The League of Women Voters are presenting this meeting on Wednesday.
Next Steps for the Austin Street Proposal
January 14, 2015: 7:00pm – 8:30pm
West Suburban YMCA, 276 Church St., Newton 02458
Open to the public, but space is limited
The plans to create new housing and commercial space at the Austin Street parking lot in Newtonville have their origins in the City’s Comprehensive Planning process from the mid-2000’s. The Mayor, City staff, Board of Aldermen, and several citizen groups all advised on or passed ordinances on the project. However, the project has been paused for citizen input since the selection of a development partner last spring.
Austin Street partners will present an update on the project based on input from the community and further discussions from the City. They are ready to share these with the public.
Our speakers will be:
• Chris Steele – League of Women Voters Newton
◦ An overview of the Austin Street process to this point
• Scott Oran and Mark Dufton – Austin Street Partners
◦ A description of Austin Street Partners’ proposed plans
◦ A discussion of the expected process forward
• Sue Flicop – League of Women Voters Newton
◦ Discussion of the League’s views on process
◦ The League’s thoughts on benefits and concerns for the development
Questions will be collected in writing during the presentations to facilitate discussion.
This meeting sounded good at first. Once I read the list of speakers I was surprised to see an imbalance of presentation.
This gathering needs more people to speak who represent the other side of the debate.
The other side of what debate? You mean we need folks to stand up and say “no” and sit down? Until we have clarity on what’s being proposed what is there to “debate”?
“Questions will be collected in writing during the presentations to facilitate discussion.” Translation: so we can pick the questions we’d like to answer and not have to deal with the rest. I guess they don’t want an open forum like the one at NNHS last July, in either size or format.
But I’ve got a question. Why have the recent presentations to groups not subject to the Open Meeting Law still been about an 80-unit project, if it’s supposed to be a “blank slate?”
Julia, I have spoken with the development team about the topic you raise. The public meetings that were held after the developer was chosen last Spring provided feedback which they have taken into consideration and tried to address with their revised project. But the economics of the project are still the same as when they submitted their bid almost two years ago. In order to be able to satisfy the bid price, complete construction and infrastructure improvements, and fund mitigation for the impact of the project, this is the size project that the developers believe can work.
As part of their presentation that I saw last week, they focused, among other things, on mitigating the loss of parking spaces during construction and improving parking management after construction is completed, based on concerns expressed by merchants and residential neighbors. And I was pleased that the developers were willing to respond to questions about the project (as opposed to windy statements). I am sure that they will be just as responsive in front of the LWVN and when they come before the Board of Aldermen in the near future as they were during last week’s presentations. Not everyone may like the answers, but I sincerely believe the developers will respond to any and all questions about the project.
Greg,
I think you know what Colleen meant. Collen was asking for a fact based presentation which means the positive and the negative facts. There doesn’t need to be a debate in order to explain to people that there are drawbacks in the short term and the long term. Thats all.
@Tom: Sorry you lost me. Why should there be “positive and the negative facts.” Facts should be just facts, no matter whether they are favorable to one’s perspective or not.
I don’t think ASP’s saying it’s 80 units or nothing is going to win a lot of people over. A lot of people who were okay with the city selling the lot to build something, weren’t okay with something that big. And since last summer, 61% of the voters on Question 5 expressed a preference for requiring voter approval before city land (greater than 7,500 square feet, which this certainly is) is sold. If I were voting on whether to sell a piece of city property, I’d want to know what was going to happen on it.
The Board of Aldermen rezoned the Austin Street lot prior to approving the sale or lease of the property so everyone, including the aldermen, developers and the public, would know what could be built there. The zoning amendment allowed a mixed use, residential and commercial structure of up to 5 stories and 60 feet, a minimum of 18 residential units and 5000 square feet of retail space, at least 85 public parking spaces, “transparency” on the ground floor, 25% affordable housing units, etc., with a special permit. The developer that was chosen had submitted one of the three bids that actually complied with the zoning.
Ultimately, the aldermen–who decided on the zoning and approved the sale or lease of the property–will decide what gets built on the Austin Street lot. As former chairman of land use, I insisted on a conceptual plan review prior to the submission of an application for a special permit for the Riverside project, so that the public and the aldermen could ask questions and give feedback that would be addressed (or not) in the special permit process. That project was eventually approved, unanimously, by the board. The sooner this project is presented in an open, public forum, the better as far as I am concerned.
I recently heard from a neighbor of mine that the proceeds from the sale of the lot were NO LONGER going to be used to improve Newtonville. I think a lot of us (I know of at least 10 others) who were on board with the new construction based largely on the other improvements to Newtonville. Real improvements, like wider sidewalks, better and nicer lighting, more seating areas, and more “village” feel. Alderman Linsky told folks again and again that the project funds would be dedicated to Newtonville improvement. Instead, now we are told that is advisory only.
If that is truly the case, I would no longer support the project in any form. This isn’t a 40B project, the City has complete control over the project.
Ted, as someone still on the Board, can you speak to this concern? Has the Newtonville community been lied to or not? (and yes, it is that clear a question)
fignewtonville, I have not heard that the revenue from the lease or sale of the property would be diverted from use to improve Newtonville. You should probably check with the Mayor on that, since it is not up to the developer. I do know that the developer has allocated money for a mitigation fund for adverse impacts from the project to merchants and others from during construction, but beyond that I do not have any details about proposed mitigation funds.
All the more reason to present this project in a public, open forum as soon as possible to thoroughly vet these kinds of questions.
“But the economics of the project are still the same as when they submitted their bid almost two years ago. In order to be able to satisfy the bid price, complete construction and infrastructure improvements, and fund mitigation for the impact of the project, this is the size project that the developers believe can work.”
How exactly is that a blank slate? That was a dishonest characterization of the term.
Sounds like they’re interested in making changes around the margin, not fundamentally changing the project.
We don’t want 80 units.
We don’t want 5 stories.
We don’t want this project.
61% of constituents said that they want to vote directly on projects like these.
Its time for Ted, the other Aldermen and the Mayor to start listening to their constituents.
Paul, I hear what you are saying, altough I do not necessarily agree with you. For the record, I never promised a “blank slate” and neither did the developer. Indeed, I think the whole process around this project ever since developers were invited to make bids has been and continues to be handled in a ham-fisted and unnecessarily clandestine way.
Boston Globe, May 25, 2014:
Scott Oran, a partner at Dinosaur Capital Partners said he and his team are “pleased and humbled” to be selected, and he too stressed that this is just a first step. “The mayor told us that he selected a team and not a project,” he said. “So there is no project yet,” said Oran, who lives in Newton. “Speaking for myself and the whole team, we want to develop a project that everyone can be proud of. That means listening to everyone,” he said.
Mayor Warren says in the same article : “There is no specific project proposed. There is nothing on the table at this time.”
What Emily and Marti said.
One further point, which was a concern of mine when a developer was “selected”:
No investor, in this case, Dinosaur Capital, is 100% committed to a real estate project until they have an understanding of the financial parameters, which clearly includes the number of units to be sold. So its not actually possible to “select a team and not a project” because without a specific project, the team doesn’t know if they want to do it.
This means 1 of 2 things– either the team has some relative clarity that the project will ultimately meet their financial expectations– i.e. it will be roughly 80 units– or we haven’t really chosen a developer, but merely selected a developer that gets the first shot at proposing a project that meets both their needs and the community’s desires. Ted seems to be confirming the former– that those in the know are aware that this will always need to be roughly an 80 unit project. That was my concern at the time of the announcement– its very disappointing that it appears that the Mayor’s own words are misleading at best.
Paul, assuming that you are correct (and I do), if the bid price were adjusted, the developer could likewise adjust the number of units. Something to keep in mind as the process moves forward.
Ted,
If there is “no specific project” and now you’re saying that bid may be negotiable, what exactly were the parameters for choosing Dinosaur Capital?
Paul, here are the RFP evaluations of Austin Street Partners. Between you and me (since I know no one else reads the Village 14 Blog), I think the whole “choosing a developer and not a project” thing was a boatload of hooey. It is impossible to divorce the two. But I have also always maintained that any special permit project that comes before the Board of Aldermen–particularly a major project like this–can and usually will be modified at least to some extent prior to filing as well as during the review and approval process.
Appreciate the candor Ted.