The three Newton City Councilors representing Ward 5 submitted the following column to the TAB and have shared with constituents via email.
We are the three Newton City Councilors representing Ward 5 including Newton Upper Falls. We are writing to explain why we voted for the Northland Newton Development and why we are opposed to the proposed referendum. We urge you NOT to sign the petitions being circulated.
We voted for the Northland development because we believe it is an excellent plan which will greatly enhance Newton Upper Falls. In our discussions with Needham Street neighbors over the last 10 years, we have found no one who thinks that 22 acres of paved property with abandoned industrial buildings is what best serves Newton here. Prior commercial development plans ignored and offered nothing to the neighborhood.
Newton Upper Falls and the neighborhood east of Needham Street participated in the 2018 Needham Street Vision Plan. This 9-month proactive community planning process involved city staff, consultants, neighbors, councilors and businesses negotiating a vision to transform Needham Street into a sustainable, park-studded 21st Century mixed use area with vibrant residential and retail along with improved transit. The vison was not about Northland, but Northland waited for the conclusion of this process, and revised their plan significantly. to reflect this vision.
We voted for the Northland plan because it is consistent with the Vision and is a great example of proactive planning for the neighborhood’s economic and environmental health. First introduced in 2016, Northland’s plan was for 950 units of housing and a large commercial footprint as well as retaining and preserving the historic Saco Pettee Mill building. After over three years of discussion and evolution the approved plan comprises:
800 units of housing,
Preservation of the Saco Pettee Mill
115,000 s.f. of retail / commercial space
How has the project changed? What compromises has Northland made?
Northland agreed to put almost all the parking underground, actually removing 27% of the building mass from the project;
“Laneways” were added to break up and reduce the scale of several buildings, add plazas to improve streetscapes, and increase open space and access;
Northland agreed to limit parking to 1,600 spaces, limiting their market to tenants amenable to one car living,
Northland reduced retail from 237,000 to 115,000 square feet—only 40,000 sf more than what exists there today—eliminating significant peak hour traffic.
Throughout the process we have closely monitored everyone’s major concern – traffic. It is our view that the worst-case scenario is a development built under the existing zoning without mitigation of any kind, and that the best case scenario is a mixed use project where more trips are on foot, peak hour traffic is relatively low and traffic is actively managed. The traffic conditions we required in the Northland special permit are unique and innovative with strict compliance standards.
The Northland project stands on its merits, and we do not grant permits in exchange for concessions, but as Councilors we have focused on specific benefits offered to the City as part of the discussions including;
140 permanently restricted affordable housing units
One “all age friendly” building
At least 3 buildings at “Passive House” high performance energy standards
Free electric shuttle service from Northland to the Newton Highlands T station for the public
$1.5 million annually to fund the project’s traffic management program
$5 million paid to the City to improve streets and transit off-site
$1.85 million for sewer infrastructure improvements in the neighborhood
$ 1.5 million toward Countryside School renovations
$1.0 million to build a public splash park
As your elected representatives, we know that you place your trust in our judgement to do what is best for our good city. We each take that responsibility seriously. We have scrutinized this project, and see it is an exciting opportunity for Newton Upper Falls and the city. If you are asked to sign a petition to revoke the City Council approval of the project we ask that you decline to sign the petition.
Excellent summary. I guess it’s always possible to second-guess these decisions, but these three folks and others have made a persuasive case of a thoughtful governmental review. I don’t see how revisiting this with a referendum is likely to enhance our city’s review of future projects or to encourage the likely kinds of development we would want. Quite the contrary.
Councilors Downs, Crossley & Rice,
No question that you had good and valid reasons to vote for the Northland Project. That’s no the point right now. It’s the question of the process which did not specifically recognize Right Size Newton to the extent of specifically sitting down with that group as was done at Riverside. True, that may have entailed a bit more adjustment to the project. But it most likely would have averted the referendum which looks like it’s on track to prevail, despite all the campaigning which would not now be required and seems a dollar short and a day late.
Where was the politic by the Mayor, or even City Council advocates, not to see this coming. As I commented previously, however, there still exists a very short window in which now to sit down with Right Size.
Jim: if Right Size wants to meet with someone why don’t they just ask them directly rather than have you ask them on their behalf on this blog?
I agree with Paul. Excellent summary. I could quibble on what I’d personally want more of, but you can see the likely give and take.
Thank you for posting.
Jim,
I would like to clarify something. Northland reached out to RSN on numerous occasions as far back as the fall of 2018. We offered to meet over coffee, over lunch, and/or at the gallery in the historic mill. We were repeatedly rebuffed. As a result, we determined to negotiate the development through the Land Use Process. And yes, I work for Northland.
I agree with Jim as well.
As an Upper Falls resident, been tracking this project for over two years. Wrote the Council many times, with my address at the bottom of each note.
Andreae wrote back once, and we had a nice exchange (thank you). Deb? Nope. John? Couldn’t be bothered.
It’s not an accident that RSN and those driving this referendum reside in Ward 5 and 8 (David Kalis at least tried to advocate for the neighbors). There clearly is a difference of opinion and optics.
That said, the past is the past.
Councilors, if reach out to RSN, I’m sure they would be willing to sit down. Same thing stands for Northland. It’s been a long time since the last offer. May be good to have Jim there too. :-)
Thank you – well summarized. It would be helpful to have a similar perspective from Councilors who voted in opposition. As a long time area resident – as a teenager I used to bike out to Marshalls from Brookline to get my swag – and an armchair real estate developer, I’ve often wondered about Needham Street. But for me, the conversation starts and ends with the area’s physical geography. It’s a 3/4 of a mile strip accessible really only at either end.
To get any real use of the space – without overwhelming traffic even at more remote intersections like Centre/Walnut, the Parker overpass, or Winchester/Nahanton, it would seem you have to open up access via the middle somehow. Has the extension of Mechanic St. or Columbia/Chandler been considered? Is either technically feasible? Have traffic patterns been studied to determine whether significantly more traffic could be routed via Elliot/Woodward? (Would that be less popular in Ward 5? ;) )
I’d love to see – I’m sure others would as well – the Vision Plan. A link to the final report and any other supporting materials would be greatly appreciated.
As for the proposed referendum, I’m still undecided. I do know that I’d hesitate to call a Vision Plan that came 2 years after (2018) a development plan (2016), ‘proactive’. Needham St. – it’s not just Northland’s 22+ acres (+6 across the way) that have real potential – poses a legitimate opportunity for growth in Newton; but there still may be too much cart out in front of the horse. Perhaps, despite all the work and the cost invested thus far, adding 800 units of housing + 40,000 sf of retail really demands the attention of more of the electorate.
I find Jim Epstein’s insistence that RSN hasn’t been listened to disingenuous at best. He says that one city councilor responded to him but not two others, and he implies that Northland won’t talk to RSN. But in my experience as a Ward 5 resident, I have always had responses from Downs and Crossley when I’ve had occasion to contact them (I never reached out to Rice), and moreover, a Northland rep called me this past summer! The company paid people to reach out to all Upper Falls residents to find out about their concerns for the proposed development. It wasn’t a multiple-choice survey but an open-ended conversation–quite impressive outreach, in my opinion. In that context, I find it unsurprising that Northland reached out to RSN (as mentioned by @masterplanner). So why didn’t RSN take the opportunity to talk with Northland? There have also been three years of open meetings. Did RSN members not attend or not speak? If RSN members have not been heard, it’s because they have refused to speak when they had the opportunity.
And I am furious that RSN is seeking to waste city funds on a referendum that repeats the November 2019 election. People voted for city council candidates knowing whether they supported or opposed Northland and Riverside. In fact, RSN ran a slate of candidates opposing these developments and only ONE got elected. Newton’s voters have already spoken. This referendum is trying to TAKE AWAY the voice of the voters in the most recent election and cost all Newton residents in either higher taxes or reduced city services to pay for the referendum.
I totally agree with the councillors here that people should REFUSE to sign the petition. But I also think that people should call out the people collecting signatures for the hundreds of thousands of dollars their selfish refusal to accept the November election outcome is going to cost us all.
“People voted for city council candidates knowing whether they supported or opposed Northland and Riverside.”
I thought there was some that Department advisory that went out that advised City Council against stating whether they were in favor or against of any of the special permit petitions currently before the Council. In fact, I thought that some candidates – including those not currently on the Council, stating that it was inappropriate for them to take a position because it may be an item that they would vote on if elected.
I have two questions re parking . There are 800 units and 1600 parking spaces. Somewhere I read that that comes out to one parking space per family. To me 800/1600 comes out to two parking spaces per family. What am I missing?
Or does this mean that the 1600 underground parking spaces will cover residents as well as daytime use (ie, shopping and office use?). If that is the case, then the underground parking is insufficient.
Amy, as you point out, the memo from legal went out about councilors not talking about any development currently under consideration for a special permit – because that’s the law. It didn’t cover candidates who were not current councilors.
And it didn’t stop RSN from putting together a slate of candidates they believed would vote no on developments they did not support. Of the candidates on that slate, only one won.
Amy, your posts make me smile.
Let me try this type of post:
I thought there was lots of angst about the use of slates, and that the groups for and against this project put out slates. However could folks have figured out which candidates supported development?
Pretty sure folks who cared about this issue knew exactly who they were voting for, pro and con.
My wife and I are residents of the Village Falls condominiums and my condo faces the Saco Pettee Mill. I am also a technology executive who has spent decades living a bi-coastal existence in both Silicon Valley and Silicon Beach (LA), who has seen firsthand how oversized development destroys towns.
This project is far too big. There is not enough parking planned. And traffic in Newton Upper Falls (NUF) that is already challenging will get far worse given the lack of effective public transportation.
What is clear is that for many months some council members, including at least 1 of the 3 who penned this letter, were locked in on their decision and not open to discussion.
You say that “Northland agreed to limit their market to tenants amenable to one car living.”
Yet, the actual number repeatedly discussed was less than 4/10 of a space per unit with the rationale being that Millennials don’t want cars. Perhaps creative math (think valets constantly moving cars around in an overcrowded underground garage) increases that number to 1 per unit. Or perhaps it’s tied to the other pieces of property that Northland has quietly purchased on the east side of Needham Street that is rumored to be available for “overflow parking” when the onsite parking proves inadequate.
What I do know is that our own “Millennial” children will tell you that Northland’s argument that Millennials don’t need cars in the suburbs is a joke – especially given the challenging realities of tied to the publicly available transportation that exists.
While Northland may be offering “free electric shuttle service from Northland to the Newton Highlands T station for the public” the reality is that the Green Line is already overwhelmed with a new housing project right next to Riverside set to put many more people onto the T long before it reaches Newton Highlands. And the option of driving to work or taking a taxi/Uber/Lyft will only put more traffic on both Oak and Needham Streets. And what about transportation to one of the commuter rails stops in Needham (Heights? Hersey?). Why wasn’t that included as well?
The $1.5 million toward Countryside School renovations is an insult. The amount likely won’t even pay for a new roof no less space buildout for all the additional students – kids whose long-term impact on Newton Schools will extend far beyond Countryside as they age out of elementary school. That reality is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of Newton taxpayers.
This isn’t responsible “development”. This is someone lining their personal pockets at the detriment of an entire neighborhood/city. But hey, unlike the down-sized development at Riverside, we got a $1 million public splash park for 3 months out of the year.
I predict that Downs, Crossley, and Rice will be on the wrong side of history regarding NUF. Certainly, not the legacy for which I’d want to be remembered.
“[T]he best case scenario is a mixed use project where more trips are on foot, peak hour traffic is relatively low . . . ”
More trips on public transport as well.
Can anybody following this discussion explain how ITE generates or how Northland (via its consultant VHB) uses the data that underlies ‘trip generation’ (the number of trips that result from development) and, hence traffic? Specifically, the estimated number of trips per peak AM hour resulting from 800 units of housing is in the 200 range. At that rate it would take 4 hours for each household to contribute 1 member to the outside world. Am I missing something? (I’m looking at the 10/18 TIA and the 2/19 Memo)
Clarification – From 800 residential units approximately 200 persons would exit the site (i.e. persons returning are not counted here).
This project is exactly what we need in newton. I’ve been a resident here for almost 30 years and am so sick of the backwards thinking of people that think they can avoid the reality that we live in presently. As an architect and designer at community meetings in this city I have had neighbors shout out “who’s going to live here”and my co workers and I have been called out for being uppity architects when we have answered: your divorced brother whose kids go to school here, your widowed mom who can’t afford her house but grew up her. That’s who benefit from this development. So wake up and realize that your perceived traffic inconvenience is nothing compared to a family that can’t live in the same community and have the benefits that this city provides if you live here.