• HOME
  • PRIORITIES
  • ABOUT JULIA
    • COMMUNITY
  • MEDIA
    • NEWSLETTERS
    • BLOG
  • SUPPORTERS
    • ADD YOUR NAME
  • CONTRIBUTE
  • CONTACT
    • REQUEST A LAWN SIGN
  • HOME
  • PRIORITIES
  • ABOUT JULIA
    • COMMUNITY
  • MEDIA
    • NEWSLETTERS
    • BLOG
  • SUPPORTERS
    • ADD YOUR NAME
  • CONTRIBUTE
  • CONTACT
    • REQUEST A LAWN SIGN
  Julia Malakie for City Council

Julia Malakie
Ward Councilor
Ward 3

How much will city spend to convince Library trustees to replace parking lot trees with solar carports?

6/2/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
We still don't know.

For anyone unfamiliar with three-year debate over trees vs solar carports at the Newton Free Library parking lot, I wrote about the 2016 effort here. The latest attempt began in summer of 2018  with the Library lot's inclusion in the list of Phase 3 Solar sites. The proposals chosen from the responses to the RFP (Request for Proposals) indicated that the city administration considered public trees expendable in the pursuit of solar power. I wrote about that in a Village14 blog post that stimulated a lot of discussion. Thankfully, as a result of public feedback, the administration backed off on what would have been the most egregious tree slaughters (two dozen mature trees on Albemarle Road north of Gath Pool, and most of the Bigelow Middle School parking lot trees, leading to more discussion on Village14. And some very large red oaks were spared when the Parks & Recreation Commission rejected carports at Auburndale Cove, and more careful shadow studies determined that trees at Angier, Williams, and Oak Hill Middle School, originally planned to be cut down, did not even have to be pruned, as the increase in solar output would be negligible.

But the Library site has become not just a debate about the value of trees in public spaces, but a question of fiscal common sense, which I described in an April 25 letter to the  Tab: 

It’s worse than I expected. On March 18, an 18-5 majority of city councilors approved replacing berms and trees with solar carports in the Newton Free Library parking lot. In doing so, they indicated a willingness to spend a then-guesstimated $500,000 to mitigate perceived drainage problems, with no assurance that a yet-to-be engineered system in the library lot would do anything to materially improve drainage in the wider system of City Hall ponds and Bulloughs Pond, of which the Library is only one part.
Now the administration is requesting $250,000 just to design the new library parking lot (Docket No. 158‐19). The new design eliminating the berms to add parking spaces was not even part of the original Phase 3 Solar Request for Proposals; it was only incorporated midway through the process, to make the idea of replacing trees with carports more palatable to library trustees and public. (And at a time when projected electricity savings from Ameresco Library carports was a measly $2,000 per year, adding another row of carports somewhat improved this number.)
At $250,000 just for design, I’d be surprised if construction costs less than $1 million, dwarfing projected annual savings of at best several thousand dollars. What else could we do for the environment with $1.25 million, if the administration were not so fixated on “virtue signaling,” and city councilors were not so afraid of being portrayed as insufficiently concerned about climate change? Plant 4,500 city trees? Establish an incentive program for homeowners and businesses to install roof solar?
Instead, how much taxpayer money are the “Aye” votes (Albright, Auchincloss, Brousal-Glaser, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Lappin, Leary, Lipof, Noel, Norton, Rice and Schwartz) and the mayor willing to spend to make a statement with library carports?

Council votes Monday on design money
On Wednesday, May 29, the Finance Committee approved 4-2-1 (Gentile, Cote opposed, and Ciccone abstaining) a reduced request of $175,000 for design and engineering. The full City Council will vote on this money Monday, June 3, and based on their March 18 vote, is likely to approve it. 

I fear that once the design money is spent, many councilors are likely to forget that "sunk costs are sunk" (the economics expression for "don't throw good money after bad"), and approve however much the actual cost for construction turns out to be, because they won't want to feel that the design money was wasted. Just as recreational gamblers going to a casino are well-advised to set a limit as to how much they will lose, I think councilors ought to know before they vote what their limit will be when the bids come in. Is it a million? $5 million?  No limit at all?  I've asked all the councilors these specific questions:

1) Is there an upper limit to how much additional spending you will vote to approve in order to actually build it? If so, what is that amount?
2) What is the maximum amount of additional spending you would approve for a plan that does not eliminate flooding risk?
3) If/when the additional parking spaces are no longer sufficient to satisfy increased demand, would you support some combination of free spaces and demand-sensitive metered spaces to promote turnover (e.g. something like the 85% occupancy/15% vacancy rate target considered optimal)?


I asked the second question because I'm skeptical that any amount of money will eliminate the risk of flooding in a wetland, and think it's likely that any drainage improvements will only 'mitigate' the risk. I don't expect those warning signs in the parking lot to go away.

I asked the third question because at some point, probably sooner than later, the parking spaces being added are going to be full at peak times, too, as more people figure out it's easier to park, and stop avoiding busy  times, and due to population growth. (Housing units could easily grow by ten percent if major developments on the table, and Zoning Redesign for higher density are approved.) What is the plan then? Use some degree of pricing to increase parking space turnover? Revert to the current situation of people waiting for spaces at the busiest times? Ditch the carports and build a parking garage? In the very same Finance Committee meeting on May 29, councilors discussed the proposal to give the planning director authority to set parking rates in village centers to regulate demand to achieve an 85/15 occupancy/vacancy target.

None of the councilors seem to have any answers. I hope these questions will be part of the discussion on June 3.
0 Comments

Three buildings in West Newton Village Center Historic District now on 18-month demolition delay that expires in November 2020

6/2/2019

0 Comments

 
At their May 23, meeting, the Newton Historical Commission (NHC) voted unanimously to impose an 18-month demolition delay on 1251, 1239-1247, and 1235 Washington Street. These are, respectively: the Brezniak-Rodman funeral home; the brick storefront that is currently occupied by Baby Koo, that last summer was the venue for Principle Group's 'Public Design Week;" and the little former gas station building set back from the street.

I was happy the NHC voted as it did, but it is only temporary protection, and as one NHC member noted, even Robert Korff was not objecting to the delay, since it would take that long for any development proposal to be approved anyway.


These buildings are part of seven acres between Washington and Watertown Streets, owned or controlled by Mark Development or by Donato family trusts, that Robert Korff has big plans for. It was Robert Korff and his attorney who attended the NHC meeting and sat at the table, even though it's Donato trusts that own these parcels and are technically the ones requesting demolition permits. (And the Donato trusts will have to continue to be the owners for the 18-month demo delay period, or the clock will start over on the 18 months.) These buildings were submitted for demolition now because they're included in the National Register-listed West Newton Village Center Historic District, so the NHC can impose an 18-month demo delay, instead of the normal maximum of 12 months. More demolition requests can be expected in six months.

Councilor Chris Markiewicz, the ward councilor from Ward 4 (Auburndale/Lower Falls), attended and spoke in support of the delay, and saving historic buildings as part of any development plans. 
This is the letter I sent to NHC and read at the May 23 meeting:

To members of the Newton Historical Commission:
I hope that, at a minimum, you will vote for the 18-month-demolition delay on 1253, 1239-1247, and 1235 Washington Street. I have lived in West Newton most of my life now, but until recent years had taken for granted our vintage buildings that make our village center such a comfortable place, not flashy. I'm grateful that in 1988 someone cared enough to document these buildings and have them recognized as the West Newton Village Center Historic District. I don't want to see this district chipped away at, with each demolition being further justification for the next, as happened with Oak Hill Park.

It is amazing that in the Brezniak-Rodman funeral home, we have a building that has been in continuous use for the same purpose for over 150 years. It stands out as a local landmark in our streetscape. It also proves that old buildings don't have to look old if they're well cared for. I am disturbed when I hear people describe buildings being "tired" as a justification for demolition, as occurred with the Orr Block. This seems to be a kind of 'moral hazard,' rewarding neglect. I hope this is not said about 1239-1247 Washington Street. The cast stonework could use a cleaning, but having lived mostly in houses built in the 1920s and '30s, I believe this was a period of quality construction, worth keeping.

Gas stations don't get much respect, and expanses of asphalt parking areas in the front of buildings are now in disfavor, but the former gas station at 1235 Washington is reminiscent of the one on Rt 9 opposite Langley Road. How fortunate that the latter was preserved and incorporated into the Residences at Chestnut Hill. Here's a photo I found online of what that once looked like: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:2227mx02m  Now instead of asphalt there is a small oasis of grass and trees on Rt 9. The same could be done with 1235 Washington, to preserve the architecture while also creating a landscaped plaza that would enhance whatever businesses move into the building, and provide green space on this section of Washington Street. This may not matter to the NHC, but I am grateful that the setback of the building at 1235 has allowed room for perhaps the best and widest canopy of any street tree in West Newton Square.

Thank you for trying to protect Newton's history. I wish you could do more than just an 18-month demolition delay.

0 Comments

    Archives

    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    November 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Picture
Committee to Elect Julia Malakie
PO Box 650084
West Newton, MA 02465



©2021. Julia Malakie. All Rights Reserved.

FOLLOW JULia

Join Julia's Email List

Contact Julia
Make a Contribution