

Proposed Ban on Undergraduates LIving in Off-Campus 1- and 2-Family Houses. BC has proposed a new ban on their off-campus undergraduate students living in Allston-Brighton and Newton 1- and 2-family houses. This proposed ban was described at the December 4, 2007 meeting of the BC Task Force, and in meetings between BC officials with the media, but is not included in the IMPNF itself; it is not further described in any documents provided thus far. According to the Boston Herald,
William Leahy, SJ, President of BC, stated that the ban would take effect "after the new dorms are built."

Mayor Menino Opposes BC's Proposed Brighton Dorms

The Boston Globe published a lengthy editorial in today's paper on university expansion and dormitory construction throughout the city of Boston: "Academic sprawl."

The editorial quotes Mayor Thomas Menino's position on Boston College's proposed dormitories on its Brighton Campus (the former St. John's Seminary land):

Last week, opponents of the BC plan appeared to pick up an ally in Mayor Menino, who also said he wants to see the new dorms "all on one location" south of Commonwealth Avenue. BC is eager to build new academic centers, an arts district, recreation center, and other keys to a great future. But it must also build political support.

As recently as a few weeks ago, one city insider was still mum about the Mayor's position on the dorms. As previously reported here, local elected officials have mostly already taken positions in opposition to this particular dorm proposal.

Unconfirmed rumors have been swirling around Brighton that city officials told BC to make a specific change to their institutional master plan prior to submitting it in December, but that BC refused to do so. The Brighton Dorms seemed the likely candidate for city opposition, and the Mayor's new position on the dorms only reinforces that perception.

My suspicion is that Mayor Menino staked out a firm position now because he had heard enough from Brighton voters that he wanted to head off any possible embarrassing development, like his flip-flop on Suffolk University's Beacon Hill dorm a year ago. In the Suffolk case, Mayoral opposition effectively killed the dorm proposal on-the-spot, since we all know who carries the weight in the city -- even though, under Article 80 of the zoning code, the Mayor has no official statutory authority to approve or reject the projects. (Note: the BC student newspaper, The Heights, appears confused on this issue; see the end of this post.)

Why would Mayor Menino choose the last week to make public his opposition? The Boston Redevelopment Authority -- whose Board has the statutory authority for approval of BC's dorm proposal -- is holding the city's internal scoping meeting tomorrow on Tuesday, January 8th. The Mayor has now telegraphed his position, and city officials won't be worried about expressing their open opposition to these dorms.

Menino's now-public position on the Brighton Dorms is also a wise political move for a Mayor who appears headed towards a 2009 re-election campaign: opposition to unpopular projects, such as this particular one from BC, could be exploited by a Mayoral challenger on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. His position could be argued as yet another indication of his desire for another term as Mayor.

Boston Globe Editorial: BC Has Not Made "Convincing Case" for Brighton Dorms

The Boston Globe published an editorial today in response to Boston College's recently submitted institutional master plan. The editorial primarily deals with the issue of BC's proposed "Brighton Dorms" -- dormitories to house 500 undergraduates on the former St. John's Seminary land BC refers to as their new Brighton Campus:

The site, bounded mostly by Lake and Foster streets, seems well-suited for the proposed museum, fine arts district, playing fields, and new School of Theology and Ministry. But by pushing undergraduate dormitories closer to residential areas, the college is stirring suspicion. The students have a well-earned reputation for hard drinking and loud partying, not ways to endear themselves to neighbors...

But BC does not make a convincing case why the shift can’t occur on its existing campus south of Comm. Ave.

The master plan calls for the construction of at least two new, four- or five-story dorms on that end of the campus. Adding a few more stories to those buildings and maximizing the use of land now occupied by outmoded modular housing units could lessen or even eliminate the need for student housing on the new Brighton part of the campus.

That is exactly what the neighborhood and elected officials have been saying to BC officials all year. The Globe has clearly been listening to the neighborhood, as is obvious from the reporting in their news stories (such as here and here) where they solicit comment from Brighton residents.

Will BC listen to the neighborhood, too? Or will they continue with their, according to the Globe, "stiff-necked approach"?

College officials should be willing to adjust their ambitious vision if they hope to win local support and city approval for their plan.

BC Neighbors Forum Meeting: Tonight at 7:00 pm at Brighton Elks Lodge

As a reminder, there will be a meeting of the BC Neighbors Forum tonight at 7:00 pm in order to solicit neighborhood response to BC's master plan. This is the fourth meeting by the group. Everyone will receive the opportunity to speak, as time permits.

BC Neighbors Forum: Community Meeting
Monday, December 17, 2007, 7:00 pm
Brighton Elks Lodge, 326 Washington Street, Brighton

Many Brighton Elected Officials Oppose BC's Proposed Brighton Dorms

Boston College's just-released 10-year master plan continues to include a proposal to build undergraduate dormitories on their Brighton Campus, i.e., the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by BC in 2004-2007. One of the buildings has been moved a few hundred feet away, and the combined number of beds was reduced from 600 to 500, but the current proposal is mostly similar to that proposed earlier in the year.

Representative Michael Moran of Brighton expressed his opposition in July to Boston College's proposal:

"I am disappointed that Boston College went down this road, especially after they promised the community that they would not be putting any undergraduate dormitories on that side of Comm Ave. I think they should pull back and re-evaluate.

If they are hoping to gain community support for other things in their master plan, it will be very difficult to gain support for their many other projects if they started off with not telling the community the truth.

The notion of building UG dorms on this side of Comm Ave is something I do not support."

Representative Kevin Honan of Brighton also expressed his opposition to the dorms in a July phone conversation:

"I don't support that [undergraduate dorms] on the St. John's Seminary, no I don't support that.

An opportunity exists for BC to build more housing on their Chestnut Hill campus. There is no longer an opposition to them building dense[ly] on their Main Campus. The community feels that they would rather see BC build on their Main Campus. Use the land over at St. John's for administrative offices and academic purposes."

During the campaign for the District 9 City Council seat, Councilor-elect Mark Ciommo repeatedly expressed his opposition to the dorms.

Senator Steve Tolman, when asked Tuesday for his position on the Brighton Dorms, was more circumspect, saying that he has not yet formed an opinion. As for the master plan, in general, that BC just released, Senator Tolman said, "I think it's a good first step. They're doing it straight... I don't think there's any problem that can't be worked out."

Mayor Thomas Menino has not expressed an opinion on the Brighton Dorms proposal, but has historically favored increased on-campus housing for Boston's universities and colleges. Reverend William Leahy, S.J., President of Boston College, said that "the Mayor hasn't given his seal of approval on each individual proposal, but the [overall master plan] concept is favorable to him because he likes having students on campus..."

Outgoing Councilor-At-Large Felix Arroyo, and his replacement, Councilor-Elect John Connolly, both oppose the Brighton Dorms. Other Councilors-At-Large either did not respond to the questionnaire (Councilor Stephen Murphy) or did not give clear answers for or against the proposal (Councilors Sam Yoon and Michael Flaherty).