BC Spokesman Increases Rhetoric Toward Neighborhood Over Master Plan

Jack Dunn, Director of Public Affairs at Boston College, was quoted last week in the Boston Globe alleging that neighborhood opposition to two proposed dormitories amounts to "NIMBYism." This week, Dunn lobbed another grenade by calling Brighton residents opposing those two proposed dorms "ardent obstructionists" in the BC student newspaper, The Heights.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority last week released its Scoping Determination on BC's proposed master plan requesting a series of alternatives and studies of various elements, particularly undergraduate housing. The document called for BC to increase its undergraduate housing on its main campus, but not to build dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by BC in 2004-7.

I noted the inaccuracy -- if not silliness -- of Dunn's earlier statement because it would seem to imply that Mayor Thomas Menino of Hyde Park, who also expressed opposition to the proposal, somehow had a backyard abutting the former seminary land in Brighton. Harry Mattison said that Dunn's statement meant that BC was "No more Mr. Nice Guy."

I expressed hope on Friday that BC officials could "follow Suffolk's lead by showing more politeness towards the community." Maybe Hillary Clinton is right that hope alone doesn't cut it, because today's issue of The Heights finds Dunn adding to his negative rhetoric toward area residents by referring to them as "ardent obstructionists":

"Given the density of our Chestnut Hill Campus, if we could not build 500 beds in the 65 acres of our Brighton Campus, it would mean that an additional 500 students would remain in the neighborhood, which would be to the benefit of no one except the most ardent obstructionists," Dunn said.

Needless to say -- or as Barack Obama might have retorted -- Dunn's remarks show little connection with reality.

While the version of the Scoping Determination that includes public comments has not yet been released, my estimates are that 400 (or more) Brighton residents will be on record with the BRA expressing their opposition to the "Brighton Dorms" on the former seminary land. Sure, some are abutters to the former seminary land, but many live far further away from the proposed dorms -- half a mile or a mile away, like me or residents of the Oak Square area. Abutters are likely a tiny minority of the opposition, so "NIMBYism" rings hollow as the fundamental explanation for the opposition.

Instead of opposing the plan because it's in their backyard, residents across Brighton oppose it because it's a lousy idea. The proposal would: put undergraduate student dormitories in one of the last urban wilds of Brighton (how ironic!); put student housing, a "forbidden" use under Article 51 of the zoning code, in a property with underlying zoning of "Conservation Protection Subdistrict"; and put 500 undergraduate students on land bordered by one of the last stable, family-friendly neighborhoods in Brighton. The "Brighton Dorm" proposal is a dumb idea, and you don't have to live next door to it to realize that.

Dunn's latest "obstructionist" insult appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of reality: those same public comments will likely show that well over 100 Brighton residents, regularly involved in this process, are on record with the BRA as offering an alternative proposal to house all the rest of BC's students on their main campus -- with plenty of room to spare. Mayor Menino seems to have come to a similar conclusion when he told the Globe, "I say to them, why can't they build the new dorms on the campus they already have? We want to see more housing on the present campus."

Here's how you do it: don't raze 790-bed Edmonds Hall (or replace it on-site); turn two-story Mods into six-story dormitories; add in a dash of the More Hall site (aka "Moore Hall" at The Heights), the Rec Plex site, the far corner of Shea Field, and/or the upper campus; and... voila! 100% on-campus housing and no need for a BC official to be lobbing language like that towards Brighton residents.

The neighborhood's alternative proposal is not obstructionism, it's called "offering solutions." Any other characterization is a mis-characterization.

What might be the next vicious verbal volley to come towards Brighton from BC? Will the neighbors be called "nattering nabobs of negativism"? If Brighton were to succumb, execute an about-face, and march in lockstep behind the proposed master plan, would they then be exhibiting "avid obsequiousness" instead of "ardent obstruction[ism]"?

Housing Petition as a Public Comment to the BRA on BC's IMPNF

Dear Brighton neighbors,

Over the past nine months, members of our community have attended a series of public meetings of the BC Neighbors Forum. We have also had a lively exchange of ideas here on this Google Group. And, of course, we have regularly attended the monthly meetings of the BC Task Force. Many opinions have been expressed about issues related to BC's proposed expansion plans.

The coordinating committee for the public meetings has tried to draw upon all those comments in order to put together a single document that expresses, as best we can ascertain, the common central ground amongst our diverse neighborhood. As you can imagine, it took a lot of work just to get this committee of 15-ish people to agree on all the wording -- as well as what to include, and what not to include. We have heard your concerns and tried to respond, as best we could, to incorporate them into the document.

This "housing petition" focuses only on housing issues in BC's master plan. As a public comment to the BRA, it makes concrete suggestions as to what further study we believe should be requested from BC in the scoping determination.

The scoping option argued for in the petition is flexible: it identifies multiple sites for housing that are more than sufficient to house all of BC's currently off-campus students, thereby leaving BC flexibility to choose which sites to use and how to balance building heights and open space.

This scoping option is complete: it deals with the entire issue of undergraduate housing, rather than expressing opposition or support for only one particular site or another.

And this scoping option is robust: if problems are identified in one or more parts of particular sites, there are more than sufficient alternative sites identified that the scoping option could still work.

Our committee's intention is to work next on a similar petition about athletics facilities.

Please read over the housing petition and consider supporting it.

One way to sign onto the petition will be at next Tuesday's (1/29) meeting of the BC Task Force, at 6:30 pm at the Brighton Marine Health Center.

To sign up yourself -- or to have your friends and/or neighbors sign on, too -- contact me at pahre@comcast.net for a PDF of the letter and a signature page. (I.e., hardcopies of signatures are required.)

For those people who would like to get signatures on their street, a short note sent to me at pahre@comcast.net would be helpful so that we don't duplicate efforts on any particular street.

Note that this "housing petition" in no way should be considered as replacing your own, independent public comments to submit to the BRA. There are many important issues which we could not cover in this one, short document.

-Mike Pahre,
for the BC Neighbors Forum coordinating committee


Housing Petition:

To: Boston Redevelopment Authority
Re: Housing Issues in the Boston College Institutional Master Plan Notification Form
Date: January 22, 2008

As many Allston-Brighton residents, we are concerned about the disproportionately large number of undergraduate students (including Boston College students) living in houses and apartment buildings in our neighborhood. The neighborhood is plagued by quality of life issues related to student rentals, which leads to an increasingly transient population. As a result, it is difficult to attract families to Allston-Brighton, and keep them here.

Therefore, we urge the BRA to seek revisions in BC’s proposed Institutional Master Plan in order to better serve the needs of the Allston-Brighton community. We ask for the following:

1. By 2018, BC should be required to provide on-campus housing for all of its undergraduate students (except those studying elsewhere or commuting from family homes in the greater Boston area).
   
2. Undergraduate dorms are unacceptable on the former seminary grounds, which borders a residential neighborhood, and should not be built. BC can, and should, colocate its undergraduate students in the traditionally residential parts of the Chestnut Hill campus (both Boston and Newton) that are not directly adjacent the Chestnut Hill Reservoir.
   
3. It should be ensured that: the proposed housing for Jesuit seminarians on Foster Street is used for absolutely no other purpose far beyond the 10-year IMP time frame; that the extension of Wiltshire Road is never re-opened; and that buffer zones are increased.
   

To accomplish these goals, we request the BRA’s scoping determination include the following:

1. BC should maintain the Edmonds Hall site for dormitories -- as well as the current site of the Rec Plex (Flynn Recreation Center), should they wish to move it elsewhere.
   
2. To make good use of available land and maximize open space, BC should build dorms of 6 or more stories high (consistent with those recently built), and locate them throughout the Chestnut Hill campus, including Newton (and not directly adjacent the Chestnut Hill Reservoir).
   
3. BC should substantially increase the number of beds on the two-story “Mods” site (temporary housing built in 1970) to accommodate more students on campus.
   

In light of deep concerns about impacts caused by BC purchasing houses in Brighton, we also desire full transparency as to their purpose and extent, both now and in the future. BC can best serve and coexist with the Allston-Brighton community by taking the responsibility of providing on-campus housing for all of its undergraduate students. For decades, BC has not assumed this full responsibility to the detriment of the neighborhood.

This letter comprises a complete, robust, and flexible scenario for undergraduate housing that the BRA should require BC to scope fully. The proposals identified here for housing are more than sufficient to house all BC's undergraduates while still maximizing open space. We believe that our community position outlined in this document offers solutions that serve the interests of the community, BC, and the city.

BC Task Force Meeting Wednesday 1/16 at 6:30 pm

BC Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, January 16, 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, John.Fitzgerald.bra@cityofboston.gov

Public comments on 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. You can also email them to the task force at bctaskforce@yahoo.com

BC's master plan website with electronic version of their project notification form


Agenda: Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Issues in BC's 10-year institutional master plan

See Chapter 6 of the 12/5/07 IMPNF.

Intersection changes. Boston College has proposed a three-fold modification to the intersection of Commonwealth Avenue, Lake Street, and St. Thomas More Road:

1. Move the MBTA T station ("Boston College") from northeast of the intersection to a center station east of the intersection;
2. Construct a new intersection on Commonwealth Avenue east of the intersection for a new entrance into the Brighton Campus (former St. John's Seminary land); and
   
3. Re-route St. Thomas More Road further to the east so that it lines up with the new intersection in #2.

While BC's presentation to the April meeting of the BC Task Force dealt with #2 and 3, MBTA officials backed out of attending that meeting at the last minute. BC's presentation on December 4th stated that that MBTA supports #1, but we have not heard directly from the MBTA itself as to what that means. Who pays for #1 will also be an important detail.

Will these changes to the intersection improve its level-of-service? At the April 2007, BC's consultants said yes, but the jury is still out on this until their assumptions, data, analysis, and conclusions are subject to an independent peer review. In at least one previous case, BC's consultants have made poor predictions about traffic level-of-service.

Parking spaces. The master plan includes removal of many parking spaces (particularly surface lot spaces) and construction of many others (both underground spaces and parking garage structures) for a net increase of 36 spaces. BC's employees will increase by 100 faculty, 12 staff, and 342 graduate students over the next 10 years, but 36 new (net) parking spaces is more than 140 short of accomodating these new employees assuming current auto mode share rates.

Furthermore, BC's expansion in the natural sciences, in particular, appears to neglect all of the additional employees associated with the laboratory sciences -- post-doctoral fellows and researchers, lab technicians, etc. -- which would lead to a substantially higher number for the increase in staff than 12. (See previous story for extrapolation based on Harvard GSAS and Harvard Medical School figures; BC has not provided similar numbers related to their current demographics in the natural sciences or other fields in which they plan to expand their faculty.) Such additional staff would be accompanied by additional need for parking spaces not included in the master plan.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. While BC has included some elements of a TDM program (e.g., zipcars), there are other elements that are surprisingly not included: BC neither does not subsidizes MBTA passes nor charges employees (faculty, staff, and students) for parking on-campus. Both subsidized T passes and charging for parking are standard practices for institutions of higher education in Boston and surrounding areas.

[NOTE: Comment posted below contradicts this, saying that both students and faculty now pay for parking. The IMPNF states no such charges, except for the case of graduate students who pay to park at the Orkney Road site (page 6-8). The IMPNF only states that "are required to register their vehicles and obtain a parking permit to park on campus." Inspection of this website at BC indicates the parking fees for faculty and staff.]

City Council Candidates Submit Public Comments on Harvard's Science Complex Proposal

Harvard University's proposed Science Complex along Western Avenue in North Allston reached an important step along its path towards possible approval in the last two weeks. Public comments were solicited by two agencies and due during the last two weeks.

The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) Office requested public comments related to Harvard's request for a Phase 1 Waiver of the requirement to conduct a full environmental review.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) requested public comments related to the Draft Project Impact Report (DPIR) submitted by Harvard, their second public filing on the project, and the last one before the BRA Board's likely vote on the project September 27.

On his website http://HarvardInAllston.net/ , Harry Mattison provides links to the public comments he knows about that were submitted to both agenciese, including those by candidates for the Boston City Council. I provide direct links [below] to the candidates' public comments.

Regarding the A-B City Council Candidates who did not submit comments, I contacted them requesting copies of the documents -- in case they had not yet posted them publicly. Neither James Jenner nor Greg Glennon responded. In response to my query, Rosie Hanlon and Tim Schofield both confirmed that, while they submitted MEPA comments, she did not submit BRA comments.


A-B District 9 City Council Candidates Public Comments

The following candidates for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council submitted public comments to MEPA:

1. Mark Ciommo
   
2. Rosie Hanlon
3. Tim Schofield
4. Alex Selvig

The following candidates did not:

1. Greg Glennon
   
2. James Jenner

The following candidates for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council submitted public comments to the BRA:

1. Mark Ciommo
2. Alex Selvig
3. [edited 10/25/07]: Greg Glennon [see p.82 of link]
   

The following candidates did not:

1. Greg Glennon [edited 10/25/07]
2. Rosie Hanlon
   
3. James Jenner
4. Tim Schofield

At-Large Boston City Council Candidates Public Comments

The following candidates for At-Large City Council submitted public comments to MEPA: none known to date. I have not yet formally requested clarification from any of the candidates, and will update this page as I learn more.


The following candidates for At-Large City Council submitted public comments to BRA:

1. Councilor Felix Arroyo
   
2. Councilor Sam Yoon

I have not confirmed with the other At-Large City Council candidates whether or not they submitted BRA comments, but will update this page as I gather that information.

Comments Due for Harvard's Science Complex and MEPA Waiver

There are two upcoming public comment periods ending for Harvard's proposed Allston science complex. Brighton residents are encouraged to send comments, since many, if not all, of these issues also impact us. We will be facing similar issues with Boston College's upcoming institutional master plan (IMP).


Harvard's MEPA Waiver

Public comments are due Friday, September 7, to MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act Office) for Harvard's proposed waiver of an environmental review of their proposed science complex. Harvard refused to grant an extension to the period of public comment.

Allston neighbors have made it clear that they do not want MEPA to grant a waiver to Harvard to avoid a full environmental of their science complex project. They want a full environmental review.

Some issues that they want addressed:

1. The Science Complex must be accompanied by significant public realm improvements to improve access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
2. Implement alternative means of access to the construction site to reduce the environmental impact on the North Allston community and reduce the neighborhood-wide transportation impact of the project.
3. A neighborhood-wide rodent control program is needed.
4. Independent, dedicated enforcement officers are needed to ensure that environmental damage is minimized.
5. Harvard should be required to approach “mitigation” with a broad and generous approach.
   

The Editorial Page of the Allston/Brighton TAB wrote about Harvard's waiver request:

"Currently, an uncomfortable level of distrust exists between the university and many Allston residents, and any attempt by the Harvard to bypass normal review processes is likely to exacerbate that distrust. Even if the net environmental impact of the science [complex] is ultimately not negative, this is a matter of relationships, perhaps above all else. The project should be as thoroughly reviewed as possible by the public and all relevant agencies."

Send comments to:

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
EOEA, Attn: MEPA Office
Briony Angus, EOEA No. 14069
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

briony.angus@state.ma.us


Harvard's Science Complex

Public comments are due Monday, September 10, to the BRA on the Draft Project Impact Report (DPIR) for Harvard's proposed science complex. Harvard refused to grant an extension to the period of public comment.

Our Allston neighbors insist that "the BRA should not waive further review of the Science Complex at the September BRA Board meeting. Harvard should be required to submit a Final Project Impact Report" so that various issues, like these, can be resolved:

1. A construction mitigation plan is needed to preserve our quality of life, and protect us from noise, dust, vibration, air pollution, and traffic congestion, and safeguard our investment in our homes.
2. A multi-million dollar community benefits agreement is appropriate for the massive scope of Harvard's plans. Harvard's desire to conduct a survey and propose specific benefits after the Science Complex is fully approved is unacceptable. Appropriate community benefits could be:
• Funds for a new community-based foundation that will distribute benefits to local programs and organizations
• Construction and funding of a university-assisted community school that would function a center for the entire community, providing a focal point for education, social services, recreation and activities for students, their parents and the community as a whole
3. A modified design of the Science Complex is needed consistent with the principles of the North Allston Strategic Framework
   
• Buildings along Western Ave should be no more than 5 stories tall
• This project must help revitalize our neighborhood and reverse the trend caused by Harvard's purchasing and mothballing of so many buildings in North Allston and North Brighton. Retail, restaurants, exhibition space, and other ground floor public uses must be emphasized.

Much more information is at http://www.HarvardInAllston.net.

Comments should be sent to:

Gerald Autler
Boston Redevelopment Authority
City Hall, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02201-1007
Gerald.Autler.bra@cityofboston.gov

Please also send your comments to AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com