The City has not reached agreement with the owner of one of the three Beacon Street properties that has been key to the planned expansion of the Zervas school site. On Wednesday, the BoA Finance Committee voted (4:2) to recommend proceeding with the acquisition of the remaining two properties, based on a “possible alternative site plan” (see page 3 of the Finance Committee’s report) that excludes the third (westernmost) property. The consulting architect noted that this alternative site plan is not vetted and that there are other alternative site plans. Among the range of these alternatives that exclude the third property, there would be 20 to 32 fewer parking spaces than the 75 that were stated as critical in the former plan.
Removal of the third property reduced parking to as few as 43 spaces. The unvetted alternative site plan (shown below) in the Finance Committee’s report was (as Steve Siegel commented below) “produced just before the meeting and presented to see if there might be an obvious fit for additional parking.” It would add 12 spaces, including 6 diagonal spaces on the inbound driveway and 6 diagonal spaces on Beethoven, in the current green space by the corner of Beacon. If those 12 spaces are feasible, that would bring the revised parking to 55.
The full Board is scheduled to vote on the two property acquisitions on Monday evening, October 6. Efforts to arrange the acquisition of the third property remain underway, and this presumably would allow return to the former plan. The Zervas School Building Committee is expected to vote on a final site plan on October 9.
[edited based on Finance Committee’s report]
As Maxwell Smart might have put it, “Chief I gotta have a minimum of 80-90 spaces. OK, make that 75 spaces. Wouldja believe 43?”
It appears the city has painted itself into a corner, quite literally. I find it rather incredible that the school building committee, which has stubbornly refused to look at the elegant Plan B idea of putting spaces in the back of the building (they’re not actually in the 25′ wetlands buffer zone, folks) and which has been carrying on with full court press messaging that they can NOT build this educational program without those properties, and that they are NOT buying these properties just to make a parking lot, has, with the loss of one property, said “fine, we just need 43 spaces and we’ll try to force fit another 12 by chopping off more play area.”
Even if those 12 spaces work, that’s 55. Plan B has 70 and a) they’re closer to the building – easier for the teachers to carry their heavy loads into the building, and b) the spaces are out of sight – much more attractive and safe for pedestrians. The plan may need some tweaks, but it’s certainly something that should be worked on and perfected before rejected as inferior.
And Plan B requires NO property purchases. It provides more play space, more sunshine, greater pedestrian safety, and the gym opens up onto the playing field as it should. There is one main entrance in Plan B. And, now, there is WAY more on-site teacher parking.
And if people aren’t sure what to make of Plan B, it has this one glaringly obvious benefit. It’s an alternative where there were none before. The NHNAC begged and pleaded for months for workable options that the public, the BOA would consider. Instead there have been no options and no community input (just the show kind). It’s been “we’ll work out the plan with the professionals; you will approve.” It’s like telling your spouse you’re moving to Alaska and saying “but you get to pick out the carpet.” And then disagreeing about the carpet.
The Board of Aldermen seem to be made up of some level-headed, independent thinkers who truly want to spend our dollars wisely and are digging into the questions that have been posed. I believe they will see this latest last minute hacked up plan to be reason to pause and question if we know what we’re doing on the Zervas Project.
No wonder so few people vote in elections. Government has so little ability to inspire respect and confidence with voters.
Somehow they think as long as the tax money appears endless, they can spend recklessly and with no accountability. What is encouraging for me is the fact that the community is actually putting forth a more valuable design alternative which offers a contrast to the inefficiencies and wastefulness of our city officials.
Do we have any insight on what the issue is with the remaining property? The concept of eminent domain should be that the community needs the property bad enough that they take it. Why did we use that principle on two properties and not the third? There must be a sword over City Hall on this one.
The 7 diagonal parking spaces, which are immediately adjacent to a busy intersection, two crosswalks and the “pedestrian friendly entrance” to Zervas, and require vehicles to cross a pedestrian walkway and back out into a right turn lane, that’s a joke, right?
@Hoss, I don’t know all of the details, but I believe it rhymes with “bunny.”
Forgive me. I misread the plan. Once I embiggened it, I could see that the entrance to the mini-parking lot is actually off of Beacon Street, across a sidewalk, right next to a busy intersection and two crosswalks.
This plan still has to be a joke.
Bruce-I have heard different information. It’s certainly too close to Kol Nidre to continue this discussion right now.
I’m with Ted on the mini-lot.
If we’re lacking executive courage to use eminent domain fully, just build a two level garage and more forward without further sacrifice.
The City and designers presented a Zervas site plan to Finance on Wednesday night that would show layout prior to acquiring the third property, which remains our intent. We thought it important for our Aldermen to be able to visualize this plan. Ideally we’d buy all three properties at once but we are challenged by negotiating with three different sellers with different needs and different timelines that haven’t aligned well with the Aldermanic review process.
What Bruce posted here is not that interim plan. Bruce, it would be helpful if you went back to your source for this site plan and got a copy of the “real” plan handed out at Finance, which does not show parking flanking either side of 1338. The drawing you’ve posted was represented at the meeting as an unvetted exercise, produced just before the meeting, intended to see if there might be an obvious fit for additional parking. It represents an example of process and not product. However the shortcomings of this plan are pretty obvious from the start. Even Ted can see this.
The emoticon “smiley face” didn’t show up after my comment about Ted. Ted, please forgive me! (Insert emoticon smiley face, with a wink, here)
Those off street parking spaces do actually serve something useful — it’s the only clear sight line to the front door of the new school.
Thanks, Steve. I don’t have access to the interim plan you mentioned, but I’ll try to get it. If you have it, please send it and I’ll update the post. In the meantime, I’ve updated the post to make clear that the illustration shown is the unvetted exercise, not the interim plan.
@Steve Seigel: I have learned to always write and then delete my first post because it tends to be too snarky.
You might try it so you don’t come across as such an ass. ;D
Steve Siegel — I think that might be a new form of compliment, you know like when “you’re bad, man” meant you’re good. http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/09/alderman-to-constituent-you-sound-like-such-a-jerk/#axzz3FD3vIZiS
Hoss, the smiley, winky, emoticon thingy is supposed to make even the most offensive insults inoffensive. Sort of like ending a really acerbic comment with “Just Sayin.”
As if.
Steve, the “possible alternative site plan” shown above is the only one in the Finance Committee’s report (which mentions that this plan is not vetted and is among other alternatives). I’ve updated the post to reflect that. If you have a copy of the interim plan you referred to, please send it and I’ll update the post.
Ted, That’s sick! You tried to fake us out!
I just learned last night what the lyrics “all about that bass” mean. I’d rather ponder that metaphor for a while.
Curious… Can anyone tell me if a budget has been established for this project? If so, how much?
Bruce – I heard the same information that Steve presented from another source. If the accuracy of the information you presented in your post is in serious question, it might be best to rewrite the post and remove the graphic.
Mike Striar — the budget was $40MM when the mayor called it an expansion, and it remains exactly $40MM in the last CIP.
Bruce – The headline of the thread is completely inaccurate, so at the very least, it should reflect an accurate representation of the situation.
Well, wait a minute. This is the same plan that was attached to the official report from the Finance Committee, which was in the Friday Packet that the aldermen received for Monday night’s board meeting. Read the report. As we say in the legal profession, “the document speaks for itself.”
Speaking for myself, the “alternative site plan” that was presented to the Finance Committee is an embarrassment, with or without disclaimers.
Jane, I updated the post to reflect Steve’s comment and the report of the Finance Committee. The graphic is from that report.
@Hoss– Thanks.
Do you [or anyone else] happen to know if the $40M includes both the design work and the acquisition of the three residential properties?
Mike– If anyone answers “Yes” or “No”, I’d agree with either side. I voted for a school expansion not to exceed $40MM. The latest CIP seems committed to get there. They could not have estimated every ton of cement or every site change two years ago. With that, I’ll step back for an informed answer.
Quotes:
“What Bruce posted here is not that interim plan”
“The drawing you’ve posted was represented at the meeting as an unvetted exercise”
Bruce – How does your headline represent Steve’s post?
Regarding what is being proposed by the City, the intent is as it has been, to build the preferred plan using the three Beacon Street properties. But at this moment there are only two properties with active P&S agreements and we have been unable to get the timing of all 3 sellers and the internal City process to align. Rather than continue to string along the owners of 1316 and 1330 Beacon Street, Newton wants to conclude the purchase of these properties now and acquire 1338 Beacon when we can work out a deal.
We thought our aldermen would want to see what the site plan could look like with only 1316 and 1330 Beacon and presented an interim 43-parking-space plan that appeared identical to recent site plans but without any parking west of the bus/staff driveway.
So what is the plan that appears in the minutes? It was shown to the Committee in response to the followup question “With an expanded site that just contains 1316 and 1330, is it possible to place more than 43 spaces onsite?” This second plan, the one that appears in the minutes, was pulled out and shared as an example of a first pass answer this question. Essentially, “Here’s an unvetted example of how we might add parking while preserving all other aspects of the plan.” As I noted earlier, the failings of this particular sketch were immediately obvious to people in the room.
Mike, yes, the $40 million includes the Beacon Street property acquisitions. The funds we don’t need to spend on swing space makes this so.
Bruce, sorry but all we saw at Finance were paper copies of the plan I refer to. I understand that it will be shown again on Monday night and you can post it after then.
According to M.Lemieux, the 2.4 million comes of the yearly monies set aside for Zervas which is accumulating now. From what she said when asked this same question at a meeting the $40 million did not include the cost to purchase these properties. I looked up the assessed value for all 3 properties. Two were listed at $500,000. and one at $400,000.
Steve S., why is there bidirectional access to the main car parking lot? It doesn’t seem to serve any purpose since cars exiting the “upstream” entrance are just routed back to where they would exit on the “downstream” side anyway.
If the car parking were streamlined as one-way in and out, could space be used more efficiently, like using angled parking?
Steve Siegel — Are you saying that the one-time buildout of the swing space was included in all three override questions? That seems like a good approach, just trying to understand why there is any savings.
Nathan — That additional exit seems to be only one way out for the utility vehicles (trash, deliveries, etc) to exit.
One way in and one way out seem to make more sense in the main parking lot, because there is only one way in and out from Beacon. There would be no reason for vehicles to enter from Beacon, go around the bus loop and make a left turn into the main parking lot or to exit it to go around the bus loop to get out. I realize this is a work in progress.
The title is very misleading, just “click bait,” which I don’t expect at V14. I did “click” on this headline to see the “City’s New Plan” but reading the comments, I see that is not the case.
Bruce – You need to rewrite the title to reflect the reality of the situation. The graphic you place in the thread is an unvetted plan and is not the “City’s plan” as you state. This is the first time that I’ve seen V14 allow inaccurate information to remain on the site once correct information is provided. A certain perspective in a posting is fine, but outright inaccurate statements and headlines need to be corrected in order for V14 to have any sense of credibility.
Jane, I’ve updated the title to indicate that they are alternative plans. But they are the City’s plans, not someone else’s alternative.
I’ve not been able to get the “interim plan” that Steve S referred to, but it’s clear that parking is reduced in it as well as in all the other alternatives that the consulting architect referred to. The alternative plan that was published by the Finance Committee for review by the BoA seems to have the smallest reduction in parking. It’s the only drawing available, and it’s in the FinComm report, so that’s what’s shown here.
If anyone has a copy of the “interim plan,” let me know so I can include it. Can it be that it will not be available until after Monday’s vote?
With reference to widening Beethoven, this seems to run exactly opposite to what the City is doing or planning to do along many other roadways. It’s clear there are real and apparent dangers for pedestrians who try to cross wide roadways at marked intersections and drop off areas. A wide roadway simply invites motorists to speed. The Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council has spent countless hours with the City on traffic calming measures to reduce speeding by cars on several wide roadways with pedestrian signed intersections. These include Walnut Street from 4 Corners to the Hope Fountain and Centre Street from the intersection at Hyde Street and Wood Cliff Road to past an even more dangerous intersection at Allerton Road and Centre Street where Centre Street breaks into what is, in effect, an open 5 lane speedway. Every feasible solution has involved some measure to reduce the width of the roadway at critically dangerous points. These range from bump outs at the intersections to an intriguing recommendation from Adam Peller to place traffic islands at the widest parts of the roadway to split and reduce the overall width of the roadway.
I also understand that measures to reduce the width of roadways have also been put in place on Fuller Street, Beacon Street and some other roadways. I’m not certain what the other roadways are, or whether these have been constructed or are still in the planning phase.
Two final points. There already is speeding on parts of Beethoven and I fail to see how widening the road can make it anything but worse. I take Beethoven to go from Beacon to Woodward at least three mornings each week. I’m always extremely cautious when I go up the hill just past Zervas because there is a dangerous blind spot that prevents me from seeing cars coming on the other side heading from Woodward to Beacon. They come over that hill like there’s no tomorrow and almost invariably they are at least partially on my side of the road. Very dicey.
The second point is a confession of sorts. I go to the Y early in the morning and I was on that straight stretch on Centre Street near Allerton a week or so back when I looked at my speedometer and saw I was cruising at 55 MPH. Wide roadways do encourage speeding without constraints and enforcement. And this is from someone who is usually conscious about speeding. I’ve never had a moving violation since I first got my license in 1956.
If the 3rd property can’t be obtained, is there any reason not to build a 2-story garage?
Bruce – The plans are unvetted and therefore to imply that they are the “city’s plans” is disingenuous at best. The specifics of a site plan is an evolving process that changes even after the completion of a building. What can’t be changed is the square footage of the site. If the city gives up the opportunity to buy the two properties, with the sale of the third property in negotiations, then it’s giving up the opportunity to expand public space that will never come along again for the Zervas school site.
We’re losing sight of the big picture here. The lack of parking is one symptom of a much more serious problem. Newton elementary schools are so overcrowded at this point that it’s affecting the quality of education. The system has tried to mask the problem for years, and now it’s just can’t be ignored. Administrators have been saying for years, “Our teachers go above and beyond and make up for the deficits in the buildings”, but we’ve come to the point where it’s more important to admit the truth than reassure parents.
The problem is so severe that no school will receive the perfect solution – everyone will have to compromise his/her idea of the perfect school in order to provide for the greater good of all students. No student should be left in a situation where his/her elementary education is compromised so that others can get what they want. Many schools will have to live with trailers, some students will have to travel across town during a building project, Cabot students will have to wait years for its new building, parents are dealing with buffer zones, drop offs will have to change, and school buildings will have to be expanded to accommodate the growing school age population. That means every school district, every family, every member of the staff, every neighborhood will have to compromise its idea of the perfect school.
What we can’t do is tell the kids and families to stop moving to Newton. People have every right to move here and send their kids to the public schools. It’s not a conspiracy the School Committee concocted. It’s a citywide problem that demands a citywide solution, and either Zervas is part of the solution – just like every other school – or let the city rebuild another school. But if the city builds a new school in Waban that is not part of the solution to the citywide overcrowding problem, it will invite divisiveness and contention throughout the city for years to come.
I got so caught up with the intricacies of how the NHNAC has dealt with traffic and road widening issues that I failed to articulate why many believe that on many levels, the Zervas plans are in conflict with clear-cut city policies and priorities.
1) Wanting to widen Beethoven, while the City is doing everything it can to calm traffic elsewhere.
2) Chopping down trees, while the City is doing what it can to plant more trees elsewhere.
3) Demolishing moderately priced homes, while others in the City are working to preserve them elsewhere.
4) Encouraging more driving, while City Committees (and Commissions) are eager to look at ways to provide better options to driving.
5) Scant regard for preserving the character of our neighborhoods which this observer finds emerging as a potent issue throughout Newton and one that cuts across political and ideological lines.
6) Providing parking in the front setback, while many I know and trust believe it’s better policy to put parking behind buildings to encourage walking and safety.
I’ll admit to ambivalence about number 4 since I do believe elementary teachers and staff should have reasonable parking options as those in other parts of the City enjoy. I don’t want to leave the impression that I or other members of our Area council are anti-teacher, but I’d much prefer this parking be in the back of Zervas. Of course, my real preference is for a 16th School in Upper Falls where teachers would be just a short skip and a jump from a brown bag lunch at Hemlock Gorge, a walk on the Upper Falls Greenway, or an occasional non- liquid lunch at Dunn Gaherin’s or the newly renovated Biltmore.
Steve,
You and I both agree that professionals don’t always get it right. But for what it’s worth, here’s my take: Building design and construction has been my living for 33 years. What I don’t design directly I’ve worked with others on, and part of my job is to coordinate my efforts with every other design discipline involved in a project. Based upon this learning I find Plan B to be a creative effort but deeply flawed based on objective and subjective measures. I’ve articulated these many times on the blogs already and we already know you see things differently.
When I compare Plan B’s component features to the city’s preferred plan, it has one strong argument –we don’t spend money on the Beacon Street properties. But even that comes at a huge price, since those properties significantly improve the site plan whether the additional space is used for parking or not. Oh, I like another thing about it and this is not meant to be snarky – as a point of comparison it underscores the strength of the city’s preferred plan.
You can dismiss the perspectives of me, and of the deep team of design professionals, construction specialists, education specialists, and informed laypeople who have weighed in on this project. But I don’t. I don’t agree with all that has been proposed and I like you hope and expect additional changes. But this team, and the process they follow, creates considerably more good work than bad.
Are you hoping that the Zervas expansion will stop, or do you really believe that we should grow the school population by 50% and keep it on the same sized site?
Regards, Steve
Sorry Steve, one other thing – you make a lot of strong statements about the wetlands issues and throw additional numbers onto the blog. But you didn’t answer my earlier question: As someone who has dismissed the City’s approach to the wetlands on the Zervas project, do you understand how the conservation commission and the governing statutes weigh each of the points you are asserting? Do you have any idea of what factors they consider when looking at 26% or 34% of the building within the 100 foot wetlands buffer vs. car parking within the 25 foot buffer? Do you know why the City has no expectation, even without a formal ConComm ruling on this, that parking will not be allowed within the 25 foot buffer? Do you know why they believe that placing some of the building within the 100 foot buffer will be OK? Please share your thinking on this —
@Steve Siegal – I appreciate the time you’ve been taking to explain things in detail. I wonder if you could address the question of why it wouldn’t be feasible to have a 2 story garage, in order to provide more parking in less space. Apologies if this has already been addressed. Thanks in advance.
@Steve Siegel: not sure if Steve is familiar with or has experience with the Conservation Commission but I do. we’ve already been informed by Maureen Lamieux’s memo that there really hasn’t been sny formal conversations with the Conservation Commission on the specifics of the proposal. Please just stick to the reasons why you believe we need to purchase these two properties snd now with an amended site plan that contains fewer parking spaces than Plan “a”.
Amy, with all due respect, I have noted that we have not had a formal response from ConComm on this; as you know that cannot come until a plan, any plan, is presented to them as a formal package. This submission is time consuming and involved, and the Zervas project will be submitted to them after considerable effort and some months of preparation.
What I have said is that based upon the referenced standards, past experience NPS has had with ConComm on modulars at Countryside, and “informal” dialogue with ConComm, we have no expectation of them accepting parking in the 25 foot buffer, and high expectation that they will accept a portion of the building within the 100 foot buffer.
Technically you are correct — we don’t know what they will say. But with finite resources and a finite timeline I think we would be foolish to delay the project for months waiting for a response before proceeding with a site plan, when we have little to no expectation of success.
Amy – While I’d never describe myself as an expert on environmental issues, I do expect the community will respect wetlands restrictions. This is 2014 and environmental issues are on the radar screen of even those who may not have expertise in the area. If there’s a 25 foot buffer zone for parking within a wetlands area, I expect and want the Conservation Commission to enforce that regulation. And for the life of me, I don’t understand why you don’t want that.
Bob – It appears you’ve thought through everything but the kids. How will the expanded Zervas fit on the site if it’s to be part of the citywide solution to the increase in enrollment? Or is the goal of the citizens’ plan to derail the expanded Zervas? If that’s the case, what happens to the overflow of kids? As for the 16th school, I assume it’s your personal preference because the NHAC oversteps its scope of responsibility when it proposes a 16th school in another district.
As for the parking behind the school, what are people thinking? It’s is completely unacceptable. If I was working at the school after dark, as is often the case especially in the winter, there isn’t a chance I’d park back there. I actually get that men don’t get that (I’m the only woman in my family), but it’s a very unsafe place for a woman who has to leave the building in the dark to park. I’m surprised that no one has noted that.
Jane, according to the most recent NPS Enrollment Analysis Report with the current 5 year projections, the proposed 170 student population increase at Zervas represents 100% of the growth expected for the citywide growth in the elementary system through FY’19. So you think Zervas absorbing 100% of that growth is sharing the burden with the other schools? Your concept of sharing is questionable. BTW, over the recent past Zervas has added 5 modular classrooms while participating in the ongoing citywide student population growth issue.
If anything is potentially causing “divisiveness and contention throughout the city for years to come”, it is your inaccurate comments about other people evaluations of this project. What some neighbors are asking is for a reasonable capacity expansion that fits within the neighborhood. We are very willing to share in addressing the citywide student populations growth. Some of us also believe that efforts to build a 16th school in the Upper Falls is a better solution to the problem.
Jane – I doubt that a well-lit parking lot behind a building at that site would be unsafe. It’s no more isolated that the neighbors’ back yards are. If someone feels uncomfortable walking to her car after dark by herself, she can find someone to walk out with – something I’ve often done if I have to go to my car after hours.
Hello Jane,
My advocacy for a 16th school in Upper Falls is personal and my own. I have never really discussed it seriously with other NHNAC members or at one of our meetings. I do, however, think that almost anything that strengthens a village community concept in Upper Falls also transfers those strengths and values to other villages generally and to Upper Falls and Waban in particular. The whole is indeed stronger than its individual parts. This also dovetails with what my favorite social historian Howard Mansfield has consistently stated about the importance of strong and identifiable village centers in promoting historical consciousness and the sense of an “Axis Mundi” among its residents; ie. where the village becomes one of the central focuses of their lives. It seems to me that the opportunity to construct a neighborhood school in at least this one village would be a big plus in this direction and put substance into the support we all claim we have for our village centers.
I didn’t address the kids in this particular post because I was primarily responding to an earlier email suggestion by you that we not discriminate against teachers and staff at Zervas on parking simply because this is an elementary school. That’s why I made teachers the focus of that last comment. I tried to let you know that I shared some of your concerns on that matter as I do about the lighting in back of Zervas. I’m still not convinced it will take the destruction of 3 properties to solve these challenges.
I didn’t bring kids into this last discussion
mgwa, a two-story above-grade parking structure is completely feasible, but it is costly and arguably would appear remarkably out of place in the residential neighborhood of Zervas. A below-grade parking structure would penetrate the water table and be extremely costly. It also may not be acceptable to ConComm, because the peat that is found below grade has water storage capacity that would go away under the parking footprint.
A two level garage won’t look more out of place then a residential home left smack in the middle of a school yard.
@Jane: I do respect environmental regulations. I think you and many others believe that the regulations absolutely prohibit work within buffer zones. That’s not exactly true. Work can be done – it just depends on the type of work and how that work is mitigated. If you believe no work should be done in the buffers zones – then I suspect some of the work for Horace Mann modulars and Countryside modulars could never have occurred. My point is – PLEASE focus on the reasons why we should vote to expend $2.7 million or now $1.6 million for the three or two houses and focus on the public purpose that this expenditure will provide. And please give the community the assurance that this will not become a precedent – because there are many other elementary schools that are targeted for expansion that do not currently have the capacity you seem to believe is needed to accommodate parking for all the teachers and all the staff onsite.
Bob – As far as I’m concerned, it’s always been about the kids. When you’re talking about the needs of teachers, we’re talking the needs of kids. Teachers and support staff are the ones who spend our days with them, create plans for them, and attend to their emotional and social needs.
If I don’t have their work at home with me, then the effectiveness of my planning for the next day is severely compromised. I can come up with a generic plans that are mediocre, but if we want students to have the best education possible, then we need to consider what elements make that happen. It may be time in the day to meet with colleagues who work with a particular child; it may be safe entrances to the school; it may be reasonable access to the school so that we can carry work home with us. More elements than books, pencils, and paper – and even technology – make for an effective education for kids. When teachers talk about parking, it’s not like they’re talking about getting the closest parking space to CVS – it’s an element to providing an excellent education for kids.
mgwa-I taught in a school that had no lighting in the parking lot for years. It was a significant issue for the staff. Teachers expressed concern about their safety and their fear of walking to their cars in the dark and the city did nothing about the situation. It may not seem like an issue to you, but if I had a daughter working in a school with a parking lot behind the school that backed up to a wooded area, it would be a concern for me. As for teacher who is of a certain age, I’d never put myself into such a situation.
Amy – Not all elementary school sites are the same. Memorial-Spaulding is an example of a school that needs onsite parking because it’s on a busy street. On the other hand, Cabot School has an established plan for off site parking on side streets that is safe and well lit, but it’s a significant problem that will need to be addressed. Countryside is another school that can accommodate offsite parking (I parked offsite for a year when I worked there and had no problem with it). Williams certainly has sufficient safe offsite parking on safe side streets. Angier is another school with safe offsite parking. Franklin, on the other hand, needs onsite parking. Zervas is in the category of schools that need as much onsite parking as possible. When you’re asking teachers and staff to park a third of a mile from the school, walk in snow and rain, and on poorly shoveled sidewalks, forcing them to walk down Beacon St. with heavy bags, that’s not okay.
The public purpose of onsite parking for this particular school is twofold: the safety of the staff (which I sincerely doubt is a concern to many people) and providing staff with parking that enables them to provide the best education possible.
Amy – you’ve made it clear you’re voting against buying the properties, as has Jay Harney. So do it. But don’t pose questions that I have full confidence both of you can answer on your own. Look at the various sites of the 15 elementary schools and you can easily see which ones need onsite parking and which ones can accommodate offsite parking.
@Jane: I don’t know how I’m going to vote though I am currently leaning against.
The questions that I pose – I don’t have answers for. However, I am very familiar with the parking issues at Williams and can tell you that there is not enough parking onsite or in the surrounding areas. Auburndale will be instituting a commuter parking plan and many of the spaces for teachers have been accounted for. If the plan is to increase enrollment from 300 to 400+ – I can assure you, there will be a parking shortage for the teachers and staff unless more property becomes available or we take away parkland/fields from the school.
Amy, on Bob Burke’s 229 post thread, I made a case for the 3 property purchases that went well beyond staff parking. Here are about half of my posts to you and others on this matter.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/09/lets-pause-a-bit-on-zervas/#comment-50206
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/09/lets-pause-a-bit-on-zervas/#comment-50207
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/09/lets-pause-a-bit-on-zervas/#comment-50215
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/09/lets-pause-a-bit-on-zervas/#comment-50220
I would appreciate hearing your perspective on the merits of each of my points. I also am wondering about these two questions:
1. Are you are comfortable allowing the school to grow by 50% without increasing the size of the site?
2. Would you prefer to not expand Zervas?
Thanks, Steve
Amy – there is no “plan” to increase student enrollment anywhere. The kids keep on moving into the city. What’s the system supposed to do? Turn them away?
The Board of Alderman need to be fair and consistent in dealing with the elementary schools, and that’s a lot harder to do than with the high schools.
If you’re leaning against, I hate to hear what those who are totally against are saying. Just as all of my posts have been in support of buying the properties, all of yours have opposed the acquisition.
I’m not sure whether my question can be answered on the blog, but I am going to ask any way: If agreement cannot be reached with the third owner, then what is the impediment to moving forward with eminent domain proceedings? It seems to me that the sticking point is simply a fair market valuation which, if unresolved through negotiation, will be resolved by moving forward with a taking. Either the City is unwilling to offer fair market or the owner has an unrealistic expectation. Certainly a dispute over valuation of the property cannot come as a surprise to the project planners. Why the hand wringing?
@Jane – that’s why I specified “well lit”. I absolutely agree that an unlit parking lot is unacceptable.
@Steve – thanks for the explanation. I don’t see why a 2 story garage adjacent to a school should look any more out of place than the school itself.
@Steve: Question #1: I am coming to the conclusion that enrollment increases require the need for expansion if a new school is not being considered. I am coming to the conclusion as I continue to review all of the documentation, that the Zervas can be expanded with the increase enrollment without the purchase of the properties. Afterall, it appears from the extensive documents provided that the decision to expand Zervas to 490 students from the 450 students was decided even without knowing whether the three properties could be acquired.
Question #2: I firmly believe – as the initial Long Range Plan suggested, that we will need a 16th elementary school. I understand why the decision was made to expand Zervas – central location – able to accommodate increase enrollment at Bowen but that decision seems to be based on the exclusion of a 16th elementary school.
In terms of the purchase of the properties, I am concerned about the precedent this sets for the rest of the Long Range plans. If we are to believe that it is essential to accommodate all teacher/staff parking onsite – that would mean many of our elementary schools currently scheduled/contemplated for expansion – will need more land to meet those needs. So does this mean – a continuous process of taking/acquiring properties for our institutional use? And what message does this send to the institutional uses that exist in our city. Is it okay for Newton Wellesley Hospital – Lasell College – Boston College to buy up residential properties for their educational needs/uses? Maybe yes – maybe no. Their needs are no less important than ours.
I have been desperately trying to find a “public purpose” to justify the acquisition of these properties. That is why I have been pleading with you folks to stop focusing on
1) the buffer zones: I think I made the case well that all of the assertions previously made about conversations with the Conservation Commission – really didn’t happen. There may be good reasons why some believe that putting parking spaces in the buffer zone are a “non-starter” but that was never conveyed by the Conservation Commission – as they have not reviewed the proposal.
2) marginalizing the folks who disagree with the purchase of these properties.
Just focus on why these parcels enhance the programmatic aspects of the new Zervas.
Those are the arguments you have asked me to comment on. I will but can’t seem to do that while I am submitting this post. So I’ll get to that in the next post.
Bob, you make a series of discreet points and in the abstract, absent any context, each one resonates. But I see a big picture and within this picture things appear quite different.
What is the big picture? To me, it is that we have a constrained school site with a growing population.
At this specific moment we have an opportunity we almost never get – to permanently expand this school site for now and for future generations, in service of needs strongly articulated in the preferred plan of the project team.
This opportunity comes at a time when we are undertaking a new school project so we can optimally place the new building within the site.
At this moment the circumstances of each of the 3 property owners align and we can buy these properties by agreement and not by eminent domain.
And at this moment we have an approved funding source in the form of the March 2013 override.
This is it – buy these properties now or this site will likely always be constrained, not only for current uses but for next-generation uses we don’t yet know about.
As best I can describe it, the perspective of your friends on the NHNAC lies in an alternate universe from that of the project design team, DRC, OPM, Zervas School Building Committee, and NPS. And me. So I can appreciate the quandary this leaves you in – two remarkably different takes from different people you have come to trust.
I’ll tell you how I think: I share many of the values expressed in the 6 points of your post. But I prioritize them with many other considerations and I find through this process that they are not the drivers of a plan I support.
Example: I’d like parking out of sight at the Zervas property. But it cannot go in the wetlands buffer from everything I have come to understand, so the placement that least compromises safe site circulation and open playspace is along Beacon.
I’m more than happy to sit down sometime and discuss.
All my best, Steve
@Steve, why the reluctance to proceed with a taking of property by eminent domain?
Hi Lisa,
There are members of the Board who are not in favor of unfriendly takings.
Amy, your arguments about the wetlands buffer are coming from a lawyer embracing technicalities, and not from an elected official working to build a building. In the role of the later, you’d acknowledge the compelling reasons that ConComm is much more likely than not to reject parking in the 25 foot buffer. Just read the standards in the statute and see all the reasons that this parking placement doesn’t meet the various tests. Just look at past history in Newton. Might the commission eventually rule in favor? Yup! But if the information and data you pull together suggests the odds of that are quite slim, and your building is on a timeline, should you wait and invest considerable time and money into a plan you don’t expect will pass, when you have another option right before you?
Newton Wellesley, Lasell, BC? Really? In my book private institutions with hundreds of acres are not remotely comparable to municipal elementary schools on small sites, desperately in need of breathing room. You know what BC did when they needed more room? Bought the Newton Campus. We don’t have an equivalent option for Zervas, unless my neighbors open up to buying some land in Waltham or perhaps Dedham.
Marginalizing the folks I disagree with? Marginalizing folks who have come close to reversing a likely Board vote? Hardly. Bruce has been one of my closest friends and the person who got me into local politics. Srdj has been a long-time friend and client, and I have had tremendous admiration for his work on the Green Line extension and the Comprehensive Plan. Steve is, well, Steve is a piece of work and I happen to really like him. But I emphatically disagree with the position these men have taken on Zervas and I disagree with their tactics as well. I have challenged their ideas, as they have mine. They are not in danger of being marginalized, least of all by me.
@Steve,
Fair enough! Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
@Steve: Again, I am pleading with you to please stick with the arguments on why we should buy the properties and focus on those to convince folks that these purchases make sense.
In terms of Lasell and Newton Wellesley Hospital – those private institutions have purchased single family homes outside of their campus boundaries – not in Waltham – not creating a separate campus – but right next to their residential neighbors. Newton Wellesley Hospital owns three of the four houses on Bonaire Circle. Lasell is currently before the Auburndale Historic Commission to renovate a property that was once a former residence and turn it into the President’s House – since they converted the former President’s House for another use. Expansion of institutional uses is not quite as far fetched as you suggest.
Amy – where are we really going with this? You keep asking me to make the case for the purchases. I repeatedly offer up my reasoning, and ask for your reaction. Your main response is that we don’t truly, really, for sure know that we cannot build parking within the wetlands buffer, and then talk about the space needs of our largest private institutions while admonishing me to stay on point. I would truly value your support for these purchases, but I’m not feeling the love anymore! 🙂
Amy – I hope you realize that other people feel marginalized as well. There’s no special corner on the market for that one. This issue isn’t a straight point A leads to point B type of situation. There are reasons the site needs to be expanded that a teacher/staff member might understand better than others; there are reasons that an architect or designer might understand better than teachers. But please do not demean the reasons these two groups have presented by saying they do not address the issue of acquiring the property, because they do.
As for why we should buy the properties, many excellent reasons have been laid out here. It just so happens that it’s a situation with a lot of related side issues. But I’ll address just two before heading off for the day.
1. The Zervas site is too tight for the expanded school to be part of the citywide solution to overcrowding. In fact, an expanded Zervas school without the extra space merely creates another overcrowded school. Isn’t it in the public interest to do everything we can to come up with solutions to the overcrowded elementary schools? Or should we continue to just tack trailers onto our elementary schools as more families with school age children move into the city?
2. Not all school sites are the same. Some have safer options for parking than others. Zervas, Memorial-Spaulding, and Franklin are probably the least safe sites for offsite parking. If you’re going to talk about precedents, the BOA set the precedent for providing staff, visitor, and student parking. If you want to set a new precedent, then do a comprehensive study of which schools need onsite parking and which can accommodate some offsite parking. Then pass an ordinance that says that schools that have offsite parking as part of the plan will allow permit parking for teachers. But it makes no sense to me that the BOA doesn’t want to address the parking issue at a school with the amongst the least safe offsite parking. Isn’t it in the public interest to create safe parking for staff, parents, and visitors?
3. I’m stymied as to why you think convincing the Conservation Commission to put a parking lot within the 25 foot buffer zone is a good thing in this day and age. I don’t. As a society, we’ve grown more aware of environmental issues and to be responsible stewards. We should be doing everything possible to comply with regulations, not try to get around them.
As an aside to the environmental issues, you bring up Countryside as being on wetlands as if it’s acceptable. It isn’t. I taught there for one year and can vouch for the fact that the mold problem in that building is completely unacceptable. The mold brought on health problems that led me to leave a position that was well suited to me.
4. As for the parking lot being well lit, I’d hope that’s a given. It’s still a parking lot hidden from view of any other part of the site – behind a building that backs up to an unlit wooded area. You wouldn’t find me walking back there at night.
Steve, Ald. Sangiolo is not just making a technical legal argument. Unless I am very much mistaken, she is saying that the supporters of this plan shaded the truth by implying that the Conservation Commission had indicated they would not approve parking in the 100 foot buffer, i.e., it was a “non-starter.” Both Ald. Sangiolo and Ald. Baker inquired and found that was not the case, and that there was no policy not to permit parking within the buffer zone. Indeed, the Zervas site plan currently has parking spaces and a building located in the 100 foot buffer as well as parking and pavement within 25 feet of the wetlands. Supporters then apparently pivoted and relied instead on an argument that it would be hard to get approval based on precedent. Maybe so. But if you had to, I bet you could. The city would likely have to provide some mitigation so that any construction within the buffer zone will not alter the wetlands, which may be necessary with the current plan as well.
Hey BOA, from what I read, all the the other Elementary schools at maximum. So even if you build out Zervas for 500 students, what is your plan for accommodating all the new students coming in?
Hi Amy, I did want to respond to one other point you made last night – I happen to agree with you that if enrollment keeps growing beyond what we project, we may someday build a 16th school. This is not an official position I’ve heard from anyone; it’s just me talking.
But, where should we build it? Suppose that Rowe St and Court St and Turtle Lane and a large 40B on the old Aquinas property come online before another stick goes up near Needham Street. The Brian Yates School Elementary School in Braceland Field isn’t going to help that situation at all. So I believe that we should plan for current enrollment and reasonable projections, and not get ahead of ourselves lest we spend money where we need it least or at the wrong time. As I’ve noted many times before, fixing and expanding Zervas now does not preclude building a new school from scratch somewhere else in the city. But doing Zervas now is consistent with our long range schools plan, which is to fix our broken buildings and add capacity at each facility we touch.
Ted, you are mistaken — there was no shading of the truth. And I’d appreciate your comments on the substance of this paragraph I addressed to Amy a few posts up:
“Amy, your arguments about the wetlands buffer are coming from a lawyer embracing technicalities, and not from an elected official working to build a building. In the role of the later, you’d acknowledge the compelling reasons that ConComm is much more likely than not to reject parking in the 25 foot buffer. Just read the standards in the statute and see all the reasons that this parking placement doesn’t meet the various tests. Just look at past history in Newton. Might the commission eventually rule in favor? Yup! But if the information and data you pull together suggests the odds of that are quite slim, and your building is on a timeline, should you wait and invest considerable time and money into a plan you don’t expect will pass, when you have another option right before you?”
Thanks, Steve
Sorry for the double post, but I missed Lisap’s question about eminent domain proceedings. Government takings in Newton have a checkered history, including the infamous taking of an entire African-American neighborhood in West Newton surrounding Myrtle Baptist Church so that the Massachusetts Turnpike extension could split the north side of the city. Eminent domain is a serious even drastic measure that should only be used rarely, when there is a compelling argument that it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of serving the public good. Significantly, in my mind at least, the Zervas takings, like the Masspike takings, cater primarily to automobiles. Which is why I am alarmed that some of my colleagues are answering the call by promising to pursue similar takings in connection with the Cabot School project.
Steve, I stand by my comments. It looks like a Texas Two-Step to me. Your repeating the same argument does not change anything.
Ted Hess-Mahan — Will you aggressively ask to give excess land back in other situations such that they all get the same car to classroom ratio? If not, why is the Zervas situation special (other than no one wants to build upward, adding another floor)? Equity is nice, don’t you think?
Steve, I’m not sure what to say to your description of me:
Steve is, well, Steve is a piece of work and I happen to really like him.
The phrase “piece of work” has multiple uses, but I’ve usually heard it as an insult, though I’m sure you could cite a team of linguistic experts to challenge my interpretation. But which meaning did you intend to convey?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=piece%20of%20work
Steve, you als0 wrote: But I emphatically disagree with the position these men have taken on Zervas and I disagree with their tactics as well.
I’m trying to think of what offensive tactics we’ve used. We’ve spoken with our aldermen – that’s allowed. We’ve given an example site plan that reflects our vision and addresses our concerns. We’ve shared those plans with the design team, and public officials. We’ve written about it. We’re raised questions about the city’s plans that have resonated with some people.
Enlighten me. What have we done wrong?
Well Steve, in this case you can take it as a complement and it also ties into the fact that I find you to be an enigma. We’ve talked about this — you and I have some of the most interesting, probing, and respectful conversations….face to face. I like how you think, and I like the thoughtful back-and-forth. But for some reason on the blogs — Consistently, Ouch!
Again, there are limitations to nuance (translation: there generally is none) on blog threads, so you didn’t see my smile and rolling eyes while I was calling you a piece of work.
Steve, I’ve told you some of my objections face-to-face and will continue to do that.
Steve, I’m sorry if I have written anything on the blogs that has offended you. This forum features heated debate; our meetings at Starbucks featured heated beverages. The tone is going to be different. If you like, the next time we meet I can be more acerbic.
I’m not recalling any private criticisms about our tactics. Now you’re seeming like an enigma to me!
I have to appreciate Steve Feinstein’s engagement. He has contributed greatly to this discussion and many others.
The Steve Siegel I used to know would have also appreciated Steve F as much as I do.
The shift of Steve S to defender of the incumbent powers driving through their plans with no citizen approval vote allowed, pains me enormously.
So be it.
I align with Bob Burke who consistently sees the larger picture of the community with its families and children. There are great opportunities to make very positive community improvements in the context of the Zervas project.
But the tunnel vision of the mega Zervas proponents is such a formidable obstacle to real progress on real issues!
But the community should keep up the fight because if they make progress, Newton will benefit enormously.
Epstein:
And it continues to aggravate me enormously Geoff how much louder your criticisms are now that you’re not on the School Committee and, heck, don’t even live in Newton!
Geoff you vigorously supported (aka drove through) the overrides as structured, which included the decision to lump Zervas into the operating override but have yet to see you own up to that mistake.
All you do is blame others. (Well not all, you also cowardly removed the YouTube video you shot in support of the overrides.) The truth is groundwork for these decisions occurred on your watch Geoff, why didn’t we hear from you then?
Pathetic.
@Geoff. Thank you for that generous comment, but I think it’s less wisdom and more the fact that I’ve been an integral part of the three villages on and off for 78 years and have a feel for what could be and should be our priorities.
Bob,
Whatever the reason, the planning folks would do really well to integrate your wisdom into their plans!
Bob Burke for Mayor!
Now I’m getting embarrassed. Don’t even consider it Steve. Even my family and relatives wouldn’t vote for me for that office. It was hard enough for them to think I wasn’t too old for the Area Council. I’m not kidding about that and you know I’m always in second gear and storing less than half the material you other members process so easily.
I should add that I didn’t come by the feelings I have for these villages without input from other long time residents of Newton and more than a few who are not that new to the City. Many of you know that I’m a close friend and supporter of Alderman Brian Yates. Brian and I have been talking almost continuously about the untapped spiritual and community power of our villages for the 35 to 40 years we have known each other. More recently, I’ve picked up the same vibes from my fellow Area Councillor and new found friend, Rodney Barker.
I actually think a lot of people in Newton feel the way we do, but it never really gets articulated in a passionate way. Brian and Rodney feel this as strongly as anyone I’ve ever known in public office. Some have complained that they simply won’t let go of a thoughtless “tear down” or what happened to Upper Falls, the Highlands and several other villages when the powers that be pulled the plug on the village elementary schools and libraries in the early 80’s; but it was Brian’s continual referencing of these dislocations that led me to link my underlying feelings about our villages with what he was lamenting. Come to a regular monthly meeting of the Friends of Hemlock Gorge where Brian’s the President, and you will sense this feeling about community, village and place and why there’s real sorrow when, almost without thought, some treasured old house or building is demolished for a gaudy “McMansion” or when ancient trees are uprooted for this or that project, or when we find that people have desecrated the Gorge Reservation with trash or graffiti.
Next Wednesday when the proposed moratorium on tear-downs goes to public hearing, the people of Newton need to mention by name the 16 Aldermen who voted in favor of acquiring and tearing down three (3) residences on Beacon Street to build a parking lot for the new and enlarged Zervas mega-Elementary School.
The only Aldermen who will be consistent in their positions when voting in favor of a moratorium are Ald. Sangiolo, Yates, Blazar, Norton, and Hess-Mahan. The other 16 (with the exception of Ald. Johnson who was absent tonight) and voted to spend $2.7 million of our tax dollars to buy residential properties on Beacon St in Waban so that our coveted teachers will have a place to park their SUVs.
Janet, they voted to spend that money in return for about 5 parking spaces for part-time staff. There was no need to move ahead with this in order for teachers to have parking near the building.
Can someone tell us the real dope. Unless they did a rule suspension, they couldn’t have voted to allocate money for all three.
Assuming they voted for two, does moving on the third need to start the whole BoA process over again or did can they move on it in a month or two? Is the Mayor still authorized to negotiate on this one home?
This Zervas project is poorly planned. The State wetland regulations pose a significant obstacle. Why purchase 3 properties before all the permits have been approved?
Zervas is the wrong place for a mega school. Mason Rice would be a better choice.
@Hoss, the third homeowner reached an agreement with the city late yesterday. The total allocated for all three properties was within the originally requested amount, so the Chairman of Finance simply moved to amend the takings and the appropriation board order. To prevent further delay, Ald. Fuller then moved reconsideration, which the board voted against unanimously. So we’re done with this.
To quote my favorite American president, Josiah Bartlet, “what’s next?”
Thanks Ted.
I do hope there are no scars form this discussion which at times got personal. Let’s remember that back in the day municipal gov’t would do this stuff in the dark and us residents wouldn’t have a clue about money, intent or even possible side deals. (Actually “us residents” would include BoA/City Council)
Well, Hoss, if nothing else, this debate has reinforced my belief that we should never do a major capital project without putting a debt exclusion on the ballot so we truly know what we are getting into before voting.
I very much agree w the debt exclusion model. In addition to the transparency of the scope of each project, a debt exclusion has a start and end and does not accumulate a snowballing revenue source.
The details to the 20 year plan tell us there is a long list of serious work to be done. We will be at the voting booth again.
Well it appears that Lenny Gentile is the pivotal power player in the spending patterns for not only the city but the schools.
Lenny has been a significant force for decades in shaping Newton ‘s future. Lenny was a long time member of the School Comm. before jumping to the BofA.
Is he too powerful? I know that he worked closely with David Cohen to demolish the 1973 Newton North building and rebuild the new North.
Now he is the key mover behind how the elementary schools will be designed,built and financed for the future.
My only wish at this point is that everyone living in Newton understands where we are going and how much it all will cost.
So far we are deeply in debt for North and the plans for new schools continues on this path. Let’s just hope the economy continues to flourish because if it doesn’t Newton may be in big trouble very soon.
Geoff – thanks for your praise.
Geoff owns property in Newton and is concerned about good and accountable governance.
Colleen, that’s besides the point. The point is Epstein failed to advocate for his positions at a time when it would have had the greatest impact but is very quick to blame others now.
This thread is tired. Can you let it retire now that the BOA passed the acquisition of all 3 properties 18-5? I’m sure the topic will arise in a new thread.
Good idea, Jo-Louise. slam…clink…click. Comments are closed.