July 7 CPPC - The Plan

Soil borings

Clancy: Michalak reported that he was meeting with Keolis rep. this morning (7th) to mark the boring hole locations.  CPPC suggested that Clancy attend that meeting and it was entertaining hearing Clancy protesting strongly against that (in other words, he was apoplectic at the thought).  Borings are tentatively set for July 20th.  If this happens, then according to Michalak, the 25% design plan may be submitted around mid-late September.

40 Brighton St

Mr. French had his hand up for at least 15’ before he was allowed to talk [standard CPPC rudeness].  He pointed out that the DCR easement was a “surface easement” and that his building was not part of the deal in other words, no rubberizing, no murals, or taking down the wall i.e. side of the building (this refers probably to Stanton’s insistence on reconsidering the boundaries of MBTA property).  It was very amusing how Leino became visibly angry that Mr French knew of the discussion they’ve had and tried walking back this issue by claiming that people talked to people who talked to people and that things get distorted in the process.  But then he said it was only “brainstorming” so, in the end,  he admitted that the building had been discussed.

TIP policy changes

If you recall, Bowen attended the first Ad Hoc committee and stated that there was “misinformation” + "disinformation” "running around town" about the MPO changing its policies so that towns may be bearing more of the cost in future TIPs. Chairman Bourassa informed her that it was true [hence there was no “misinformation” + “disinformation” on my part.]    

The CPPC is now faced with the possibility that the project’s budget that they’ve worked to increase (remember Stanton’s “We must increase the budget!” trumpet calls at several meetings) may become a burden on the town.  So, at this July 7th meeting, they’ve come up with a plan to influence the policy changes being discussed by the Ad Hoc committee (you can watch the meetings at the MPO YouTube channel).

The basis for the plan: 12 municipalities have a vote in the MPO board and those 12 votes constitute the majority vs votes from MassDOT, FHWA, MAPC, etc.  Together with Paolillo, the CPPC/town will attempt to form a coalition with other towns to make sure that the fed funding keeps on flowing unimpeded without any additional cost falling on the towns/cities/municipalities.  A committee member complained that Belmont should not be considered a “White" “rich"town that could afford bearing some of the costs; there was also a comment that minorities should understand that the BCP would also benefit them.    

Bowen thought CPPC should contact Arlington’s Daniel Amstutz to give him Belmont’s PR on the BCP but people were lukewarm about the idea.  She also suggested Len Diggins and Jay Monty.  There was general agreement on targeting Arlington’s Len Diggins* (the one Black MPO member) and Everett’s Jay Monty.  It would seem that the town is going to argue their case from the diversity, disadvantaged population angle.

A snippet of the discussion featuring Bowen, Leino and Paolillo is in the movie below.  As far as I understand what was said, Bowen is proposing to lobby Diggins and Monty so that these two MPO members will provide information on the inner work of the committee and give the CPPC a heads up and/or advice at the proper times.  In other words, Diggins and Monty would be Belmont's men in the MPO.  Paolillo seemed to be willing to be point man in forming coalitions with other towns and in approaching Diggins and Monty.



 

For coalition building, Paolillo said he would contact Cambridge, Arlington, Waltham and other towns and ask for their support.  The CPPC also wants to contact other towns that have projects before the MPO and send a "joint communication" i.e. letter.

Paolillo wants to have a CPPC representative attend the MPO meetings (including Ad Hoc) to basically remind the MPO that Belmont is watching and defend its position whenever necessary.  Friedman: show up at the MPO meeting and “put Belmont after your name”.

Minutes

Boring except when they got to the June 9th meeting minutes when the CPPC struggled with this text. 

Section of the minutes with which they were struggling.

I made a partial transcript of that very memorable June 9th meeting and this is how it went:

 Garvin: new design was received on Friday. Garvin had a meeting with Leino on Monday am and “we can’t get the committee involved because of the Open Meeting Law requirements we could not have sent it to you [CPPC members] because of the Open Meeting Law.  I mean Open Meeting Law constraints a committee; staff is not under those so we can move things along faster and that is what I was talking before which is  staff is just trying to keep the ball rolling. And if we have to stop in regards to a committee it just makes it much more difficult.” 

The CPPC struggled with this but succeeded in eventually watering it down as we will see when the minutes are published.


 

 

 

 

Popular posts from this blog

The Miracle of the Sketchily Scheduled Public Hearing

I've been on hiatus fron this blog after Nitsch's submission of the 25% design plan at the end of 2021.  All that time, I've continued to observe the CPPC meetings; they have been as interesting as watching paint dry. Nitsch's Michalak seemed to avoid the CPPC but, a few times, the CPPC succeeded in having Michalak show up to give a report of ... non-progress. This was confirmed by someone with knowledge of the project within the MBTA who complained to me of how Nitsch was not delivering the necessary engineering plan although 1 year had lapsed since the request made in 2022. Engineering plan vs design sketch  My MBTA interlocutor explained that an engineering plan is different from the design plan. The latter is a sketch; the former is plan that shows location of items and structures in the subsurface and surface of the project area.  The subsurface items include pipes and cables because you don't want to start digging - for example - to build a wall and then fin...
Read more

A Tangled Web

  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive " Abutters have asked for the engineering plan for the 25% design submittal or what Stanton called the "revised" 25% design.  Since, on January 10, Michalak (PE or Project Engineer) announced that the Public Hearing had been scheduled then this revised plan had to exist at that date.  JS requested it from MassDOT Public Records on Februaru 23 and waited and waited.  Finally around March 14-15, JS received documents: the original, unrevised 25% design submission from November 2021, ROW papers, and the bridge worksheet with a submission date of January 24. (It's a tunnel or underpass but technically it becomes a bridge).   Note that it is the original 25% not the revised design so it still has a figure indicating that the tunnel will be "jacked".   The other fun part is that the bridge worksheet was submitted on January 24th not by December 21, 2023 as Michalak had said at the Dec...
Read more

Sept 15 - CPPC: A Fog of Words

Image
 Michalak and Clancy attended.   Michalak reported. 7 Channing Rd: Jammal scheduled a site meeting and, at the last minute, cancelled.  Clancy, Michalak will schedule again. Later on, Michalak said that submitting the 25% design did not depend on meeting Jammal: "that connection/spur is in the plan”.   All they wanted is Jammal’s approval of the spur/path planned for the side of the Chase building.  But Michalak conceded that the only thing he can see changing in the 25% are the access points such as the spur.  [My guess  is that they are likely to back down when it comes to the spur.] Soil borings 1.  Borings that required Keolis/MBTA were completed last week (week of Sept 6).   2.  Two other borings to be completed by the end of this week (week of Sept 13th).  These Pleasant St borings moved away from the ROW "to reduce cost and easier access”.* *Via FOIA request, I received Nitsch-GZA-Clancy emails .  This ROW issu...
Read more