Sept 29 CPPC: The Politics in Me

The CPPC keeps on testing the Open Meeting Law.    For the previous meeting, they went back to getting the notice under the wire by the minimum time allowable which is 48 hrs.  For this meeting, the agenda was stamped by the clerk on Sept 23 but it was *never* posted on the Town’s Calendar or the CPPC's own calendar.  It was only listed under "Agenda".  This fact was brought to my attention by a fellow abutter last night who was mystified as to where to find the notice and asked for help.  


Moving on to the meeting ...

7 Channing Rd [and Pleasant St]


Town and Nitsch will meet with Jammal next week unless “it goes south” again.

[Pleasant St abutters reported to me that no one has approached them;  as one wrote: “not one peep”.   So Michalak’s talk on the 15th about meeting with them and presenting the Copley-Wolff “renderings" has gone nowhere so far.]

MPO TIP Policy Changes

I think the CPPC has been aware that the policy changes will affect the BCP badly and they have been and are trying to hide that fact from the public.   But I am not sure that they understand *all* that the new policy implies.  It will be entertaining watching these future events unfold.

Stanton shared an email from Genova (TIP Manager) about the policy changes that includes a link to a Fact Sheet that the CPPC briefly discussed.   In a lament, Leino said:

“to me is kinda too bad we didn't get under the wire under the old more generous policy”

 i.e. MPO policy that was so accepting of budget increases.  So the rush to submit the 25% design in October may have been an attempt to get "under the wire".

Leino pointed out that a public comment period is now open and they will discuss whether to send a comment.  I encourage everyone to submit a public comment in support of the changes  - for example, pointing out how it will make the process more fair and transparent + having better oversight of how public funds are spent.    It is hard to argue against fairness, transparency and anti-corruption but if the CPPC and pro-BCP people wish to do so, go for it! 

Comment period closes Oct. 18th. 

Haggling over Phase 2 charge and funding

(I admit I tuned this out mostly.  It was such pointless talk since Phase I won't be funded until at least 2027.)

CPPC is still angsting over having their charge expanded to cover Phase 2.  In the past, Paolillo has been very lukewarm about expanding it and has spoken in terms that suggested he thought the CPPC had not handled Phase 1 well.   This time, he took a more political track acting as if the issue was new to him and stating that he supported expansion but that others in the Select Board were not as willing to do so.  Friedman heaped the fault specifically on Epstein.

The CPPC, Clancy and Paolillo discussed applying for CPA funds and Mass Rail to Trails grant (~$200K) for Phase 2.  The latest Mass Trails grant was rejected but they think next time it will be approved.  As to the CPA, Paolillo pointed out that he is on the CPA board which implied he would approve the funding in a NY minute.

Friedman pointed out that there is “a bunch of construction beginning on Pleasant St.” and that the "businesses and such" there must be made aware that they will have to accommodate the BCP coming through.  

Stanton stated that "in 2013 the MBTA sold a parcel along its ROW ... a piece of its former Mass Central ROW to a property owner in Moraine St. That needs to be undone in my view."   (I previously reported this as the MBTA taking instead of selling.)   I assume Stanton refers to 52 Moraine St, "developable land" currently valued at $1.15M.  Stanton proposed using the Mass Trails grant as a "bucket" of funds for the "acquisition".

In talking about CPA funds, Leino pointed out that, at this point,  they can’t ask the town for money to pay for the Phase 1 eminent domain compensations.   Leino pointed out that they need to know the actual amount based on the appraisals.  I should point out that  the town can not do the appraisals until MassDOT approves the design, according to MassDOT documents I've read.

25% design and its public presentation

Today, Clancy said that Nitsch was poised to submit by the middle of October.  So work that supposedly  would take GZA and Nitsch 4-6 weeks each to do (as per Michalak) has now been shortened to ~ 2 weeks each.  Sigh! I wonder about the wisdom of rushing engineering work that involves the RR.  I guess if we end up with a derailment, it will be us (abutters) who will kiss the train while all that town hall will say is "Oops!" at our funerals.

People complained that Nitsch - once again - had not updated the website.  Michalak had promised to do so on the 15th.  But this is such an old story!  Nitsch is very adept at doing as they please and not as the CPPC requests.

Leino wants to do the presentation after the submission.  He wants to make it clear that the “engineering plans are pretty baked” so there is no changing them unless MassDOT concludes that there is a need to do so.  A friendly MassDOT engineer explained to me years ago that MassDOT would only change plans because of issues such as design engineers overlooking the presence of buried pipes or cables. I assume that is what Leino meant.

Leino also talked about the 25%-75% design but the same friendly engineer told me this stage would deal with aesthetics (what Nitsch calls "fences types and plantings").

I spent some time tonight pulling out the audio for the Leino-Paolillo arguing about whether to have the public presentation before or after the 25% submission.   The sound bite from Leino is priceless:  he admitted that the plans are baked while, for years, they have been telling abutters to wait for 100% design and later assuring them that they should wait for the MassDOT public hearing to lodge any concerns because then the plans could still be changed. 

The other priceless sound bite is from Paolillo: the “politics in me”  - he said - was concerned about the “optics” of the event's timing.   Paolillo wanted to do the presentation before the submission:  a meeting before submission may give people the impression that their comments/opinions still counted while a meeting after submission made it clear people's opinion did not count at all. 

Paolillo ended up accepting Leino’s position.  Public presentation planned for Nov. 4th in the evening.

Leino will ask Nitsch to illustrate the plans with a lot of drawings as they did last year.   If you pay close attention to the drawings, you will notice how they play with the public’s perception by doing things such as changing the house sizes from 2 story to 3 story to ... a hut?! Or what about that tree? Right next to the house and then it scoots away!  I did not include a shot of the storm fencing which is normally shown clad in a green screen to have it blend in the background.  But we know that green screen will soon be ripped and gone and all that will stand is a bare metal fence.   (Drawings from Nitsch’s July 2020 presentation.)

 

I raised my hand and I was surprised that Leino acknowledged me within 3-4 min instead of the usual >20’ or “we don’t have time for you” brush off.  I requested that the 25% engineering plans be made digitally available to the public immediately after submission.  I also pointed out that, as they well knew,  it should be done in the town website because, if on Nitsch’s, it would never happen.  After trying to use file size as a problem with the request which I batted back pointing out the bulky size of the Pare report+appendices posted on line,  Leino agreed to do it.

If you want a sneak preview, Nitsch is slated to have a rehearsal on Oct 27th.  

Next meeting:  Oct 13th

Popular posts from this blog

Project still at 25% not 75% - how to fool the masses

SCHEDULE DELAY   I have the thread of emails and docs on this matter from MassDOT public records ( link to docs ) so my suspicions about the fact they have been stuck at 25% have been confirmed.  In addition, Nitsch engineers came before the town and admitted it  twice ( link to 3/24 SB video - Nitsch at 1 hr 30 min; for the 3/19 CPPC recording, ask CPPC Chairwoman Muson). The project is still stuck in the first step. The 25% design plan has not been approved.  Nitsch still needs to do  the Subsurface utility survey - Class B (SUE) which is essential for the sketching and structural design of the tunnel.  Hence, they don’t have a clue as how to design the tunnel at this point.  Cutting corners, they submitted plans for a 75% for the rest of the path in the absence of a 25% revised and approved plan. Wisely, MassDOT rejected it because the 25% was missing.  In their own defense, Nitsch argued that,as they saw it, the tunnel was a “minor spur” an...
Read more

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