COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.

OF THE TRIAL COURT
Case No.
18 1.517

TAXPAYERS CONCERNED FOR BALDWIN

(Kate Chuprevich, Frances Gershwin, Lisa Goldin,
Sherry Leventhal, Dale Adler, Stacey Mccarthy,
Donna Robinson, Jon Rotenberg, Elinor Ross,
Debra Teperman, and Jeffrey Wolk),

Plaintiffs,

V.

TOWN OF BROOKLINE, SELECT BOARD

OF BROOKLINE, SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF
BROOKLINE, JEANA A. FRANCONI, Finance
Director/Treasurer of Brookline, PATRICK
WARD, Town Clerk of Brookline, JONATHAN
LEVI ARCHITECTS LLC, KENNETH AND
ROBIN LEVINE, JONATHAN AND ADRIENE
WAKS, and FUMITO AND JORIKO
ICHINOSE,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Introduction

1. This action is brought to redress unlawful expenditures and violations of the Open

Meeting Law by certain elected officials seeking to build a ninth elementary school in Brookline,

Massachusetts ("Brookline" or the "Town"). Some time ago, Brookline decided that increases in

its student population required more capacity in its public schools. Brookline's efforts to address

its student population have been marked by repeated failures of its Select Board and School

Committee ("Town Defendants") to conduct adequate due diligence before wasting Town

35814833.1
resources on impossible plans. Although they claim that a ninth school is needed immediately,

the Town Defendants and Defendant Jonathan Levi Architects LLC ("JLA") have wasted years

and more than a million dollars pursuing plans that were never feasible. They are now

threatening to waste another $1.5 million for the "schematic design" of a school that can never

be built because of legal impediments to the project, dangerous conditions for children and

teachers, inadequate parking, and intractable traffic constraints recognized even by their own

consultant and expressed repeatedly by neighborhood residents in numerous community forums.

2. Brookline Bylaw Section 3.7 controls the process for the development of new

Town buildings. It requires due diligence to determine that large capital projects are feasible

before Town resources are spent on expensive schematic designs and construction drawings.

Section 3.7 also requires oversight by specific institutions and elected bodies to ensure that

capital projects can be funded, financed, and comport with applicable laws, bylaws, and

regulations. As Town officials have admitted, the Town Defendants have ignored the Section

3.7 process, no doubt because their current plans for a ninth school are not feasible and do not

meet minimum standards of fiscal responsibility, legal due diligence, zoning, and land use.

3. In November 2017, after years of ineffective efforts by the Town Defendants that

are described below, Brookline's town meeting appropriated funds to renew the effort to identify

options for a ninth elementary school. New consultants were retained, eight properties with

thirteen alternative configurations were identified, and traffic, costs, and the prospects for each

were evaluated. While paying lip service to that process, however, the Town Defendants

developed a secret plan for a school that, in the words of an oversight body, was "neither

investigated nor evaluated by [the retained consultants] nor previously discussed in ... public

forums." The Town Defendants' new scheme, labeled "Baldwin North," thus violated the Open

-2-
35814833.1
Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A. §§18-25, and circumvented the legally required process. As a

result, the Town Defendants ignored fiscal controls that require Brookline officials to properly

define projects and obtain professional cost estimates before wasting scarce Town resources.

4. The ongoing waste of Town resources is especially troubling given Brookline's

overall financial condition. According to a 2017 report by Brookline's Override Study

Committee, "Brookline is experiencing a long-term mismatch between expenses and revenue."

As a result, Brookline has a "structural deficit" that to date the Town has not been able to

overcome. Brookline is already borrowing money through Proposition 21/2 overrides to fund

operating deficiencies, and the Town Defendants' further waste of Town resources will require

additional overrides that threaten the Town's fiscal health.

5. The Town Defendants and JLA have spent years pushing for a new school at 490

Heath Street, a short distance from the busiest intersection in Town. Currently, that site includes

Baldwin Park, which is protected under federal and state law, and an adjacent 1.5 acre site with a

small historic building now used for staff daycare and a few high school special classes

("Baldwin North"). The Town Defendants and JLA are threatening to spend $1.5 million

designing a school at Baldwin North even though they fully understand, and are willfully

ignoring, the myriad of problems that make such a school impossible. Those problems include

the following:

• The increase in traffic will not work. Baldwin North is located in one of
Brookline's worst traffic areas, where few students live within walking distance. The
Town Defendants' own traffic consultant has repeatedly said that Baldwin North is
not feasible from a traffic perspective. Since September 2016, the Town Defendants
have offered false and misleading information to the public to obscure the
consultant's findings. The School Committee now admits that the traffic would be a
disaster and that student drop-off simply will not work, as it acknowledged that it will

-3-
35814833.1
 have to take the extraordinary step of starting a school day at a Baldwin North school
earlier than every other school in the district in order to try to mitigate the traffic
issues. Such a plan would mean that students who get redistricted to Baldwin North
will need to wake up as much as an hour earlier than other students in order to get to
school on time.

• The Town Defendants have not secured necessary outdoor space for recess and
physical education. All elementary schools require outdoor space for recess,
physical education, and other educational needs, but the land at Baldwin North is so
small there will be no outdoor space. Instead, the Town Defendants and JLA intend
to use Baldwin Park. That park, however, is subject to restrictions that will prohibit
such use under both Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution
and a Land and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF") grant by the National Park
Service ("NPS"). In 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court held in Smith v. City Of
Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017), that a park in an identical situation cannot be used for
a school in view of Article 97. To permit such use, Brookline must obtain a
supermajority vote by the Legislature approving the use and satisfy other stringent
requirements of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
("EOEEA"). Also in 2017, the National Park Service, which enforces the LWCF
restrictions that apply to Baldwin Park, rejected the Town Defendants' claim that
only a small portion of Baldwin Park is subject to that restriction. The Town has not
received any assurance from NPS that it can use Baldwin Park for planned recess and
related school uses. Nonetheless, the Town Defendants are simply assuming away
any legal restraints on using Baldwin Park. Only final court rulings after federal and
state administrative processes can permit Brookline to use the Park for educational
purposes. Given these known problems, the 2017 Town Meeting required the Town
Defendants to obtain an opinion of counsel before further significant money is spent
on the Baldwin site. The Town Defendants recently received some type of counsel
opinion but have refused to disclose it or related communications, despite public
records requests. Nonetheless, the Town Defendants are seeking to have taxpayers
spend $1.5 million on the design of a building without any assurance of its legal or
practical feasibility.

-4-
35814833,1
 • Baldwin North has no capacity to drop off and pick up the children. Even with
false and misleading estimates about traffic, cars, and buses, the Town Defendants'
own traffic engineer admits there is insufficient capacity on the site to safely drop-off
and pick up students. To mitigate this problem, he recommends starting school thirty
minutes earlier. A 7:30 a.m. start, however, still does not solve the dangers of drop-
off and pick-up at the site. It also means children who are bused or driven to school
could be forced to wake up as early as 6:00 a.m., which among other problems is
inconsistent with the scientific consensus on student health, will disrupt after-school
activities, and violates the current union contract with Brookline's teachers.
Moreover, the Town Defendants have refused for more than two years to create a
redistricting plan for the proposed Baldwin North, intentionally hiding this potentially
divisive issue so voters will not know which children will be affected by this early
start time and the need to travel to a school likely located further from their home
than the school they now attend.

• The Town Defendants and JLA have no plan for parking. The only Baldwin
North plan evaluated under the prior study process required by the Town Meeting
showed all parking below ground and on site. However, once the Town Defendants
selected Baldwin North for further study in June 2018, they ignored Section 3.7 and
the process required by the Town Meeting and simply posited that underground
parking is too expensive to build (although some believe they are hiding geologic or
other issues that make underground parking wholly impractical). The Town
Defendants have recently announced a deal to pay the equivalent of $225,000 per
parking space for three adjacent townhouses (the "Oak Street Properties") that they
may use for 20 parking spaces. With or without those 20 spaces, the Town
Defendants and JLA have no plan for full staff parking, let alone for parents to park
when they walk 4 and 5-year-old children into school.

• The Transportation Board has no authority to permit on-street parking when

on-site parking is feasible. The Town Defendants have applied to the
Transportation Board for on-street parking permits. However, under the existing
Parking Permit Regulations, before receiving any on-street parking permits, the

-5-
35814833.1
 School Department must exhaust "all reasonable efforts to limit the demand for on
street parking spaces ... by creating as many off-street parking spaces as feasible on
the school property." Given prior plans for underground parking, the Town
Defendants and JLA have acknowledged that it is feasible to address on site all
parking needs for a school at Baldwin (although cost is a factor), and thus they have
no right to the permits they seek for on-street parking.

• Traffic mitigation proposals are not feasible. Recognizing that Baldwin North is
the worst location from a traffic perspective, the Town Defendants' traffic consultant
proposed a variety of "mitigation" devices to address traffic and queuing issues (in
addition to making the children get up as early as 6 a.m. for an earlier start time). The
traffic mitigation includes building sidewalks that will make narrow streets
impassible to emergency vehicles. New sidewalks, moreover, will require takings by
eminent domain for which there has been no planning, budget, or evaluation of the
necessary contested proceedings before the Transportation Board and other town
agencies (likely followed by judicial review). The plan also requires expanding Oak
Street, a road that accesses Baldwin North and Baldwin Park. But Oak Street is a
private way, and Brookline has no authority to expand it or overburden the easement
associated with a private way easement. (The Town Defendants apparently are not
planning to acquire all of the properties with rights related to that private way, so their
more limited planned acquisition does not allow the proposed expansion of Oak
Street.)

• The purchase of the Oak Street Properties is the epitome of fiscal

irresponsibility. The Town Defendants have announced they have agreed to pay
$4.7 million for 8,209 square feet of land. They intend to demolish the existing
structures so their proposed purchase is the equivalent of $25 million per acre (plus
the costs of demolition) for vacant land. There is no support for such a valuation in
Brookline. The true reason for acquiring properties abutting Oak Street appears to be
that they failed to understand earlier that Oak Street is a private road, which the Town

-6-
35814833.1
 cannot change or overburden with a new school.' Publicly, though, the Town
Defendants claim they want to purchase the Oak Street Properties for various (albeit
conflicting) potential uses — parking, outdoor play space, additional classrooms, or the
drop-off and pick-up of students that will not work on the small Baldwin North site —
but they have no real idea what the land will be used for at this time. As parking, the
cost of land amounts to $225,000 per space — almost $50,000 more per space than
what the Town Defendants estimated for underground parking on the site. That the
Town Defendants would pursue such a fiscally irresponsible path reflects decision-
making that is out of control and that has lost all sense of fiscal reason and
responsibility.

• Purchasing the Oak Street Properties is not a panacea for Baldwin North's
problems. Since the selection of Baldwin North for a "feasibility study" in June
2018, the Town Defendants and JLA have refused to engage in a true "feasibility
study" and have simply asserted, despite contrary evidence, that building a school at
Baldwin North is feasible. On October 26, 2018, without even an updated traffic
study in hand, Select Board Chairman Wishinsky announced that the Town
negotiated the purchase of the Oak Street Properties, which his press release said will
"permit consideration of different types of school designs, on-site parking, or play
space in addition to the Baldwin playground...." Since then, the Town Defendants
have speculated that the one-sixth of an acre can be used to solve various
impediments to a school, be they the absence of a parking plan, the inability to use
Baldwin Park for school purposes, or the lack of adequate space to drop off and pick
up children. Even if the one-sixth of an acre available after acquiring and razing the
Oak Street Properties is used to address one of those issues, it is not available to
address the others, let alone the significant traffic and safety issues, and the project
remains infeasible.

1 The Town Defendants' lack of due diligence is astonishing. Although they have been studying the prospects for
building a school at the Baldwin sites for almost three years, they have been so hell-bent on building a school that,
until recently, they were wholly unware that "Oak Street," the only road onto the site that is essential to their plans,
is a private way. As a private way, Brookline cannot expand the road, as required by their plans, or use it for the
vastly increased traffic associated with a school at Baldwin, as such an expansion would overburden any easement
held by abutters.

-7-
35814833.1
 6. Worse of all, the Town Defendants and School Department are ignoring the latest

enrolment, population, development, and other data that shows there may no longer be a need for

a ninth school.

7. If the Town Defendants have their way, the Select Board and School Committee

will waste another $1.5 million on the schematic design of a school that is not feasible and

cannot meet the needs for which the school is supposedly being developed. The Plaintiff

residents of Brookline are thus seeking permanent injunctive, declaratory, and other relief to

ensure that the Town Defendants and JLA comply with requirements antecedent to spending as

set forth in the Town's Bylaws, refrain from further action that violates the Open Meeting Law,

and comply with public records requests that will provide voters with information necessary to

the democratic process.

The Plaintiffs

8. The plaintiffs are all Brookline citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters

concerned about the Town Defendant's conduct related to the development of a ninth school at

the Baldwin North site. Referred to below as the "Plaintiffs," they are as follows.

9. Plaintiff Kate Chuprevich is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 72 Pine Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

10. Plaintiff Frances Gershwin is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 12 Glenoe Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

11. Plaintiff Lisa Goldin is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of Brookline who

resides at 49 Woodland Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

12. Plaintiff Sherry Leventhal is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 18 Pine Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

-8-
35814833.1
 13. Plaintiff Dale Adler is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of Brookline who

resides at 54 Heath Hill Street, Brookline, Massachusetts.

14. Plaintiff Stacey McCarthy is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 40 Glenoe Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

15. Plaintiff Donna Robinson is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 19 Pine Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

16. Plaintiff Elinor Ross is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of Brookline who

resides at 39 Glenoe Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

17. Plaintiff Jon Rotenberg is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of Brookline

who resides at 476 Heath Street, Brookline, Massachusetts.

18. Plaintiff Debra Teperman is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of

Brookline who resides at 33 Woodland Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

19. Plaintiff Jeffrey Wolk is a resident, taxpayer, and registered voter of Brookline

who resides at 45 Woodland Road, Brookline, Massachusetts.

The Defendants

20. Defendant Brookline is a town within the meaning of the general laws of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, M.G.L. c. 40, §53, and M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18-25.

21. Defendant Select Board is the governmental body of Brookline that is empowered

to exercise general supervision over all matters affecting the general and financial interest and

welfare of the town. It has five elected members.

22. Defendant School Committee is the governmental body of Brookline that has

general supervision over all matters affecting the general and financial interests of the Brookline

school district. It has nine elected members.

-9-
35814833.1
 23. Defendant Jeana A. Franconi is the Finance Director/Treasurer of Brookline

("Treasurer"). She is named as a defendant solely in her capacity as the Director/Treasurer, who

in Brookline is responsible for the billing, collecting, and investing of all Town funds and

administers the disbursement of all warrants for payment to vendors, Town employees, and other

obligees of the Town.

24. Defendant Patrick Ward is the Town Clerk of Brookline. He is named as a

defendant solely in his capacity as the Town Clerk. In Brookline, the Town Clerk is the Records

Access Officer for public records requests pursuant to 950 CMR 32.04.

25. Defendant Jonathan Levi Architects LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability

corporation that provides architectural and other services. It has been retained as a consultant by

Brookline and its School Department pursuant to Section 3.7 of Brookline's Bylaws. JLA is

named as a party to provide it with notice and opportunity to be heard on the issues affecting it in

this matter.

26. Kenneth and Robin Levine are individuals who reside at 15 Oak Street, Brookline

Massachusetts. They are named as defendants only so they have notice and an opportunity to be

heard in connection with the claim that the acquisition of their property by Brookline constitutes

an unlawful expenditure by the Town and should not go forward. They are joined as parties

because in their absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, they

have an interest relating to the subject of the action and are so situated that the disposition of the

action in their abscncc may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protcct that

interest, and failure to join them as defendants may leave entities already parties subject to a

substantial risk of inconsistent obligations by reason of their interests.

27. Jonathan and Adriene Waks are individuals who reside at 17 Oak Street,

-1 0 -

35814833.1
Brookline Massachusetts. They are named as defendants only so they have notice and an

opportunity to be heard in connection with the claim that the acquisition of the property by

Brookline constitutes an unlawful expenditure by the Town and should not go forward. They are

joined as parties because in their absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those

already parties, they have an interest relating to the subject of the action and are so situated that

the disposition of the action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their

ability to protect that interest, and failure to join them as defendants may leave entities already

parties subject to a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations by reason of their interests.

28. Fumito and Joriko Ichinose are individuals who reside at 19 Oak Street, Brookline

Massachusetts. They are named as defendants only so they have notice and an opportunity to be

heard in connection with the claim that the acquisition of the property by Brookline constitutes

an unlawful expenditure by the Town and should not go forward. They are joined as parties

because in their absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, they

have an interest relating to the subject of the action and are so situated that the disposition of the

action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect that

interest, and failure to join them as defendants may leave entities already parties subject to a

substantial risk of inconsistent obligations by reason of their interests.

Jurisdiction and Standing

29. Under M.G.L. c. 40, § 53, the Superior Court has jurisdiction in equity to

determine whether towns and school districts are expending money or incurring obligations in a

manner inconsistent with the law or the Massachusetts Constitution. A petition can be brought

under Section 53 by ten taxable inhabitants of a town. In this action, the ten Plaintiffs are taxable

inhabitants of Brookline seeking relief under Section 53.

35814833.1
 30. Under M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18-25, the Open Meeting Law, all deliberations by a

public body with respect to any matter within the body's jurisdiction must be duly noticed and

open to the public. Three or more registered voters may initiate a civil action in the Superior

Court to enforce the Open Meeting Law. M.G.L. c. 30A, § 23. Among other things, the Court

has jurisdiction and authority to nullify in whole or in part any action taken at a meeting of a

public body conducted in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The Plaintiffs are registered

voters residing in Brookline and thus have standing under the Open Meeting Law to bring this

action.

31. The Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231A, § 1 et

seq. as an actual controversy between the parties has arisen as set forth below.

Facts Common To All Counts

The Section 3.7 Process

32. Since 2005, Brookline has experienced enrollment growth in its public schools,

most notably in neighborhoods of North Brookline and surrounding the Baker School in South

Brookline. Nearly 60 classrooms have been added to address the expanding school population

by building new classrooms, renting space in privately-owned buildings, adding modular

classrooms, and creating new classrooms from existing spaces within Brookline's eight K-8

schools. By 2014, the School Committee decided that Brookline needed a ninth elementary

school to address an alleged upcoming population bubble. Although more recent figures and

projections undermine that conclusion, the Town Defendants have refused to update their

conclusions.

33. Section 3.7 of Brookline's Bylaws provides detailed processes that govern the

construction, alteration, and repair of town buildings. For small projects, the "using agency" and

-12-
35814833.1
Brookline's Building Commission may, with the Select Board's consent, proceed outside the

Section 3.7 process. There is no basis to exclude Baldwin North from Section 3.7 and no request

to do so has been made. Therefore, with the proposed ninth elementary school at issue here, the

Building Commission, Select Board, and School Department — i.e., the "using agency" — elected

to proceed under Section 3.7. As a result of that election, the School Department and the Town

Defendants are required by law to follow these procedures in Section 3.7:

a. In what Section 3.7 calls "Step 1," "The Using Agency shall formulate a program

in writing for the facility which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the

function and needs which it is designed to fulfill, expanded services, auxiliary

public use, additional personnel required to maintain the facility, annual

maintenance costs, expected hours of the facility's availability, environmental and

sustainability goals and objectives, and overall effect on the town all as

appropriate for the project's scope and budget." As discussed further below,

despite attempting to develop a ninth school in Brookline for more than four

years, neither the School Department nor the Town Defendants have ever

complied with this provision of Section 3.7. They never formulated a "program

in writing" that includes the function or needs a ninth school is intended to fulfill,

the additional personnel required to maintain the facility, or annual maintenance

costs. Their failure is especially egregious with their current plan to build a

school on the 1.5 acre site they call "Baldwin North."

b. In what Section 3.7 calls "Step 2," "The Using Agency shall request that the town

meeting appropriate funds for the purpose of compensating a consultant for the

preparation of a feasibility study for the project, schematic design studies for the

-13-
35814833.1
 project, a cost estimate for the project (including life-cycle costs), and any special

studies which the Commission and the Using Agency jointly recommend." As

with "Step 1," neither the School Department nor the Town Defendants have in

connection with development of a ninth school ever complied with this provision

of Section 3.7, as they have never done a real feasibility study or cost estimate

that included life cycle and various other costs. They intentionally refused to

conduct a true feasibility study on earlier plans, as well as on the current plan.

c. In what Section 3.7 calls "Step 3," a committee is designated to select a consultant

who will conduct the feasibility study and, if that feasibility study is approved by

various agencies and the Town Meeting, then to undertake "schematic design." In

2016, Brookline entered into a contract with JLA to conduct a "Site Study" and a

"Feasibility Study." As discussed below, JLA never conducted a real feasibility

study, because after a flawed — and rigged — site selection processes, JLA simply

assumed the sites were "feasible" and ignored numerous obvious reasons,

including the findings of the traffic consultant it hired, that a school could not be

built on those sites. The Town Defendants and JLA continue to ignore their

obligation to conduct a true feasibility study related to Baldwin North.

d. After the retention of a consultant, Section 3.7 divides a project into three phases:

(1) the project feasibility study and design; (2) the development of construction

drawings sufficient to obtain bids from contractors; and (3) the administration of

the construction contract. The process requires that the Town Meeting approve

the feasibility study and site selection before the project moves forward into

schematic design.

-14-
35814833.1
 34. Bylaw Section 3.7.2(a) also requires that the "program in writing" include

"environmental and sustainability goals and objectives," which under the Bylaw include "site

selection, energy efficiency ... and other environmental and health factors ...." Under Section

3.7.2(b), the "consultant" retained to do the "feasibility study" must "consider the investigation,

cost-benefit analysis, and recommendation of appropriate options that address the environmental

and sustainability goals and objectives outlined in [Step 1]." The Town Defendants and JLA

have repeatedly ignored these requirements when dealing with the Baldwin sites. For example:

• Brookline has a long-term commitment to "walkable" schools, which affects

siting, but the Town Defendants and JLA ignored that policy while promoting a

ninth school first on the Baldwin/Soule Site and then on Baldwin North. There

are few children in the Baldwin neighborhood that could attend a Baldwin school,

so almost all students would be driven or bussed to the site, exacerbating existing

traffic and pollution and adversely impacting environmental and sustainability

goals of the Town. Worse, the Town Defendants and JLA even ignored the

requirements of Section 3.7 to consider environmental factors when siting a

school.

• Similarly, the Town Defendants and JLA have done everything they can to hide,

let alone openly discuss, where children going to a ninth school at Baldwin will

be coming from. The Town Defendants and JLA admit that 90% of the children

going to a school at Baldwin must be driven or bussed there. However, the

relocation of so many students from other districts will require mass redistricting

among districts, even for students not attending a school at Baldwin. As

discussed further below, the Town Defendants and JLA suppressed inquiries into

-15-
35814833.1
 these areas because they did not want any dialogue about the impacts of their site

selection until it is a fait accompli.

The Town Defendants' Lack Of Due Diligence and Failure to Comply with
Section 3.7 in Connection with the Previously Pursued Baldwin/Soule Site

35. The Town Defendants' refusal to comply with Section 3.7 goes back almost three

years. In 2015, a different consultant identified 26 potential sites for a ninth elementary school.

Of those sites, the consultant recommended six for further study. There were various grounds

given for rejecting sites, which included legal restrictions on certain of the properties. Two

notable restrictions were Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution

("Article 97") and limitations imposed by state and federal agencies in connection with grants

from the NPS' Land and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF") and the Commonwealth's

program for "Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities" ("PARC").

36. Article 97, approved by the Legislature and ratified by the voters in 1972,

provides that "[1]ands and easements taken or acquired" for conservation and certain other

purposes "shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of" except by a law

approved by two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Article 97 was the product of increasing concern

among legislators and citizens that conservation and recreation land was threatened by state and

municipal needs for other purposes. The consequence of Article 97's ratification was that "plain

and explicit legislation authorizing the diversion" of public parkland under the prior public use

doctrine, which previously could be enacted by a bare majority of the Legislature, now required

a law enacted with a two-thirds vote of each branch. In addition, as a prerequisite to the

governor's signature on such a bill, a municipality seeking to use Article 97 land must comply

with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Article 97 Land Disposition

Policy, which is so onerous that Article 97 land is almost untouchable.

-16-
35814833 1
 37. The LWCF is a federal program enacted by Congress in 1965 to provide funds to

safeguard natural areas, water resources, and recreational opportunities for Americans. The fund

is authorized by 54 U.S.C.A. § 200301 et seq., and governed by associated regulations set forth

in 36 C.F.R. § 59.1 et seq. The LWCF Act provides that the "Secretary [of Interior acting

through the Director of the National Park Service] may provide financial assistance for a project

for development of basic outdoor recreation facilities ...." Any development accepting such

assistance cannot be converted to another use except by an arduous process.

38. The preservation of park and recreation land is also a concern of Brookline and its

Park and Recreation Commission ("Park Commission"), which is the policy-making board with

jurisdiction over all town parks and recreation facilities. In December 2015, with the search for a

ninth school site underway, the Park Commission was concerned about the diversion of park

land to school uses. On December 14, 2015, all members of the Park Commission delivered a

statement of policy to the Town Defendants ("Park's Position Statement"), which stated the

following:

The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously opposes the construction of

any school building on public parkland and has significant concerns over shared
use of these spaces for school playground use. We are concerned about sharing or
transferring parkland to school ground use because parks are public amenities that
are open daily from dawn until dusk to everyone. School grounds restrict use,
understandably, for most of the day and year. This challenge is exemplified by the
fact that a Moderator's Committee is currently being established to review the
need for and possibility of acquisition of open space in Precinct 16. The Baker
School, located in the middle of the precinct, is considered inadequate open space
for the neighborhood because it is usually restricted for school use. We oppose
transferring parkland to school building development or use because we require
additional parkland to accommodate the community's needs today, let alone
future needs. As the demand for school space increases so too does the need for
parks and open spaces for every age and ability.

A copy of the Park Position Statement is attached hereto as "Exhibit 1."

39. On January 21, 2016, Brookline's Town Counsel wrote a memorandum that

-17-
35814833.1
discussed four sites under consideration for a ninth school and how those sites are restricted by

Article 97 and LWCF grants. A copy of the Town Counsel memorandum is attached hereto as

"Exhibit 2." Town Counsel's memorandum has always been part of the public record and

established a precedent that, with the ninth school development, Brookline would be transparent

and open concerning the legal advice it was receiving on issues of land use. According to Town

Counsel's memorandum, the restricted sites included Baldwin Park, which the Town website

describes as a pastoral 1.4 acres of rolling topography and mature oaks over an expansive lawn.

The memorandum stated that the Baldwin Park property is subject to Article 97 and restricted

because of an LWCF grant used to improve the park. The memorandum also identified the

adjacent Soule Recreation Center ("Soule") as a site restricted by Article 97 and a LWCF grant.

40. On September 6, 2016, Brookline's School Superintendent and its Town

Administrator wrote a Memorandum to the Town Defendants entitled "Summary Update - Sites

Not Included For Consideration For The 9th Elementary School." A copy of that memorandum

is attached hereto as "Exhibit 3." The memorandum explained why eight locations were being

removed from the list of possible sites for a ninth school. According to the memorandum, Larz

Anderson Park was removed from consideration because of its LWCF grant. A site called

"Putterham Meadows" was removed because it is subject to Article 97. At various times, the

Select Board and School Committee have rejected various other sites because of their Article 97

status, including a wooded area near Putterham Golf Course, Amory Playground, Dane Park, and

Skyline Park. The memorandum did not discuss why those impediments did not likewise affect

the Baldwin sites, which have both LWCF and Article 97 issues.

41. By September 2016, three sites remained for further review: (1) a new school to

be built on the site of the Old Baldwin School and Baldwin Park, with parking, recess, physical

-18-
35814833.1
education, and other educational uses on Soule (the "Baldwin/Soule Site"); (2) a property on

Harvard Street owned by Stop & Shop ("Stop & Shop Site"); and (3) the Baker School in South

Brookline.

42. The Baldwin/Soule Site (which encompasses the smaller site Town Defendants

and JLA now call "Baldwin North") was problematic for many reasons. For years Brookline has

been committed to walkable schools. There are few students in the neighborhood of the

Baldwin/Soule Site, and the Town Defendants later estimated fewer than 10% of the students at a

Baldwin/Soule school would walk. Also, all of the existing and projected growth in the student

population came from the northern part of Brookline or the area served by the Baker School.

The Baldwin/Soule Site is also a short distance from the intersection of Hammond Street and

Route 9, the busiest intersection in town, and would add hundreds of cars to rush hour traffic,

which would threaten gridlock. The lack of students from the neighborhood exacerbates the

traffic and safety problems, as almost all students at a school on the Baldwin/Soule Site would

have to be bussed or driven. The lack of students and the need to transport students by bus and

car is also inconsistent with Brookline's stated strong policy of reducing carbon emissions to

become "net neutral." Most problematic was that Baldwin Park and Soule are restricted by

Article 97 and the LWCF grants accepted by the Town and, as concluded by the Town's traffic

consultant, the area could not accommodate the increased traffic a school would create.

43. The Stop & Shop Site would have required an eminent domain process to take

needed land, sharing of access with the existing store, and cooperation with merchants that was

not guaranteed. JLA concluded that "the complexity of site acquisitions with their attendant

legal and cost uncertainties along with the potential for hazard materials roadblocks" made that

site the least predictable in terms of complying with the Town's "desired delivery timeline."

-19-
35814833.1
 44. The Baker School is located in South Brookline and has ample unused land to

either expand its existing building or to expand capacity with another building. The Baker

School property is not subject to any restriction that prevents expansion. All previous and

projected student population growth in South Brookline is near the Baker School, and much of

projected growth comes from a development adjacent to the school. As a result, JLA

summarized the Baker School option as follows:

[T]he major benefit of the use of the Baker site is the predictability of the process
leading to the construction of a new school - with the likelihood that a project can
be conducted, with reasonable certainty, within the town's preferred timeline.
With the partial exception of the Conservation Commission review, this is due to
all major development factors being within Town control. Traffic is also an
advantage of the site as its large size easily accommodates all necessary queuing
and parking off street, not only for the new school, but to improve the existing
traffic problems caused by the existing school.

45. On August 28, 2016, Ben Lummis, the School Department's Special Assistant for

Strategy & Performance, sent an email to Carolyn Thall, then a leader of the Baker PTO who

served with Julie Schreiner-Oldham on the Baker PTO executive committee. Lummis's email

encouraged the Baker PTO and Baker School parents to get involved in the site selection

process. The Baker School has a large and vocal PTO.

46. At the time of the Lummis email, Schreiner-Oldham was Co-President of the

Baker PTO and on its Executive Board. After that email, Schreiner-Oldham and other members

of the Executive Board aggressively lobbied the School Committee and Select Board against the

selection of Baker School. Promoting the selection of Baldwin was seen as the best way to keep

the Baker site from being selected for a new (or expanded) school. On September 22, 2016,

Thall delivered a petition entitled "No Second School at Baker, We support Baldwin." A copy of

the petition is attached hereto as "Exhibit 4." The petition was signed by more than 200 Baker

School parents. Since 2016, Schreiner-Oldham has been a zealous advocate of expanding school

-20-
35814833.1
capacity anywhere besides Baker, which her own children attend. She has moved from being

Co-President of the Baker PTO to being Vice-Chairman of the School Committee and now, to

further her agenda, is also the Co-Chairman of the recently created (and misleadingly named)

"Baldwin Expansion Building Committee".

47. In contrast to the Baker School, the Baldwin neighborhood had no local school,

and thus no local PTO to advance its residents' concerns and distribute information about the

process. As a result, there was little input from the Baldwin neighborhood on the existing traffic

problems or on any of the other reasons that a school on the Baldwin/Soule Site was not feasible

before the October 2016 site selection.

Town Officials Manipulate and Withhold Information on the

Baldwin/Soule Site's Traffic Issues

48. In connection with its 2016 "study" of potential sites for a ninth K-8 school, JLA

retained a subcontractor, Vanasse & Associates ("Vanasse"), as a traffic consultant. JLA, Select

Board Chairman Neil Wishinsky, and certain other people within Brookline became aware that

Vanasse concluded that an 800-student school at the Baldwin/Soule Site was not feasible from a

traffic perspective. Just a week after the Baker PTO petition, Vanasse was asked if a smaller

school was feasible on the Baldwin/Soule Site. On September 29, 2016, Vanasse delivered a

memorandum stating, "We strongly recommend against this site for an elementary school even

downsized, due to the existing traffic conditions along Hammond Street." Specifically, the

memorandum stated:

As a follow-up to our September 22, 2016 joint public meeting with the Board of
Selectmen and School Committee, I want to clarify my recommendation with respect to
the Baldwin site. Our rating recommendation presented in the evaluation matrix was very
disadvantageous, which is the lowest rating of any of the three sites. This rating was
based upon my observation of traffic in the area, traffic counts conducted, and expertise
developed from having worked on numerous traffic studies in the area. Hammond Street
accommodates over 1,000 vehicles during the peak periods and the Route 9/Hammond
Street traffic signal is state-controlled with a priority to Route 9 traffic flow. As such,

-21-
35814833.1
 during peak travel periods, lengthy vehicle queues on Hammond Street occur on a regular
basis. A new elementary school at 800 students or downsized to 400 students cannot
be accommodated with traffic inevitably required to utilize Hammond Street to
enter or exit a potential new school. A new school could generate between 200-400
peak hour trips and there is not available capacity to accommodate such an increase.
Consistent with our initial evaluation, we strongly recommend against this site for
an elementary school even downsized, due to the existing traffic conditions along
Hammond Street. (emphasis added.)

A copy of the September 29 Vanasse memorandum is attached hereto as "Exhibit 5."

49. The September 29, 2016 Vanasse memo was never provided to the full Select

Board or the full School Committee, either before they voted on site selection or since that vote,

because Select Board Chairman Wishinsky directed Town employees to "hold the memo." A

copy of the email about Wishinsky's instruction to "hold the memo" is attached hereto as

"Exhibit 6." (It was obtained through a public records request.)

50. Chairman Wishinsky then led an effort to obscure from the public that Vanasse

determined the Baldwin/Soule Site was not a feasible site. As a smoke screen, the Town

Defendants advanced an unworkable idea that a local street, Woodland Road, be converted to a

two-way street even though the conditions along that road are so dangerous that it was already

the subject of a "traffic calming" program by the Town. Approximately a week before JLA

issued its final "Site Selection Report," the draft report stated the following as to the

Baldwin/Soule Site:

The available area for locating a building is limited, but this limitation can be
overcome by development of subgrade spaces and removing vehicle circulation and
parking to the adjacent recreational parcel. However, regardless of measures to
consider reducing the building's population and reconfiguring local roadway
circulation patterns, it is the opinion of the team's traffic consultant that
neighborhood traffic would be unacceptably adversely affected.

Draft Site Selection Report, p. 43 (emphasis added). A copy of the relevant pages of the Draft

Site Selection report is attached hereto as "Exhibit 7." The final report was modified by

removing the word "unacceptably" to read as follows:

-22-
35814833.1
 However, regardless of measures to consider reducing the building's population
and reconfiguring local roadway circulation patterns, it is the opinion of the team's
traffic consultant that neighborhood traffic would be adversely affected. Please
see Traffic memo in the appendix.

Final Site Selection Report, p. (emphasis added). A copy of the relevant pages of the final

report is attached hereto as "Exhibit 8."

51. The "Traffic Memo" was then rewritten to add a paragraph to the September 29,

2016 Vanasse Memo. In the new memo, Vanasse stated that access to the Baldwin/Soule Site

was "not workable from a traffic perspective," but with Woodland Road converted to a two-way

street the site would only be "disadvantaged." A copy of the revised traffic memo is attached

hereto as "Exhibit 9." In reality, there was never any realistic plan to convert Woodland Road.

(No such plan is part of the later created Baldwin North plan either.)

52. In summary, after receipt of the Baker PTO petition, the Town Defendants and

JLA covered up the traffic consultant's initial, unfavorable findings that the Baldwin/Soule Site

was not feasible, both by secreting the September 29th Vanasse memo and by creating a two-

way Woodland Road scenario that was never feasible and never pursued once the Baldwin/Soule

Site was selected.

The Flawed (And Likely Rigged) Site Selection

53. On October 13, 2016, there was a joint meeting of the School Committee and

Select Board to select one or more sites for what should have been the "feasibility study" of the

Section 3.7 process. The full School Committee and Select Board were not told that the

September 29th Vanasse Memo had "strongly recommend[ed] against this site" and had

concluded that neighborhood traffic would be "unacceptably" adversely affected. The altered

Site Selection Report provided to the public, the School Committee, and the Select Board in

advance of the meeting instead included the modified Vanasse memo that postulated a two-way

-23-
35814833.1
Woodland Road never intended as a real alternative.

54. Moreover, it appears from documents produced in response to public records

requests that Chairman Wishinsky and Susan Wolf Ditkoff, then Chairperson of the School

Committee, created a script for the meeting that essentially pre-ordained the result. Specifically,

in an exchange of emails on October 12, 2016, they agreed that the Stop & Shop Site would first

be the subject of an up or down vote; then there would be a "final discussion of Baker and

Baldwin" — a sequence that presumed a pre-meeting agreement that the Stop & Shop Site would

be voted down. A copy of the Wishinsky-Ditkoff email exchange on October 12 is attached

hereto as "Exhibit 10."

55. Following the script, the October 13, 2016 joint meeting devolved in a bizarre

sequence of votes without precedent in Brookline. Voting on site selection was not conducted

pursuant to any law, rule, or bylaw. The School Committee and Select Board first voted on the

three sites, and the result was five votes for Baker School, five votes for the Stop & Shop Site,

and only three votes for the Baldwin/Soule Site. Instead of removing the Baldwin/Soule Site

from consideration and proceeding to further consider Baker and Stop & Shop, the Schreiner-

Oldham, Thall, and Baker PTO influence became apparent. Consistent with the script developed

by Chairman Wishinsky and Chairperson Ditkoff the day before, there followed a vote on

"removing" the Stop & Shop Site — although tied with Baker as the selected site -- from

consideration. The committees split on removing that site, with four members of the School

Committee voted for removal and five voted against it, while the Select Board voted for removal.

The School Committee and Select Board thus did not agree on whether the Stop & Shop Site

would remain under consideration. Nonetheless, it was treated as though the Stop & Shop site

had been removed from further consideration. On the next vote, the School Committee voted in

-24-
35814833.1
favor of the Baldwin/Soule Site, while the Select Board voted in favor of the Baker School

expansion. Then, even though the School Committee had voted to continue consideration of the

Stop & Shop Site, members of the Select Board announced they would change their vote to

support the Baldwin/Soule Site, and the two agencies ended the proceedings with no explanation

of what rules governed or what had just happened.

Defendants Push Forward While Ignoring Section 3.7, With No Concern That
the Baldwin/Soule Site is Not a Feasible Site For A Ninth School

56. After the bizarre voting process, the Town Defendants announced they would

pursue further study of the feasibility of the Baldwin/Soule Site under Bylaw 3.7. However, they

then ignored the Section 3.7 process completely. First, they created a "building committee" for a

proposed ninth school which was to supervise JLA's work on the "feasibility study." There is no

part of the Section 3.7 process that delegates authority to a "building committee," and there is no

mention of such a "building committee" anywhere in Brookline's bylaws. In addition to

delegating power to a body not authorized by any law or bylaw, the "9th School Building

Committee" (the "First Building Committee") and JLA from the outset made clear they had no

intention of complying with the rest of Section 3.7. They repeatedly stated that they had no

intention of evaluating the feasibility of developing a school on the Baldwin/Soule Site even

though studying "feasibility" is a principal requirement of a consultant's work under Section 3.7.

57. By January 2017, Schreiner-Oldham was actively seeking an appointment to a

vacancy on the School Committee. At the same time, she continued her zealous advocacy to

prevent any further consideration of the Baker site. On January 9, 2017, Schreiner-Oldham sent

an email to over fifty Baker School parents expressing her concern that a public meeting held by

the First Building Committee had too many "vocal opponents" to a school at Baldwin/Soule and

not enough supporters. A copy of Schreiner-Oldham's email is attached hereto as "Exhibit 11."

-25-
35814833.1
Since Baker was the alternative to Baldwin/Soule, opposition to Baldwin/Soule had the potential

to lead to renewed consideration of Baker. She went on to write, "We really need some people

to come tonight and speak up in support of having another elementary school in Town, at the

Baldwin location. Below is an email that the Baker PTO sent out to our community asking

people to attend."

58. The very next day, on January 10, 2017, the Town Defendants appointed

Schreiner-Oldham to fill a vacancy on the School Committee by the Select Board and School

Committee. She is now the Vice-Chairman of the School Committee. She has refused to recuse

herself from School Committee matters regarding the ninth school and instead has continued to

work relentlessly to advance the position stated in the Baker PTO petition: "No Second School

at Baker...."

59. Between the formation of the First Building Committee and the Town Meeting in

May 2017, JLA and Town officials were repeatedly asked how they planned to overcome Article

97, the LWCF restrictions, the EOEEA Policy, the traffic constraints, and safety concerns that

impaired the use of Baldwin Park and Soule. The Town Defendants essentially ignored those

issues and refused to assess their impact on the feasibility of the Baldwin/Soule Site. When

asked, proponents of a ninth school on the Baldwin/Soule Site contended that planning might

somehow comply with the restrictions imposed by state and federal law even though neither they

nor JLA could identify any legal authority to support their position.

60. Between November 2016 and May 2017, citizens aware of the impediments to a

school on the Baldwin/Soule Site attempted to participate in the process and identify for the First

Building Committee the reasons that made a school at the Baldwin/Soule Site infeasible,

including the following:

-26-
35814833.1
 • Baldwin Park, the northern 1.4 acres of the Baldwin site, received a LWCF
grant in 1976 and, as a result, Brookline became legally prohibited from
converting the entire park to "other than the public outdoor recreation uses
specified in the project proposal .... without the prior approval of the
[National Park Service]." Without consulting any legal authority, the Town
Defendants claimed to be acting under the assumption that only a tennis court
improved with the grant was subject to the restriction. They were wrong, as
the National Park Service advised them in August of 2017.

• With the permanent restriction arising from the LWCF grant, Baldwin Park
was also likely subject to Article 97. At that time, the Supreme Judicial Court
had taken the case Smith v. Westfield, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 80 (2016), which
held that such a grant did not impose Article 97 status. The Supreme Judicial
Court's acceptance of the case, together with strong support for Article 97
status by the Attorney General and others, suggested that the Supreme Judicial
Court was likely to rule that public land permanently restricted by a federal
grant was also restricted by Article 97. Town Defendants predicted Westfield
would be decided to allow school use of parkland. They were wrong about
that, too.

• Soule is also subject to Article 97 and restricted by LWCF and PARC. The
Town Defendants were planning to build a parking lot and driveway on Soule
for use by a ninth school, somehow thinking this would not trigger Article 97.
They were wrong.

• As observed by the Town Defendants' own traffic consultant, there was no

safe and viable plan for traffic. A member of the First Building Committee
conducted his own traffic modelling and determined that there was
insufficient time and space for children to be dropped off in the morning
unless they arrived 30-50 minutes before school started.

61. By April 2017, through detailed letters and comments, citizens concerned with

-27-
35814833.1
wasting Town resources on an infeasible site made Town officials aware of the numerous

statutory, regulatory, traffic, and other reasons that a school at the Baldwin/Soule Site was not

feasible. At least some Town employees and officials had enough fiscal responsibility to pursue

due diligence on issues identified by the neighbors. One such employee apparently asked the

Commonwealth about the reach of the LWCF grant restriction.

62. On April 20, 2017, the EOEEA, which administers the LWCF grants in

Massachusetts, forwarded to the Town an email from LWCF staff at the National Park Service.

The NPS stated that the LWCF restriction applies to all of Baldwin Park, and not just the paved

tennis court area (as some Town officials had contended). Upon receipt of that email, a copy of

which is attached hereto as "Exhibit 12," the Town Defendants continued to pursue a ninth

school on the Baldwin/Soule Site, with School Committee Chairman Pollak repeatedly opining

that the position of the LWCF staff at NPS was wrong. Chairman Pollak is not an attorney and

did not consult with counsel before making those public pronouncements.

63. Even minimum due diligence would have made clear to Chairman Pollak and

others that his position was legally unsupportable. The NPS website states that a "principal [of

the LWCF], and one with major impact on long-term resource protection, is the concept of a

permanent, national recreation estate. The LWCF Act requires that all property acquired or

developed with LWCF assistance be maintained perpetually in public recreation use." In

discussing post-completion compliance responsibilities, the NPS website states: "The Fund's

most important tool for ensuring long-term stewardship is its 'conversion protection'

requirement." The NPS website further states: "In many cases, even a relatively small LWCF

grant (e.g., for development of a picnic shelter) in a park of hundreds or even thousands of acres

provides anti-conversion protection to the entire park site."

-28-
35814833.1
 The Town Meeting Imposes Conditions On Further Funding While The Town
Defendants Continue To Ignore Their Legal Obligations Under Section 3.7

64. Between April 20 and May 30, 2017, members of Brookline's Advisory Board

and others were becoming increasingly alarmed by the Town Defendants' continued refusal to

conduct appropriate due diligence on issues that, by then, had been identified by Town Counsel,

the NPS, and various citizens and their counsel. That concern led the Town Defendants to

acquiesce that funds should be allocated for the retention of outside counsel to review the legal

feasibility of using the Baldwin/Soule Site, including Baldwin Park, for a ninth school.

65. On May 30, 2017, Brookline's Town Meeting approved a warrant article that

recognized the need for legal due diligence before further funds were spent on the project. The

warrant included an appropriation that was contingent on an attorney's opinion on Article 97, the

LWCF restrictions, and other land use issues. On the ninth school, the warrant authorized the

transfer from the general fund for:

$1,500,000 to be expended under the direction of the Building Commission, with

any necessary contracts to be approved by the Board of Selectmen and the School
Committee, for a feasibility study and schematic design services, or any
combination of the foregoing, for the construction of a 9th School to be located at
[the Baldwin/Soule Site], with the condition that no funds with the exception of
$100,000 for additional design services for the preferred Scheme D to be
expended prior to the publishing of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court in the matter of Smith v Westfield and until the Board of
Selectmen, the School Committee and an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Advisory
Committee receive the opinion of Town Counsel and/or outside counsel hired to
review land use limitations and protections on both Baldwin and Soule and until a
successive Town Meeting affirmatively releases the funds.

66. In a letter dated June 16, 2017, Brookline's outside counsel wrote to the NPS and

argued that its April 20, 2017 memorandum was wrong and that only the tennis court area of

Baldwin Park was restricted by Brookline's acceptance of the LWCF grant. A copy of that letter

is attached hereto as "Exhibit 13." In a letter received around August 23, 2017, the Regional

Director of the NPS rejected the Town's outside counsel's request and reaffirmed that the

-29-
35814833.1
entirety of Baldwin Park is subject to the LWCF grant restriction. A copy of the NPS' letter is

attached hereto as "Exhibit 14."

67. Because of the NPS position and the infeasibility of the Baldwin/Soule plan, the

Town Defendants hatched a new plan for a ninth school that involved abandoning the

Baldwin/Soule site and taking by eminent domain seven acres of land from Pine Manor College.

Pine Manor is located adjacent to Baldwin/Soule and, once again, was a way to divert further

consideration of Baker. On September 26, 2017, Chairman Wishinsky issued a press release that

informed the public that the Select Board and School Committee had voted in executive sessions

to "acquire" seven acres from Pine Manor. It also informed the public of the adverse decision by

the NPS regarding Baldwin Park, which the Town Defendants kept secret from the public for

over a month. The press release stated that the Town Defendants would nonetheless continue to

pursue plans for a school on one-half the Baldwin site not encumbered by the LWCF grant

restriction, i.e. the Baldwin North plan, as well as the original plan for a school on the

Baldwin/Soule Site. (Why any member of the Town Defendants thought a school on the

Baldwin/Soule Site was possible after the NPS decision remains a mystery to this day.) The

Baker influence was once again apparent, since the legal obstacles to the Baldwin/Soule Site did

not lead the Town Defendants to revert to the Baker site despite the positive votes at the October

2016 site selection meeting.

68. The Town Defendants and JLA pursued a ninth school at Pine Manor and

Baldwin North with the same lack of due diligence exhibited with the Baldwin/Soule Site. Using

JLA as the "consultant" under Bylaw Section 3.7, the School Committee and School Department

still did not formulate "a program in writing" that included the "the function and needs which

[the facility] is designed to fulfill ... additional personnel required to maintain the facility,

-30-
35814833.1
annual maintenance cost and overall effect on the town all as appropriate for the project's

scope and budget," as required of the "using agency" by Section 3.7. They were also proceeding

without the opinion of counsel required by the May 2017 Town Meeting.

69. On October 2, 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Smith v.

Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017). Westfield makes clear that the acceptance of the permanent

restriction imposed with an LWCF grant triggers the protections of Article 97. Westfield

involved an attempt by a town to build a school on property improved by an LWCF grant and is

clearly applicable to Baldwin Park.

70. With the issuance of Westfield by the Supreme Judicial Court, it was clear in the

Fall of 2017 that the Town Defendants were pursuing three sites that were not feasible. The

original Baldwin/Soule plan ran afoul of the NPS decision and Westfield, traffic issues could not

be addressed, and a consultant retained by the Park Commission debunked MA's assertion that

the Town Defendants could use Soule for a ninth school while preserving its character. A school

on Baldwin North, half the Baldwin site, and with no access from Woodland Road, made no

sense if traffic and parking were not feasible on a site many times larger and with multiple means

of access and egress. As for Pine Manor, there were innumerable problems with the plan of the

Town Defendants and JLA. The college vigorously opposed using its property and would not

grant access for the Town to do essential soil, wetlands, and environmental studies. The Town

Defendants' plan also called for building the school within 150 feet of a wetlands, which is

prohibited by Brookline's Wetlands Bylaw. Simply valuing Brookline's potential exposure for

the acquisition cost was so complex that the Town Defendants' appraiser refused to conduct an

appraisal at the contracted for price and, according to documents provided pursuant to public

records requests, the Town Defendants were never able to obtain a valuation of the property.

-31-
35814833.1
 71. As it became increasing clear that Baldwin/Soule, Baldwin North, and Pine

Manor were not feasible sites for a ninth school, many began to see again that the Baker School

was the only viable site yet evaluated. It had adequate land unencumbered by any restriction, it

was already overcrowded, and the projected student growth in South Brookline was within

walking distance. But Schreiner-Oldham and others in the Baker School community remained

steadfastly opposed to any expansion on the Baker School land. In late October 2017, Carolyn

Thall, Secretary of the Baker PTO, and Schreiner-Oldham (although then on the School

Committee) formed a political action committee known as the "Friends Of The Ninth School."

Through that PAC, they continued the original theme of their 2016 petition, except with the

Baldwin/Soule Site seemingly no longer a likely candidate, the figurative chant became, "No

Second School at Baker; Build at Pine Manor."

72. Again, though, residents with a semblance of reason and members of the more

fiscally responsible Advisory Committee intervened in anticipation of the special town meeting

at which the Town Defendants would request the release of more money for a ninth school. As a

result of their input, the Town Defendants acquiesced to a renewed effort to identify new options

for dealing with the student population. On November 14, 2017, a special town meeting

appropriated $300,000 to evaluate the Baldwin and Pine Manor sites, as well as other sites,

including Brookline's Pierce School and the Baker School. The town meeting also appropriated

$300,000 for further feasibility study if one site is selected or $700,000 if two sites were

selected.

73. With $300,000 appropriated for review of new sites, the Town retained HMFH

Architects ("HMFH") as a new consultant. In all, HMFH identified eight properties with thirteen

alternative configurations, and evaluated traffic impacts, costs, and the prospects for each.

-32-
35814833.1
During this process, the Town Defendants still had not "formulated a program in writing" that

included the "the function and needs which [the facility] is designed to fulfill ... additional

personnel required to maintain the facility, annual maintenance cost ... and overall effect on the

town all as appropriate for the project's scope and budget," as required by Section 3.7. They

also continued to proceed without the opinion of counsel required by the May 2017 Town

Meeting.

74. In advance of the new site selection process, the new consultant obtained from

Vanasse, the Town's traffic consultant, "transportation impact assessments" for each of the

alternates being evaluated by HMFH. "Baldwin North" differed from the now-abandoned

Baldwin/Soule Site in that it no longer contemplated use of the Soule recreation or access from

Woodland Road. The only access would be from Heath Street and the school property would be

limited to 1.5 acres. For Baldwin North, the traffic consultant's report, dated March 14, 2018,

was premised on a "three-section school" of 550-600 students. A "three-section school" refers to

nine grades (kindergarten through 8th) with three classes per grade. The traffic consultant's

memo, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit 15," concluded as follows:

Contained in the February 2017 Transportation Impact Assessment is a series of

recommendations with respect to pedestrian improvements, off-site changes and
school drop-off and pick-up Traffic Management Plan. Overall, most of the
recommendations still apply with respect to the reduced school program and
impacts will be less than the prior 800-student school. However, with the drop-
off area reduced to 640 feet, there is not adequate area to accommodate the
expected vehicle queues and backup are expected to extend onto Health
Street during peak volumes. (emphasis added.)

That conclusion meant there was insufficient room for parents to drop off children. This

conclusion was also consistent with the original, but suppressed Vanasse conclusion that

traffic concerns made Baldwin infeasible even if downsized to only 400 students.

75. On May 17, 2018, the School Committee and Select Board had a Joint Meeting to

-33-
35814833.1
discuss site selection in advance of a public hearing scheduled for June 6, 2018. The PowerPoint

presentation by HMFH for that meeting contained a description and evaluation criteria for each

site option. The Baldwin North option was described as a "3+ Section" school with 640 seats

that would add 27 classrooms to the school district, plus three pre-K classes, a "RISE" program

for children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders, and a native language support program.

All parking was to be underground. Consistent with the traffic consultant's findings, the

presentation stated that the "lack of on-site queuing will impact Heath Street." All parking for

this Baldwin North site was to be underground. HMFH's description of the site stated, "All

parking is below ground increasing costs." HMFH also stated, "Limited on-site queuing and

proximity to Heath St./Hammond St. intersection makes access to site very challenging. Will

impact neighborhood streets significantly." A copy of the presentation related to Baldwin North

is attached hereto as "Exhibit 16."

76. At the Joint Meeting of May 17, 2018, as stated in the approved minutes,

"Chairman Wishinsky proposed taking out Baldwin North as an option due to significant traffic

concerns, [as well as] Pierce 5 and Baker 5; these have a very high costs associated to them

with very a low return; he feels these three options are not worth further consideration." A copy

of the minutes of the meeting is attached hereto as "Exhibit 17."

Town Defendants Ignore The Established Process And Hatch A New Plan

77. On June 6, 2018, the Town Defendants conducted a public hearing at which

HMFH discussed the sites and options under consideration, and Town residents were permitted

to ask questions and make comments. Consistent with Chairman Wishinsky's comments at the

May 17th meeting, the Baldwin North site was not even introduced by HMFH. According to the

minutes of the hearing, the Baldwin North site was mentioned only once during a hearing that

-34-
35814833.1
lasted almost three hours, and that was when one resident commented that the site was not

feasible. In contrast, there was significant public comment in favor of a Baker School alternative

to provide added classrooms. Public comments also favored locations that would be "walkable",

i.e., where most students lived within walking distance. Baker is a walkable location; Baldwin is

not. There was no discernable public support for the Baldwin alternative.

78. On June 13, 2018, Brookline held a joint meeting of the School Committee, the

Select Board, and a non-voting ad hoc committee of the Town's Advisory Committee to consider

selecting one or two sites to advance to the next step, i.e., the "feasibility study" phase of the

Section 3.7 process. The meeting was supposed to be the first of two scheduled meetings on site

selection. Because of the Open Meeting Law (M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18-25), the Town Defendants

were prohibited from deliberating on the issues except in an open meeting after notice to the

public. The extensive June 6 public commentary supporting walkable schools — which would

have supported selecting Baker — was ignored. At the June 13th meeting, Schreiner-Oldham

opposed consideration of any Baker alternative for feasibility study and, instead, proposed a new

plan for Baldwin North which had never been evaluated by HMFH or the traffic consultant and

had never been submitted to the public for consideration. The cost of that alternative, a two-

section "plus, plus, plus" school at Baldwin North, had never been estimated by HMFH, and the

Town Defendants' traffic consultant was never asked if a smaller school would mitigate the

traffic impediments he twice found prevent building a safe school at the Baldwin sites.

79. Schreiner-Oldham has since admitted publicly that she made that proposal

without any discussion with the Town Defendants' traffic consultant. Documents produced in

connection with various public records requests also show that the idea of a two-section school at

Baldwin North was never mentioned in any document created by any town official, consultant,

-35-
35814833.1
or employee involved in the ninth school project. A report to the Advisory Committee stated

that the last minute Baldwin North "2+++ " alternative was "neither investigated nor evaluated

by [the retained consultants] nor previously discussed in ... public forums." A copy of that

report is attached hereto as "Exhibit 18." HMFH was retained, and paid, to evaluate and do cost

estimates for possible sites. Yet, despite no prior study or evaluation of her concept, Schreiner-

Oldham moved that Baldwin North 2+++ be advanced to the "feasibility study" phase. Her

motion was seconded, and it passed. There was brief discussion of the legal issues surrounding

the Baldwin North concept. A proposal to evaluate Baker, should legal or other issues make

Baldwin North 2+++ infeasible, was moved, but even that was opposed by Schreiner-Oldham

and defeated. The manner in which this process occurred suggests that it was choreographed in

advance of the meeting and in violation of Open Meeting law requirements.

80. Schreiner-Oldham's proposal for a two-section Baldwin North was also

inconsistent with the prior year's work. Never before had the School Department, which is the

"using agency" under Section 3.7, specified that a new ninth school with only two sections per

grade would meet its needs. It certainly had never "formulate[d] a program in writing" that

identified a two-section school, as would have been required by Section 3.7. And, in fact, the

configurations evaluated by HMFH for new schools in all other locations included schools of

three sections or more. Adding a new, two-section building on the Baker School land is surely

feasible and would have none of the legal, traffic, safety, land use, access, or other constraints of

a school at Baldwin North. If a two-section school is all that is needed, then the Town

Defendants should have made that clear in the Section 3.7 process and evaluated all of the

potential sites for a two-section school. Of course, no Town officers at the joint meeting made —

or even discussed — a two-section concept for the Baker School. No public comment was

-36-
35814833.1
allowed at this meeting. In addition, although proposed as a two-section school, the Town

Defendants intend for the school to have 27 full-size classrooms — i.e., sufficient to house a 3-

section school. They thus plan to spend on and build a 3-section school while trying to

downplay its import on traffic safety and the environment by calling it a two-section school.

81. These events reflect that, sometime before the meeting on June 13, 2018,

Schreiner-Oldham and others created and agreed upon a new scenario for Baldwin North not

previously considered, costed out, or studied by the Town Defendants' traffic consultant or

HMFH. They took action precipitously and pre-emptively on June 13 even though another

meeting was scheduled for the following week. They could have had their consultant consider

the new, two-section alternative for the various other sites in the interim, but that would have

opened the door to further consideration of Baker as a two section school site. Schreiner-

Oldham did not want such public scrutiny of a two-section school at Baldwin North, as that

would have invited scrutiny of a two-section addition at the Baker School and other sites. Nor

did she want Baker even considered as an alternative should her proposed new Baldwin North

plan prove to be infeasible. The votes and conduct violated Section 3.7, were inconsistent with

the process created by Town Meeting, and constituted unlawful deliberation in violation of the

Open Meeting Law.

The Town Defendants' Continue To Ignore Their Obligations To

Conduct A Real Feasibility Study

82. During the meeting on June 13, 2018, when the new Baldwin North 2+++ was

selected as the site for further feasibility, School Committee Chairman Pollak and Vice

Chairman Schreiner-Oldham repeatedly represented that the coming "feasibility study" phase of

the project would involve a true evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed project, which is

what Bylaw Section 3.7 requires. In fact, as their conduct continues to show, they had no

-37-
35814833.1
intention of conducting a true feasibility study or complying with Section 3.7, and they have

refused to do so.

83. After the Baldwin North 2+++ plan was selected for further feasibility, the Town

Defendants announced they were disbanding the "First Building Committee." They created a

new committee and, prejudging the feasibility of Baldwin North, labeled it the "Baldwin School

Expansion Committee" — itself a misnomer designed to mislead the public. The Baldwin North

2+++ plan does not involve expanding the existing Baldwin building — it involves leveling it and

constructing a new building. At a public hearing on November 1, 2018, the Town Defendants

and MA's PowerPoint confirmed the lack of any plan to assess feasibility and instead included

the following timeline for "Four Phases of Construction:"

1. Design Feasibility (Sept. 2018 - Dec. 2018)

Building Committee, with input from the community members, Town Boards,
PSB Staff and Families, select a preferred design option for the Baldwin School.

2. Schematic Design (Jan. 2019 - May 2019)

Architects work with Building Committee, community members, Town Boards,
PSB Staff and Families to develop interior and exterior layouts based on
selection of preferred design.

3. Design Development and Construction Documents (July 2019 - June 2020)

Final design, floor plans and architectural drawings will be completed.
Application for building permit.

4. Construction (July 2020 - Sept. 2022) 4 Occupancy by Fall 2022

A copy of the presentation on the Four Phases of Construction made on November 1, 2018, is

attached hereto as "Exhibit 19." Nowhere in the schedule is there a determination of

"feasibility" or the issuance of a feasibility study, which is required of the "consultant" retained

under Section 3.7. In fact, the purpose of the joint meeting of the Town Defendants on June 13,

2018, was to advance one or two sites to be the subject of feasibility studies. Instead, the Town

Defendants and MA have focused their current work on selecting a "preferred design," and they

-38-
35814833.1
have no intention of evaluating the feasibility of the newly minted plan for a ninth school at

Baldwin North.

84. The "First Building Committee" was familiar with the site, the traffic issues, and

neighborhood concerns. It had a member who had done computer modeling of student drop-offs

and another member who has become the Town's most knowledgeable resident on student

demographics. The First Building Committee was sufficiently well informed about the site that

they understood why a five-story school at that location and on 1.5 acres was not feasible. To

ensure that the "building committee" does not conduct a true feasibility study, the Town

Defendants dissolved it and formed a new one stacked with people who will follow their agenda.

Schreiner-Oldham is the Co-Chair of the new committee. From the false and misleading

information coming from the new building committee, especially its Co-Chairs Schreiner-

Oldham and Greene, it is clear that the committee has no intention of conducting a real

feasibility study as required by Section 3.7, including the following:

• On the Town website, the PowerPoint presentation at the public hearing on

November 1, 2018, and various other documents and presentations, the Town
Defendants call their current work the "Design Feasibility Phase" which will
"identify a preliminary design for the expansion of the Baldwin School ...."
They are not determining whether a school is feasible on the site, as required
by Section 3.7, the Town Meeting, and the June 13, 2018 vote.

• The Town Defendants have attempted to rebrand the project as the "Baldwin
School Expansion," a pretense which is both false and misleading. The Town
Defendants' plan is to demolish the existing structure and build a five-story
building in its place. No "expansion" is contemplated. Also, the existing
building is not a "school." Brookline's School Department maintains a
website that lists every school in the district. Baldwin is not listed. Calling
"Baldwin North" a "school expansion" is a pretense to mislead the public and

-39-
35814833.1
 create an argument to support the use of Baldwin Park for educational
purposes despite Article 97 and the LWCF grant restrictions.

• Until and through the vote on June 13, 2018, the Town Defendants
consistently said that all parking at Baldwin North will be underground and
on-site. Since then, the Town Defendants, JLA, and the new "building
committee" have abandoned most of the underground parking and have
applied to the Transportation Board for eighty-six off-site parking permits,
which are not allowed under current regulations. They have also announced
the purchase of the Oak Street Properties abutting the site at a cost equivalent
of almost $25 million per acre, or $225,000 per parking space, which — they
say — may be used for parking. The Town Defendants apparently have no real
plan for staff, teachers, or parents to park and no plan for parents to safely
drop off or pick up students, let alone park and walk younger students into the
school.

• In May 2017, the Town Meeting required Town Defendants and JLA to obtain
an opinion of counsel on the ability to use the Baldwin sites for educational
purposes. They have received some type of opinion from outside counsel but
despite public records requests they are secreting it from the public. Instead,
the new "building committee" released a strange statement in lieu of the
outside counsel opinion. A copy of that statement is attached hereto as
"Exhibit 20." That statement said they have been advised they are prohibited
from doing a "conversion" of Baldwin Park under applicable NPS rules and
regulations and then stated this:

Based on that advice [that a "conversion" is prohibited], the co-

chairs of the Baldwin Building Committee consulted with the design
professionals associated with the project and are satisfied that the
current plans for the Baldwin School would not result in a
"conversion" of the Baldwin Playground.

The Co-Chairs of the Building Committee are Schreiner-Oldham and Bernard

Greene, a member of the Select Board. Neither are legal counsel to the Town.

-40-
35814833.1
 Notably, the Town Defendants do not disclose whether they sought the input
of NPS on whether the proposed use is a "conversion", let alone what they
have been advised by NPS. They offer no written opinions from NPS,
perhaps having already experienced that NPS has not supported outside Town
counsel's view. The only publicly available written opinion on the subject
concludes that the proposed school use violates the LWCF grant and requires
approval of the U.S. Secretary of Interior. Thus, Town Meeting's requirement
of counsel's opinion on the legal feasibility of using Baldwin Park for school
purposes — as well as whether Article 97 procedures are legally required —
have not been met.

• The Building Committee, and especially its Co-Chairs Schreiner-Oldham and

Greene, are also ignoring the latest data that there likely is no longer a need
for a ninth school because of errors in prior population studies of the School
Department, the latest enrollment data, and updated information on planned
developments.

85. In proceeding based on a strange public statement about consultation among

Schreiner-Oldham, Greene, and LJA while also secreting the opinion of outside counsel, the

Town Defendants are ignoring the prior legal advice they received from Town Counsel, as well

as the prior precedent of releasing opinions of legal counsel on land use issues affecting the ninth

school development process. On April 30, 2018, Brookline's Town Counsel provided a "Legal

Summary" on the "Ninth School Siting," which was immediately made part of the public record.

In that Legal Summary, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit 21," Town Counsel gave

the following legal advice to the Select Board and School Committee on the use of Baldwin

Park:

Land benefiting from an LWCF grant must remain accessible for "public outdoor
recreational use." This could conflict with any attempt to use the southern half
of the Baldwin parcel as dedicated playspace for a new school. Open access to
the playground could raise security concerns, limit the playgrounds'

-41-
35814833.1
 usefulness during recess period, and could lead to additional maintenance or
replacement costs if it accelerated wear and tear on the facilities. (emphasis added.)

In the same Legal Summary, Town Counsel advised the Town Defendants that Baldwin Park is

protected under Article 97, writing as follows:

The southern half of the Baldwin property is protected under Article 97. Use of it
in the Baldwin Plan D proposal for school purposes would require removing
it from Article 97 protection via a 2/3 vote of both houses of the State
Legislature, which would almost certainly require following the EOEEA Land
Disposition Policy and acquiring or swapping in land of equal or greater fair
market value and significantly greater resource value. (emphasis added.)

86. In light of the NPS's prior rejections of the Town Defendants' and MA's position

on the use of Baldwin Park, only a final court ruling after an administrative process can

determine if Baldwin Park can be used for purposes of the proposed Baldwin North school. The

Town Defendants have not even disclosed whether, as suggested by various other Town

officials, they have solicited the advice of NPS on this issue or otherwise begun the

administrative process necessary to a resolution.

87. On October 26, 2018, Select Board Chairman Wishinsky issued a press release

that stated the following:

In furtherance of the proposed Baldwin School project, the Select Board has reached an
agreement to purchase property next to the Baldwin school-owned land at 15 - 19 Oak
Street in Brookline. If approved by Town Meeting, the acquisition of this property will
add to the existing land owned at the school, expanding the town-owned land upon
which school facilities can be located....

This is an important and positive step in the process of building additional school
capacity to serve Brookline's students. The flexibility of additional space will permit
consideration of different types of school designs, on-site parking, or play space in
addition to the Baldwin playground. The acquisition of this property will not change the
planned 450 student size of the school.

Since then, the Town Defendants have disclosed that they have agreed Brookline will pay $4.7

million for three Oak Street townhouses, which they intend to tear down. The purchase price is

the equivalent of $25 million per acre (plus the costs of demolition) for vacant land. This figure

-42-
35814833.1
is wildly over-market — and inconsistent with the per-acre estimate that Town Defendants were

pushing when the concept was to take 7 acres of Pine Manor property — which would now cost

the Town $175 million at the Town's latest value proposal. The fiscal irresponsibility of this

proposed purchase involves not only the funds for the purchase, but it sets a $25 million per acre

baseline for any and all future Town acquisitions and takings by eminent domain.

88. As with the Town Defendants' other ill-conceived plans for a school on the

Baldwin and Soule sites, there is no "program in writing" related to the purchase of the Oak

Street Properties, as required by Bylaw Section 3.7. Chairman Wishinsky's press release, and

the public statements of the Town Defendants and JLA since then, have continued to provide

vague assurance that the properties can be used from many purposes. The Town Defendants and

JLA have identified various potential uses for the land — parking, outdoor play space, additional

classrooms, a drop-off and pick-up location for children (which cannot be accommodated on

site), or to obtain control over Oak Street, the private way, which they will overburden with their

plans — but they have no concrete plan for the land at this time and no determination that the $4.7

million purchase even contributes to the feasibility of the project. The Town Defendants and

JLA inability to specify the contribution the properties will make to their project only confirms

that they have no real plan for the properties or how the Oak Street Properties will make an

otherwise infeasible project feasible.

89. On November 19, 2018, the current "building committee" had a meeting. The

purpose of the meeting was to select the "design alternatives" in preparation for a special town

meeting now scheduled for December 13, 2018. The special town meeting was called to address

warrant articles seeking approval of the acquisition of the Oak Street Properties and $1.5 million

for the schematic design of a school at Baldwin North. A "Project Roadmap" was distributed at

-43-
35814833.1
November 19 meeting, which described the upcoming tasks for their Baldwin North project. A

copy of the "Roadmap" is attached hereto as "Exhibit 22." Like previous documents created by

the Town Defendants, Schreiner-Oldham, and JLA, the "Project Roadmap" describes the Town's

current work as "Feasibility Design" —not the study of feasibility required by Section 3.7. They

have added the word "feasibility" to "design" in a further effort to mislead the public about this

project. The document also reflects that the Town Defendants and JLA have no intention of

preparing a feasibility study for approval of Town Meeting prior to obtaining funds for schematic

design, as is required by Section 3.7. Even more important, it is clear that the Town Defendants,

JLA, and Schreiner-Oldham intend to spend millions more of the citizen's money trying to build

a school on a site even though they have not a clue whether a school can even be built there.

Enforcement of Public Records Law

90. On December 20, 2016, undersigned counsel requested certain Brookline public

records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 ("December 2016 Public Records Request"). The

December 2016 Public Records Request contained numerous requests for, among other things,

documents and communications relating to the work of Brookline, the Town Defendants, JLA,

and the members of the Town Defendants related to the development of and site selection for a

ninth elementary school. Requests under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 for additional documents and

communications were sent on April 25, 2017, November 14, 2017, July 3, 2018, September 28,

2018, September 28, 2018, and in October 2018 (collectively, with the December 2016 Public

Records Request, the "Records Requests").

91. At various times between October 2016 and the present, members of the Town

Defendants and other Town officials have disclosed that they have received written

communications from counsel on matters and issues affecting the ninth school that are covered

-44-
35814833.1
by the Records Requests and that have not been produced by Brookline, the Town Defendants,

the Town Clerk, or anyone else. Those public records also have not been identified in a privilege

log. The most recent known written communication of that type is the outside counsel opinion

on the ability of Brookline to use Baldwin Park for educational purposes that Schreiner-Oldham,

Bernard Green, and David Pollak have all publicly said they have received but that they have

refused to produce in response to the Records Requests and have refused to share with Town

Meeting members, the Advisory Committee, and the public.

92. Selectman Bernard Greene stated on November 1, 2018, at a community meeting

that "[w]e have consulted with counsel and they have advised us what we can do and what we

can't do." He then went on the summarize what he contended was the substance of that opinion.

Such disclosure, among other things, constitutes a waiver of any privilege or exception to the

public records law that might have been claimed for that opinion.

93. Under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv), Brookline, the Town Defendants, and the Town

Clerk ("Public Records Defendants") are required to "identify any records, categories of records

or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the

specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon

which the withholding is based, provided that nothing in the written response shall limit an

agency's or municipality's ability to redact or withhold information in accordance with state or

federal law." The Public Records Defendants and members of the Town Defendants have

withheld public records requested in the Records Requests and failed to identify them and

describe the legal basis for withholding them as required by M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). They

have also refused to provide redacted documents, choosing to withhold public records in their

entirety.

-45-
35814833.1
 94. In addition, the Town Defendants have held meetings in "executive session"

regarding the acquisition of the Oak Street Properties. The minutes of those executive sessions

have been withheld from the public and not produced in response to the Records Requests. Now

that the purchase price has been disclosed, there is no legal basis for refusing to produce those

minutes and all other documents related to the Oak Street Properties, including any contracts,

communications, and other documents that related to the proposed acquisitions.

95. Also, all of the Records Requests defined the term "communications" as "every

manner or method of disclosure or transfer or exchange of information, whether orally or by

document, and whether face to face, by telephone, mail, email, text message or other electronic

means, personal delivery or otherwise." Except for the production of a few text messages in

response to the most recent request, the Public Records Defendants and the members of the

Town Defendants have failed to produce and/or retain text messages that are public records and

responsive to the requests. There are various reasons to believe that Brookline public officials

have communicated about subjects covered by the Records Requests on personal devices using

text messages and other short message services ("SMS").

COUNT I
(Against All Defendants)

Unlawful Expenditures Under M.G.L. c. 40, § 53

96. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in Paragraph 1-95.

97. Brookline Bylaw Section 3.7 sets out a process that, if elected by the Building

Commission, governs the construction, alteration, or repair of town buildings.

98. In connection with the development of a ninth school in Brookline, the Building

Commission elected to retain a consultant and otherwise act pursuant to the requirements of

Bylaw Section 3.7.2(b) et seq.

-46-
35814833.1
 99. The Town Defendants also elected to proceed in connection with a ninth school

pursuant to the requirements of Bylaw Section 3.7.2(b) et seq.

100. The Town Defendants and JLA have failed to act within and otherwise comply

with the requirements of Section 3.7.2(b) et seq. by, among other things, (1) failing to formulate

a program in writing for the facility; (2) failing to identify the function and needs which the

facility is designed to fulfill; (3) failing to identify additional personnel required to maintain the

facility, annual maintenance costs, environmental and sustainability goals and objectives, and

overall effect on the Town all as appropriate for the project's scope and budget; (4) failing to

conduct a true feasibility study; (5) failing to do a real cost estimate for the project (including life

cycle costs); and (6) failing to follow any of the procedures or processes in Section 3.7 in

connection with the purchase of the Oak Street Properties even though the purchase, according to

the Town Defendants, is for a school at Baldwin North.

101. As a result of Town Defendants and JLA' failures to comply with the

requirements of Sections 3.7.2(b) et seq, any further expenditures on the development of a ninth

school in Brookline or the purchase of the Oak Street Properties are unlawful and beyond the

power of the Town Defendants and the Treasurer to raise or expend money or incur obligations.

102. The Town Defendants and JLA have also refused to meet the precondition

imposed by the May 2017 Town Meeting for the release of funds for "schematic design,"

specifically obtaining an opinion of counsel that could be evaluated in connection with the

Section 3.7 process, which would include review by the Advisory Committee and Town

Meeting. The Town Defendants are withholding whatever writing they may have received and

are instead relying on the strange statement that Schreiner-Oldham, Greene, and JLA —

individuals who are counsel to the Town — have somehow blessed the situation.

-47-
35814833.1
 103. The Town Defendants and the Treasurer are about to expend money or incur

obligations purporting to bind Brookline for a purpose or in a manner other than that for or in

which Brookline has the legal power to raise or expend money or incur obligations.

104. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40, § 53, the Court should determine and order that (a) the

Town Defendants' conduct is unlawful and beyond the power of the Town Defendants and the

Treasurer to raise or expend money or incur obligations and restrain the unlawful exercise or

abuse of such power, and (b) to the extent further money is unlawfully expended and received by

JLA after commencement of this action, that such money be disgorged.

COUNT H
(Against All Defendants)

Declaratory Judgment

105. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in Paragraph 1-104.

106. Brookline Bylaw Section 3.7 sets out a process that if elected by the Building

Commission governs the construction, alteration, and repair of Town buildings.

107. In connection with the development of a ninth school in Brookline, the Building

Commission elected to retain a consultant and otherwise act pursuant to the requirements of

Bylaw Section 3.7.2(b) et seq. The Town Defendants also elected in connection with a ninth

school to proceed pursuant to the requirements of Bylaw Section 3.7.2(b) et seq.

108. The Town Defendants and JLA have failed to act within and otherwise comply

with the requirements of Section 3.7.2(b) et seq. by, among other things, (1) failing to formulate

a program in writing for the facility; (2) failing to identify the function and needs which the

facility is designed to fulfill; (3) failing to identify additional personnel required to maintain the

facility, annual maintenance costs, environmental and sustainability goals and objectives, and the

overall effect on the town all as appropriate for the project's scope and budget; (4) failing to

-48-
35814833.!
conduct a true feasibility study; 5) failing to do a real cost estimate for the project (including life

cycle costs); and (6) failing to follow any of the procedures or processes in Section 3.7 in

connection with the purchase of the Oak Street Properties even though the purchase, according to

the Town Defendants and JLA, is for a school at Baldwin North.

109. An actual controversy has arisen between the Plaintiffs and certain of the

Defendants as to whether the Town Defendants' and MA's failures to comply with the

requirements of Section 3.7.2(b) et seq, preclude them from any further expenditure on the

development of a ninth school in Brookline or the purchase of the Oak Street Properties and, in

the case of JLA, if further funds are expended after the commencement of this action, such funds

can be disgorged for the benefit of the citizens of Brookline.

110. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231A, § 1 et seq., the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory

judgement that no further funds shall be expended by Brookline or paid to JLA unless and until

the Town Defendants and JLA comply with Bylaw Section 3.7 and such other laws, rules,

regulations as may be applicable.

COUNT HI
(Against Brookline, Town Defendants, and Town Clerk)

Violation of Open Meeting Law Under M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18-25

111. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in Paragraph 1-110.

112. Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18-25, all meetings of a public

body must be open to the public. A meeting is generally defined as "a deliberation by a public

body with respect to any matter within the body's jurisdiction."

113. Brookline's Select Board, School Committee, and Ad Hoc Committee of the

Advisory Committee are public bodies subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.

114. On or before June 13, 2018, as detailed above, certain members of the Town

-49-
35814833.1
Defendants violated the Open Meeting Law through oral or written communications, or both, by

which they secretly agreed to the Baldwin North "2+++" plan and that Schreiner-Oldham would

raise at the June 13th meeting a proposal for Baldwin North that was, are stated in a report to the

Advisory Committee "neither investigated nor evaluated by [the retained consultants] nor

previously discussed in ... public forums."

115. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 23, the Court may issue an order to, among other

things: (1) compel immediate and future compliance with the open meeting law; (2) nullify in

whole or in part any action taken at the meeting; (3) prescribe other appropriate action. The

Plaintiffs request that the Court issue such an order.

COUNT IV
(Against Town of Brookline, Select Board of Brookline and School Committee of Brookline)

Enforcement of Public Records Law Under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10A

116. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in Paragraph 1-115.

117. The Public Records Defendants are public bodies subject to the requirements of

the Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66, § 10A.

118. Members of the Town Defendants are persons having custody of public records

that were requested in the Records Requests made pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, § 10A.

119. Under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10A, each record sought in a public records request is

presumed public.

120. The Public Records Defendants have violated the Public Records Law by failing

to produce all documents and communications in response to valid public records requests,

including but not limited to text messages covered by the requests, minutes and other documents

related to the proposed acquisition of the Oak Street Properties, and opinions of counsel for

which there is no valid exception under the Public Records Law or for which there has been an

-50-
35814833.1
waiver of such exceptions or privilege.

121. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, §§ 10A(c) and (d), the Court may issue an order to,

among other things: (1) order the production of all documents responsive to the Records

Requests that have not yet been produced, and (2) award to the Plaintiffs reasonable attorney's

fees and costs in connection with obtaining responsive documents.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand that the Court enter judgment as follows:

1. Declare and order that, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40, § 53, (a) the Town Defendants'

conduct is unlawful and beyond their power to raise or expend money or incur

obligations, (b) the Town Defendants and the Treasurer are restrained from the

unlawful exercise or abuse of such power, and (c) to the extent further money is

unlawfully expended and received by JLA after commencement of this action, that

such money shall be disgorged;

2. Enter a permanent injunction that restrains the Town Defendants and the Treasurer,

their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active

concert or participation with them who receive notice of the order by personal

service or otherwise, from making any further expenditures (a) for schematic design

of a ninth school at Baldwin North; (b) for a ninth school at Baldwin North that is

unlawful or beyond their power to raise or expend money or incur obligations under

Bylaw Section 3.7, and (c) for or related to the purchase of the Oak Street Properties;

3. Declare and order that no further funds shall be expended by Brookline or the

Treasurer, or paid to JLA, unless and until the Town Defendants and JLA comply

with Bylaw Section 3.7 and such other laws, rules, and regulations as may be

applicable;

-51-
35814833.1
 4. Declare and Order, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 23, (a) immediate and future

compliance with the Open Meeting Law in connection with all meetings of

Defendants related to a ninth school at Baldwin; (b) that any and all action taken by

Defendants related to a ninth school at Baldwin since June 1, 2018, is null and void;

and (c) such other appropriate action to redress the Open Meeting Law violations;

5. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, §§ 10A(c) and (d), order the Public Records Defendants,

and all custodians of public records of Brookline who receive notice of the order by

personal service or otherwise, to produce all documents responsive to the Records

Requests that have not yet been produced and award to the Plaintiffs reasonable

attorney's fees and costs in connection with obtaining responsive documents; and

6. Such other relief as the Court deems just.

November 26, 2018 ROBINS KAPLAN LL

By: 9 ."-' - ---

Stephen Wald (BBO #512350)
Robert F. Callahan, Jr. (BBO #685728)
800 Boylston Street, Suite 2500
Boston, Massachusetts 02199
Tel: (617) 267-2300
Fax: (617) 267-8288

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

-52-
35814833.1
EXHIBIT 1
 EXHIBIT 1

TOWN of BROOKLINE
Massachusetts
Park and Recreation Commission

Park 11nd Rccrcntion Commission Dircttor of Parks nnd Open Space

John Bain, Chairperson Erin Chute Gallentine
Nancy O'Connor, Vice Chairperson
Clara Batchelor
James Carroll Director of Recreation
Daniel [,yons Usa Paradis
Antonia Bella/ta
.lean Stamcris

Neil Wishinsky, Board ofSclcctmen

Susan Ditkotf, School Committee
333 Washington Street
Brookline, MA 02445
December 14, 20l5

Members of the Board of Selectmen and School Committee,

The Park and Recreation Commission has watched with interest and growing concern as the B-SPACE Committee report and
now the CivicMoxie report analyzes and prioritizes the best location for a new school. We recognize that you collectively
and individually value the Town's Park and Open Space system and are trying to make the right decision for the community,
however building on and labeling existing parkland as school grounds does not address the fact that a growing school
population needs more open space as much as they need more classrooms. More school aged children means more
recreational programming and park use after school hours and on weekends. A healthier aging population means more
demand on park space year round. Once developed, open space is not replaceable.

The Parks and Recreation Commission, as a group, was given its first presentation of the process and findings of tho Civic
Moxie Rep0l1 at our regular monthly meeting Tuesday, Dec. 81h., by Kara Brewton, Economic Development Director for the
Town of Brookline. Susan Ditkoff, Chair of the School Committee also attended to share the perspective of the School
Committee. This presentation, conducted in a public meeting, alJowed for free and open dialog regarding tJie use of park land
amongst all concerned parties. Although the discussion centered on community and Commission oppositioll to th� two areas
selected as first options (wbi.ch is typical in a densely populated town with stressed facilities), there are oven·iding
phUosopbical,and operational issues that makes repurposing and shared use of Park Land counterproductive.

The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously opposes the construction of any school building on public parkland and
has significant concerns over shared use of these spaces for school playground use. We are concerned about sharing or
transfe1Ting parkland to school ground use because parks are public amenities that are open daily from dawn until dusk to
eve1yonc. School grounds restrict use, understandably, for most of the day and year. This challenge is exemplified by the
fact that a Moderator's Committee is currently being established to review the need for and possibility of acquisition of open
space in Precinct 16. The Baker School, located in the middle of the precinct, is considered inadequate open space for the
neigh.borhood because it is usually restricted for school use. We oppose transferring parkland to school building
development or use because we require additional parkland to accommodate the community's needs t.oday, let alone future
needs. As the demand for school space increases so too does the need for parks and open spaces for every age and ability.
The following are a few of the constraints that the Town is currently facing:

• Overburdened playgrounds and parks have created conflicts among users including Day Care use regulated by law,
our model Green Dog program, passive rec1-eation, sports programming and several therapeutic and educational
programs sponsored by the Recreation depamnent;
• Youth and adults are being declined participation in recreational programming due to limited athletic field space;

133 F:liot Stree/ • /lrook/ine, Massachusells 02467

Telephone: (617) 730-2069 Facsimile: (617) 739-7531
h11p:/lwww.brooklinema.gov

I ST_0000003035. 0002
 EXHIBIT 1

• Athletic fields are overused by existing school use, sports groups, camps and recreational use leading to poor
playing conditions;
• The Town is so underserved by existing field space it hns developed tempora1y partnerships with 4 private schools
for facility use to meet the growing needs of youth sports programs;
• It is difficult to find space to accommodate seemingly simple facilities such as bocce for the elderly, a safe place for
kids to skateboard or a dog park; and,
• The Town is repeatedly asked to find space for off road bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, community
gardens, an outdoor pool and an indoor ice rink.

There is a lot of work to be done as a community to address U1esc critical needs. The Park and Recreation Commission has
invested a significant amount of time evaluating various parcels for conversion in order to accommodate the public's needs in
regards to parks and open space. Skyline Park and Fisher Hill Reservoir Park each took decades to plan and construct. One
was a municipal dump and the other a parcel that had been declared surplus by the Commonwealth after the Commission
repeatedly implored that it be sold to the Town for public use. We recommend and strongly encourage the same type of
aggressive planning and vision for this next major capital investment for the Town.

The Town is about lo embark upon un overall Strategic Asset Plan and proposes a Major Parcel Study. That process could be
condensed and bundled with the new school study and development. We recommend the Town purchase or enter into a
phased agreement with Pine Manor to accommodate a multitllde of community needs to serve the educational, recreational,
facility, and development needs of the community. Simultaneously, the Town should explore partnership opportunities with
Brookline's institutions and large parcel owners to see if they arc better suited to address the above needs.

If the Town does not have the ability to negotiate the above options we suggest that the Town renovate the former Lincoln
School on Boylslon Street as !he permanent new elementary school. This concept should evaluate the U-Haul, Liner Tire and
other Route 9 sites with a field/play space on building roof tops to provide open space for the new school. There are other
sites across from the former Lincoln School and adjacent to Boylston Street Playground that could be considcJcd. If the
Town considers the Stop and Shop site we recommend it be evaluated without sharing the site with the supermarket and
maximi2.ing the public use benefit with some civic space improvements along Harvard Street, off street parking and rooftop
play space. Not to be overlooked is the expansion of the High School. We recommend that urgent attention be brought to
the properties on Cypress Street abutting the current High School Campus including the Brigham and Women's office
building.

The Park and Recreation Commission has not had a rolo in the process to date, however we request n fonnal role i:n this
impo11ant dedsion making process moving forward that will undeniably impact the futm·e of the Town. The Town of
.Brookline must plan for the real and growing trend in school enrollment, and what that implies for additional open space
activities, together with the community needs as a whole; both now and for the future. We assert that expansion of
educational facilities be balanced in pa1inership witli the needs of the community to maintain the proper level of access to
active and passive parks and open spaces, to provide for healthy and vibrant multi-generational use.

IST_0000003035.0002
EXHIBIT 2
 EXHIBIT 2

The Office of Town Counsel

Memorandum

To: Kara Brewton

From: Joslin Murphy

Re: Potential Ninth School Sites

Date: January 21, 2016

Cc: Neil Wishinsky

Susan Wolf-Ditkoff
Mel Kleckner
Joe Connolly
Alison Steinfeld

This responds to your inquiry concerning restrictions on the use of the following Town
owned sites 1 for the purposes of constructing a public elementary school.
I. ARTICLE 97
Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution ("Article 97")
provides, in relevant part, that "the people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom
from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic qualities of
their environment.'' Under Article 97, public lands that are acquired for these purposes cannot
be used "for other purposes or otherwise disposed of' without a two thirds vote "of each branch
of the general court."

In addition, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Article 97 Land
Disposition Policy is intended to ensure that there is "no net loss" of Article 97 lands. Under
this Policy, municipalities seeking to dispose of Article 97 land (or convert the use of such land
to another purpose) must first (1) explore all other options and find that "no feasible and
substantially equivalent alternatives exist; (2) obtain a unanimous vote of the Conservation
Commission that the land is "surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs; (3)
obtain a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting supporting the disposition; and (4) comply with all
requirements of the Urban Self-Help and Land and Water Conservation Fund and other
applicable funding sources, including land replacement. Failure to comply with the Policy
renders the non-compliant municipality ineligible to receive EEA or EEA agency grants.
Finally, G.L. c. 40, s. 15 separately requires a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting in order to
''transfer the care, custody, management and control" of land that was acquired for playground
and certain other purposes to another specific municipal purpose.

1 Grateful thanks to ATC Jonathan Simpson for his historical research and contribution to this matter.
 EXHIBIT 2

II. TOWN OWNED SITES UNDER REVIEW

The following Town-owned sites have been identified for potential use as the site of a
public elementary school:

Putterham Meadows Golf Course

The Putterham Meadows Golf Course2 is comprised of several parcels of land that were acquired
by the Town between 1899 and 1939. See, Exhibit A, attached. In 1899, the western third of the
golf course ("lot 1") was acquired by the Town's Park Commissioners from funds expressly
designated for playground and/or recreational purposes by Town Meeting. Lots 2 - 9, including
the middle-south portion along West Roxbury Parkway, the northwest corner, and a large portion
of the southeast corner were acquired by the Town's Park Commissioners "with a view of
forming a connected area for purposes of public recreation and playgrounds ..." The remaining
lots, numbered 10- 13, were acquired by the Town's Park Commissioners for playground
purposes (lot 1 O); to improve the boundary lines between the golf course and the contiguous golf
course owned by The Country Club (lot 12a and l 2e), and for "a peat pit and turf nursery"
presumably to service the gold course (Jot 13). The Golf Course is considered to be Article 97
land.

Soule Playground/Baldwin School

The Soule Playground was acquired by the Town in 1959 "for recreational purposes" under a so­
called "friendly" taking under the power of eminent domain. Thereafter, an Urban Self-Help
Grant was accepted by the Town in FY97 for improvements to the Playground. Soule
Playground is considered to be Article 97 land.

The Baldwin School Property is comprised of two parcels of land that were acquired by the
Town in 1873 and 1941 for educational purposes. In FY76. the Town accepted a Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF") grant for improvements to the tennis court area of this
property. Aside from this portion of the property, the Baldwin School property is not considered
to be Article 97 land, and therefore may be used for educational purposes with little likelihood of
a successful Article 97 challenge. However, the Baldwin School is listed in the National and
State Historic Registers, which would trigger historic impact review.

Dane Park

The lots comprising Dane Park were acquired by the Town in 1952 "for recreational or
educational purposes." Dane Park is not considered to be Article 97 land, and therefore may be
used for educational purposes. However, because the land has historically been used by the
Town as a public park, a decision to use the property for educational purposes is not immune to
challenge.

2
More recently named the "Bob Lynch Golf Course at Putterham Meadows"
 EXHIBIT 2

Larz Anderson Park

Larz Anderson Park was acquired by the Town in 1948 for "public recreation, charitable, or
public education purposes" under the will of Isabel Anderson. Consequently, the Park is not
considered to be Article 97 land. However, because the Town accepted funds for improvements
to the Park under at least one federal LWCF grant that purports to protect the entire Park as open
recreational land, a decision to use any portion of the property for educational purposes is highly
vulnerable to challenge.

This memorandum is intended to provide you with a general impression of the Article 97 and
related protections afforded these properties. If you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (617) 730-2190.
EXHIBIT 3
 EXHIBIT 3

TOWN OF BROOKLINE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF BROOKLINE
BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS
02445

TO: Board of Selectmen

School Committee

FROM: Melvin A. Kleckner, Town Administrator

Andrew Bott, Superintendent

DATE: September 6, 2016

RE: Summary Update sites not included for consideration for the 9th Elementary School

The current process to identify and select a location for the 9th elementary school began in 2015 when the
Civic Moxie Site Identification Study was completed and presented to the public in October 2015. Civic Moxie
investigated 26 sites and identified six as preferable based on the established criteria as documented in their
report. 1 Since the release of this study the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee have hosted a
combined 14 open and public meetings to discuss the location of a new school and gather public input.
Through collaboration, town and school department staff provided additional information to the boards that is
available on the 9th School Site Selection web site regarding Article 97, eminent domain considerations and
land acquisition costs, enrollment growth numbers, and the location of anticipated future housing
development. 2

Responding to this input, the boards agreed in the spring of 2016 to study three sites more thoroughly to
assist them in making a final selection; Beverly Road Site at Baker School; the Village School Site at Stop and
Shop; and the Baldwin School Site adjacent to the Soule Recreation Center. These sites required further
study and will be the subject of a presentation on September 8 by our consultant, JLA.

At the same time as the three sites are being studied, the staff working group has been reviewing various sites
and locations that were either part of the Civic Moxie Recommendation or emerged through the public interest in
the public forums. We believe that the boards should vote to formally eliminate from consideration the following
sites at this time.

Civic Moxie sites recommended for no further study at this time

1. Cottage Farm/Amory Street: Located in the Local Historic District of Cottage Farm and utilizes the
adjacent Amory Park as the school's playing fields and recreational area. The site has adjacency to
the Amory Woods Conservation Area, Amory Park, Massachusetts Association for the Bl ind (MAB) and
Boston University.3 The location has a variety of variables requiring consideration. There are Local
Historic District considerations, access points to the property which would need to be carefully
planned. For example; the effect of a K-8 Elementary School on open space and the environment
(Amory Playground, Hall's Pond, Amory Woods, green space); impact on abutting MAB Community
Services, a school for students with special needs; potential flooding mitigation; and review of
Wetland Resource Area Boundary, along with Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF). 4

1
hit p://www.brookIinemn.gov/ l 286/9tb-Elementnry-School-Stud y#Presentntion I
2
hllp://www.brooklinema.gov/ 1286/9th-Eleme11(ary-School-Sn1dy
3
http://www.brooklincma.gov/DocumentCentcrnTomcNiew/8299
4
The boundary is defined by 100-year flood line.
 EXHIBIT 3

th th
9 Elementary School Site Study: Proposal to eliminate sites from consideration for the 9 Elementary School

2. Tl Maxx - 525 Harvard Street: The location would require a mixed use project constructed on the
privately owned parking lot adjacent to the TJMaxx site and would require the relocation of an
existing bank and temporary relocation of parking for TJMaxx during construction. 5 The location puts
a school at edge of Town & attendance district without substantial growth in a district where the
Town just invested in the Edward Devotion expansion.

3. Centre Street Parking Lot/Coolidge Corner:6 Site is being considered for a number of different
public uses. For example, the Library was engaged in a community process about
renovating/rebuilding the Coolidge Corner Branch. This study included looking at one off-site option
which is the Centre Street parking lot. The site in general is constrained and concerns about having
no open space/schoolyard, traffic and congestion concerns, and potential loss of parking in most
dense commercial area.

4. Old Lincoln School/Walnut Street: The Walnut Street School expands the Old Lincoln Street
school site on Route 9 to the west, incorporating off-street parking, and approximately 36,000 gross
square feet of additional school area, while fully renovating the existing structure. The Walnut Street
School alternative requires acquisition of the existing U-Haul site to the west of the former school.7
The challenges surrounding the expansion at this location are finding options to meet space
requirements. The site has limited/difficult to reach playground space; the building is used as current
and future swing space; is being considered as potential expansion of BHS; concern about use as a
permanent K-8 elementary school pedestrian travel and contiguous route 9 vehicle proximity is of
community concern.

5. The Isabel School at Larz Anderson Park: The Isabel School would be located in Larz Anderson
Park and would be part of a new campus adjacent to the existing historic structures including the
Auto Museum.8 Isabel Anderson donated the land to the town "for purposes of public recreation, or
for charitable purposes, or for purposes of public education" in 1951. The property is individually
listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places. There is also a 1998 Massachusetts
Historic Commission Preservation Restriction for the top of the hill. Fall Town Meeting Warrant Article
6_proposes to dedicate 55.05 acres of the Larz Anderson site for public park purposes under the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 45, Section 3, and authorize said land to be under
the care, custody, management and control of the Town's Department of Public Works, Parks and
Open Space Division. In addition, according the Town Counsel's memorandum of January 21, 2016,
"Larz Anderson Park was acquired by the Town in 1948 for "public recreation, charitable, or public
education purposes" under the will of Isabel Anderson. Consequently, the Park is not considered to
be Article 97 land. However, because the Town accepted funds for improvements to the Park under
at least one federal LWCF grant that purports to protect the entire Park as open recreational land, a
decision to use any portion of the property for educational purposes is highly vulnerable to
challenge."

While this site may be a practical location for school building site, the complexity of the Town of
Brookline owning City of Boston property puts additional complications on permitting and land use.
Even though this property is owned by the Town of Brookline, the City of Boston would have
permitting authority over the building, or portion of the building on City land. In this site option
shown in the report, the DPW shed is relocated to the City of Boston portion of the site as this is the
most logical place for that building and this structure would indeed be subject to City of Boston land
use regulations. The location of the parcel would result in a School that is on the edge of Town, and
does not have adequate pedestrian/bike amenities to/from the site. There are also conservation,

s http://www.brooklincma.govtnocumemCenter/Homc/View/8303
6
http://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/Homc/View/8300
7
http://www.brook I incma.gov/DocumcntCenter/Home/View/8302
8 http://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/8304

2
 EXHIBIT 3

1h 1h
9 Elementary School Site Study: Proposal to eliminate sites from consideration for the 9 Elementary School

parks, and open space considerations in placing a school at this location, the parks and open space
capacity would be reduced and add to already over-stressed park needs in the community.
Public Interest suggested sites not recommended for further study:

1. Pine Manor College - Heath Street: A private four-year liberal arts college located on 45-plus
acres in South Brookline. The existing use is meeting a public need. The Town Administrator has
met with the President and representatives of the board about their long term vision for the school.
The existing owners/operators are committed to current use and at the time eminent domain would
be hostile. The Town will continue to monitor the use given the strategic location to the Town.

2. Bournewood Hospital - South Street: Bournewood Hospital is an inpatient and outpatient

support and treatment center for adults, adolescents and their families living with mental health and
substance use conditions. The facility sits on 541,836 SF (12.44 acres) of land mainly classified as a
hospital. It has 7 building(s) with a total of 50,961 square feet. There are 33 living unit(s) and 2
commercial unit(s). The existing use is meeting a public need. At this time, the existing
owners/operators are committed to current use.

3. Putterham Meadows: In a January 21, 2016 and subsequent February 3, 2016 memorandums
from Town Counsel the following was provided to the 9 th Elementary School Working Group and
members of the Board of Selectmen and School Committee. "The Putterham Meadows Golf Course is
comprised of several parcels of land that were acquired by the Town between 1899 and 1939. See,
Exhibit A, attached. In 1899, the western third of the golf course ("lot 1") was acquired by the
Town's Park Commissioners from funds expressly designated for playground and/or recreational
purposes by Town Meeting. Lots 2 - 9, including the middle-south portion along West Roxbury
Parkway, the northwest corner, and a large portion of the southeast corner were acquired by the
Town's Park Commissioners "with a view of forming a connected area for purposes of public
recreation and playgrounds..." The remaining lots, numbered 10 - 13, were acquired by the Town's
Park Commissioners for playground purposes (lot 10); to improve the boundary lines between the
golf course and the contiguous golf course owned by The Country Club (lot 12a and 12e), and for "a
peat pit and turf nursery" presumably to service the gold course (lot 13). The Golf Course is
considered to be Article 97 land." In Town Counsel Memorandum of February 3, 2016 further
clarification is provided "It is our opinion that Lot #4, having been acquired by the Town's Park
Commission using funds appropriated by Town Meeting "for public playgrounds" thus falls within the
protective ambit of Article 97. See, Mahajan v. Department of Environmental Protection, 464 Mass.
604, 614 (2013); Board of Selectmen of Hanson v. Lindsay, 444 Mass. 502 (2005)."

January 21, 2016 Memorandum: http://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8632

February 3, 2016 Memorandum: http://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8793

3
 EXHIBIT 3

9
th
Elementary School Site Study: Proposal to eliminate sites from consideration for the 9th Elementary School

Appendix A

Ongoing Public Meetings on 9th School Site Selection

July 26, 2016

June 14, 2016
June 7, 2016
May 18, 2016
March 15, 2016
February 23, 2016
February 23, 2016
February 4, 2016
January 21, 2016
December 15, 2015
December 3, 2015
November 12, 2015
November 3, 2015
October 22, 2015

4
EXHIBIT 4
 EXHIBIT 4

To: nwishinsky@brooklinema.gov[nwishinsky@brooklinema.gov]; Susan Wolf

Ditkofflsusan_ditkoff@psbma.org]; david_pollak@psbma.org[david_pollak@psbma.org];
ben_ chang@psbma.org[ben_chang@psbma.org];
helen_charlupski@psbma.org[helen_charlupski@psbma.org];
michael_glover@psbma.org[michael_glover@psbma.org];
barbara_scotto@psbma.org[barbara_scotto@psbma.org];
rebecca_stone@psbma.org(rebecca_stone@psbma.org]; lisajackson@psbma.org[lisajackson@psbma.org];
beth_stram@psbma.org[beth_stram@psbma.org]; bfranco@brooklinema.gov[bfranco@brooklinema.gov];
daly.nan@gmail.com[daly.nan@gmail.com]; nheller@brooklinema.gov[nheller@brooklinema.gov];
bgreene@brooklinema.gov[bgreene@brooklinema.gov];
maryellen_dunn@psbma.org[maryellen_dunn@psbma.org]; Kara Brewton[kbrewton@brooklinema.gov]; Ben
Lummis[Ben_Lummis@psbma.org]; andrew _bott@psbma.org[andrew _bott@psbma.org]
From: Carolyn Thall
Sent Thur 9/22/2016 7:28:58 PM
Subject Petition supporting a Baldwin School
Last Modified: Thur 1/26/2017 6:48:34 PM
BakerBaldwinPetition.docx
BakerBaldwinComments.pdf
BakerBaldwinSignatures. txt

Dear members of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, School Administration, and Staff,

In advance of this evening's joint SC/BoS meeting, and in the interest of time, I am respectfully submitting the
attached documents: A petition titled "No Second School at Baker, We Support Baldwin," a list of 254
signatures from that petition, and comments made by petition signators. (Please forgive for off formatting on
the Comments pdf - it reveals my limited technical skills.}

This petition was initiated as an effort to capture widespread sentiment into one clearly defined and tangible
place. The comments come a variety of perspectives (long-time community members, Baker parents, etc.} and
touch on a variety of issues. I hope you will take time to read them.

I look forward to hearing your discussion at tonight's meeting, and thank you for your continued work on this
difficult puzzle.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Thall
TMM Pct. 16
 EXHIBIT 4

No Second School at Baker. We Support Baldwin.

The undersigned members of the South Brookline and Baker communities are speaking with one
voice to say we oppose a second school on the Baker School site, and support the location of a school
at the Baldwin site.

We oppose any second school at the Baker site for these reasons:
• Scale: A mega two-school site of 1,600 is unsuitable for children ages 5-14. The proposed
scale of this development would mean a K-8 experience that is often hectic and
overwhelming. South Brookline children deserve the same essential feeling of intimacy
provided at other Brookline schools.
• School community: Baker families are already challenged in trying to maintain a bonded
community within a large and busy school. The magnitude of two schools together will further
undermine families' and children's ability to connect.
• Traffic: With 760 students now, traffic is close to unmanageable and safety is always a
concern. The neighborhood's narrow, winding feeder roads are simply not built to handle high
volumes of cars, or buses, let alone emergency vehicles. JLA's traffic analysis does not
accurately capture the problem, especially as it presents from December to March (1/2 the
school year) when the streets are one-way.
• Environmental impact: New buildings and roadways, with accompanying salt runoff, would
abut Hoar Sanctuary Conservation Land, which contains designated wetlands and vernal
pools. Hundreds of mature trees (about 3 acres) that ring the Baker field would be razed,
causing permanent damage to the health and character of our beloved neighborhood and
school.
• Loss of play and green space: Doubling the number of children on the Baker site while cutting
green space will limit outdoor activities -- for the entire neighborhood and town, not just
students.

We prefer Baldwin for these reasons:

• Location: Baldwin is 1.5 miles from Baker School. Recognizing that going from eight schools to
nine will mean reassignments throughout Brookline, adjusting to a Baldwin School is still
preferable to inviting the neighborhood damage and educational inequity of a 'second Baker'.
• Environmental impact: The Baldwin site is already developed. Building there would mean far
less tree loss and no impact on Conservation Land.
• Open space / Rec space: Soule Recreation Center has extensive outdoor space with two fields,
two playgrounds, and more, making Baldwin extremely well suited for a K-8 population.
• Access: Baldwin is approached by 4-lane roads meant to carry heavy volume and large
vehicles. It can also be accessed directly from Route 9 via Dunster Road and/or what is now a
Peet's Coffee parking lot.
• Relocation: Baldwin does not require relocation of 800 K-8 students during construction.
Brookline is out of school space, and we do not want children sent outside of town at great
financial and logistical expense.
• Cost: Baldwin is the least expensive of the three options.

We ask you to select Baldwin as the next elementary school.

Thank you.
 EXHIBIT 4

Name Signed On
Aaron Dunn 9/22/16
Aaron Eisenberg 9/22/16
Aaron Sacharow 9/21/16
Abigail Bracha 9/22/16
Abigail Schein Zimskind 9/20/16
AC Clark 9/21/16
Acacia Landfield 9/21/16
Adena Muncey 9/20/16
Aida Luszczynska 9/22/16
Aidan Finnan 9/20/16
Alex Waldron 9/20/16
Althea Waldron 9/20/16
Alyson Bracken 9/21/16
Amie Hornung 9/21/16
Amy Blumenthsl 9/22/16
Amy Nadeau 9/20/16
Anika Goldman 9/20/16
Anita Fisher 9/22/16
Anjna Shrivastava 9/22/16
Ann Wise 9/21/16
Anna Spool 9/21/16
Anne Grieves 9/21/16
Anne Short 9/20/16
AnnMarie Baldwin 9/21/16
Anthony Abner 9/20/16
Anupm Jati 9/21/16
Ariel Hansen 9/22/16
Arman Marchiel 9/20/16
Arvi Duka 9/21/16
Ayse Tuncman 9/22/16
Azadeh Shah 9/20/16
Barbara Favermann 9/20/16
Behnam Rafati 9/22/16
Beth O'Connor 9/21/16
Birgit Kraft 9/21/16
Bonnie Barnum 9/20/16
Boris Tchernychev 9/20/16
Caleb Abner 9/20/16
Carlotta Ames 9/22/16
Carolyn Thall 9/19/16
Celeste Richardson 9/21/16
Chen Nir 9/20/16
Chris Cloney 9/20/16
Chris Cramer 9/22/16
Chris Foley 9/21/16
Chris Fox 9/20/16
Chris Huntsman 9/21/16
Christina Vanderpluym 9/21/16
Christine Lilienfeld 9/20/16
Christine Mahoney 9/20/16
Christopher Coffman 9/20/16
Christopher Noe 9/22/16
Cindy Lien 9/20/16
Claudine Sheinkopf 9/20/16
Cynthia Tow McPherson 9/21/16
Dan Deutsch 9/22/16
Dan Johnson 9/21/16
Dan O'Connor 9/21/16
 EXHIBIT 4

Dana Engelman 9/20/16

Daniel peters 9/20/16
Danna Perry 9/22/16
Darcey Cusick 9/21/16
Darrell Brown 9/20/16
David Breen 9/20/16
David Fulton 9/22/16
Deb Abner 9/20/16
Debbie Howerton 9/20/16
Deborah Feldman 9/20/16
Deborah Kilday 9/20/16
Diane Hopkins 9/20/16
Donald Reagan 9/21/16
Doron Bracha 9/20/16
Earlene Avalon 9/20/16
Elaine Yu 9/20/16
Elisabeth Preis 9/20/16
Elsie Taveras 9/21/16
Emily Engeland 9/20/16
Emily Oken 9/20/16
Eric Solem 9/22/16
Erika Rangel 9/20/16
Eris keynan 9/20/16
Evelyn Vigo 9/21/16
Fariba Mirzai 9/20/16
Farrah Rajabi 9/22/16
Francesca lnfantine 9/20/16
Frederic Vieil 9/22/16
Gabriele Vigevani 9/21/16
Galina Slezinger 9/21/16
Garret Shih 9/22/16
George Sopel 9/21/16
Gerhard Wagner 9/22/16
Gina Leong 9/22/16
Grace Lee 9/22/16
Greg Letendre 9/22/16
Gurol Tuncman 9/22/16
Hedy Perry 9/22/16
Heloisa Pedrosa 9/22/16
Herve Falet 9/20/16
Hope Wolf 9/22/16
Howard Mirkin 9/22/16
iulia fried 9/22/16
James Friedman 9/20/16
jamie golden 9/20/16
Janet Lim 9/22/16
Janice Schmidt 9/22/16
Jared Mancini 9/20/16
Jasmeet Hayes 9/21/16
Jeffrey Allen 9/22/16
Jen Lindblom 9/21/16
Jennifer Goldsmith 9/20/16
Jennifer Hughes 9/20/16
Jennifer Solem 9/20/16
Jennifer Sullivan 9/21/16
Jesse Esch 9/21/16
Jessica Alm 9/21/16
Jie Li 9/20/16
Joanne Gladstone 9/20/16
 EXHIBIT 4

Jodi Shea 9/21/16

Joe Makalusky 9/22/16
Joel Firehammer 9/20/16
John Fisher 9/20/16
John Miranda 9/20/16
Joia Mukherjee 9/22/16
Jonathan Li 9/20/16
Jonathan Weintroub 9/21/16
joni burstein 9/20/16
Joyce Stavis-Zak 9/20/16
Judith Leichtner 9/20/16
Judith Lippke 9/22/16
Judy W 9/22/16
Julia Lanham 9/21/16
Julie Lambert 9/20/16
!l!lml Schreiner-Oldham 9/20/16
Karen Chabon 9/20/16
Karen Hirsch 9/20/16
Karen Stensrude 9/21/16
Karin Hoffmeister 9/20/16
Karl Hoffmeister F alet 9/22/16
Kate Driscoll 9/20/16
Kate Poverman 9/20/16
Katherine Knowlton 9/21/16
Kathleen Gardner 9/21/16
Kathleen Mann 9/22/16
Kathleen Vandenberg 9/20/16
Kelly Morrissey 9/20/16
Keri Joy-Gould 9/21/16
Kerry Costello 9/21/16
Kevin Smith 9/21/16
Kimberly Le Tendre 9/20/16
Kyoungmin Tow 9/21/16
Kyoungyoon Jung 9/21/16
Larry Jordan 9/20/16
Laura Fox 9/20/16
Lauren Carroll 9/21/16
Lauren Italiano 9/20/16
Leslie Chanpong 9/22/16
Leslie Rodriguez 9/21/16
Lightdale Jenifer 9/20/16
Lillian Gray 9/22/16
Liora Kushner 9/20/16
Lisa Drummond 9/20/16
lisa richards 9/20/16
Lisa Sousa 9/21/16
Ludy Shih 9/20/16
Lynne Brum 9/22/16
Magdalena Gabilondo 9/21/16
Marc Marchiel 9/21/16
Marcy Frankel 9/20/16
Marcy Sacks 9/20/16
Maria Gurevich 9/20/16
Marilyn Wolman 9/22/16
Mariya Gazumyan 9/21/16
Mark Seneski 9/20/16
Mary Hurwitz 9/22/16
Mary Rutkowski 9/22/16
Maryam Asgari 9/20/16
 EXHIBIT 4

Maureen Corcoran 9/21/16

Maureen Shaw 9/20/16
Maureen Stanton 9/20/16
Megan Lanham 9/20/16
Melanie Cohn-Hopwood 9/22/16
Meredith Dunn 9/20/16
Meredith Leary 9/20/16
Meryl Nistler 9/21/16
Michael Eck 9/22/16
Michael Gackstetter 9/22/16
Michael Harrington 9/20/16
Michael Nir 9/20/16
Miri Khait 9/20/16
Mishaun Cohn 9/20/16
Monica Schenone 9/20/16
Moose Moose 9/21/16
Morgan Esperance 9/22/16
Nancy Fulton 9/22/16
Nancy Natowitz 9/20/16
Naomi Mann 9/21/16
Nicole Monahan 9/21/16
Nicole Smith 9/22/16
Omar Magid 9/21/16
Oscar Morales 9/22/16
Pamela Carroll 9/20/16
Patricia Francisco 9/20/16
phil chemin 9/21/16
Phil Chong 9/20/16
Rachel Rubin 9/20/16
Randy Leigh 9/20/16
Rebecca Sneider 9/20/16
Renee Coyle 9/20/16
Renee Vergara 9/22/16
Reshma Katwa 9/20/16
Robbie Singal 9/20/16
Robin Koocher 9/20/16
Rong Yi 9/20/16
Ruth Fretts 9/22/16
Samuel Schneider 9/22/16
Sandra Hackett 9/22/16
Sandra Valeria Dombiak-Woelfel 9/20/16
Sara Toppelberg 9/21/16
Sarah Griffen 9/20/16
Sarah Hahesy 9/21/16
Sarah Johnson 9/20/16
Sean Dempsey 9/22/16
Sean Sacks 9/20/16
Seohee Koo 9/20/16
Shari Noe 9/20/16
Sheila Mabry 9/20/16
sheila white 9/20/16
Silvina Grad-Freilich 9/20/16
sonia leon 9/20/16
sonia ufano 9/22/16
Sravana Khandekar 9/22/16
Stacey Nevins 9/22/16
Stefan Kraft 9/21/16
Stephanie Sacharow 9/21/16
Sujata Puthussery 9/20/16
 EXHIBIT 4

Susan Altman 9/21/16

Susan McKendry 9/20/16
Tamy Liriano 9/20/16
tanya paris 9/21/16
Thang Tran 9/21/16
Thomas Belamarich 9/22/16
Tim Nistler 9/22/16
Tracy Arnold 9/20/16
Veera Mahadomrongkul 9/20/16
Virginia Cummings 9/22/16
Virginia Friedman 9/20/16
Wendy Wang 9/20/16
William Oldham 9/21/16
William Waters 9/20/16
Yanjie Gu 9/20/16
Yasira Santos 9/21/16
Yongfeng Gu 9/22/16
Yookyung Jung 9/21/16
EXHIBIT 5
 EXHIBIT 5

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Philip Gray FROM: F. Giles Ham, P.E.

Jonathan Levi Architects Vanasse & Associates, Inc.
266 Beacon Street 35 New England Business Center Drive
Boston, MA 02116 Suite 140
Andover, MA O l 810
(978) 474-8800

DATE: September 29, 2016 RE: 7382

SUBJECT: School Site Selection

Brookline, Massachusetts

As a follow-up to our September 22, 2016 joint public meeting with the Board of Selectmen and School
Committee, I want to clarify my recommendation with respect to the Baldwin site. Our rating
recommendation presented in the evaluation matrix was very disadvantageous, which is the lowest rating
of any of the three sites. This rating was based upon my observation of tratlic in the area, traffic counts
conducted, and expertise developed from having worked on numerous traffic studies in the area.
Hammond Street accommodates over 1,000 vehicles during the peak periods and the Route 9/Hammond
Street traffic signal is state-controlled with a priority to Route 9 traffic flow. As such, during peak travel
periods, lengthy vehicle queues on Hammond Street occur on a regular basis. A new elementary school
at 800 students or downsized to 400 students cannot be accommodated wjth traffic inevitably required to
utilize Hammond Street to enter or exit a potential new school. A new school could generate between
200-400 peak hour trips and there is not available capacity to accommodate such an increase. Consistent
with our initial evaluation, we strongly recommend against this site for au elementary school even
downsized, due to the existing traffic conditions along Hammond Street.

l of 1

IST_0000004786.0001
EXHIBIT 6
 EXHIBIT 6
v. "OY 1v10::,o"L '1110::,o"�u, vv"'111c1110.yv v J, ,.;me::, 1 ,cu' 'LY ' 10111�1uvC1.\.,VII IJ, r 111111,J u, oyn.1y1 o y�1cv101 '-'·'-'V' • •J, vv11ou 1011
evi[ilevi@leviarc.com]
:c: Ben Lummis[Ben_Lummis@brookline.k12.ma.us]; Mary Ellen Dunn[MaryEllen_Dunn@psbma.org]
rom: Kara Brewton
,ent: Thur 9/29/2016 11 :47:29 PM
,ubject: Fwd: Baldwin Traffic Memo

ret Outlook for iOS

·-------- Forwarded message ----------

'rom: "Neil Wishinsky" <wishinsky.neil@gmail.com>
>ate: Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:41 PM -0400
ubject: Re: FW: Baldwin Traffic Memo
'o: "Kara Brewton" <kbrewton@brooklinema.gov>
:c: "Ray Masak" <rmasak@brooklinema.gov>, "Susan WolfDitkoff' <Susan Ditkoff@psbma.org>, "David Pollak"
David Pollak@psbma.org>, "Ben Lummis (ben_lummis@psbma.org)" <ben lummis@psbma.org>, "Mary Ellen Dunn"
:MaryEllen. Dunn@psbma.org>

'o be a little clearer, the memo is very narrowly focused on Hammond without any discussion or apparent consideration of
ny mitigation strategies such as having traffic exit Hammond earlier (via the Hammond Soule entrance) or creating an
ntrance on or near Woodland Road which would exit Hammond traffic even earlier and the impact of creating a connectio1
�om the proposed parking lot to the Baldwin site. All of these would require partnership with Park and Rec (and
:onsevation) but if we go this route I am confident we can come up with a win-win scenario that will benefit everyone. I
1ink we need to think broader and more creatively than the memo conveys. I am hoping that has already been done but th
1emo has not conveyed the full extent of the analysis that has be done. The other thing to consider is whether a smaller
chool in combination with any additional strategies may also have an impact.
>n Thursday, September 29, 2016, Kara Brewton <kbrewton@brooklinema.gov> wrote:

FYI - Neil has asked we hold this memo from further release at this point ... more to come soon.

From: Ray Masak

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:26 PM
To: wishinsky.neil@gmail.com; Susan Wolf Ditkoff <Susan Ditkoff@psbma.org>; David Pollak <David Pollak@psbma.org>
Cc: Kara Brewton <kbrewton@brooklinema.gov>; Ben Lummis (ben lummis@psbma.org) <ben lummis@psbma.org>; Mary Ellen
Dunn <MaryEllen Dunn@psbma.org>
Subject: FW: Baldwin Traffic Memo

Attached please find a traffic memo which provides further clarification to the following statement that was made at the hearing
on September 22,2016 regarding the Baldwin site

"would 600 students solve traffic problem?

consultant response is that 400 students will solve on site cueing but not hammond intersection"

if you have any comments, please let me know

 EXHIBIT 6

thanks ray m PE

From: Philip Gray [mailto:ogray@leviarc.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 1:17 PM
To: Ray Masak; Kara Brewton; Ben Lummis; Mary Ellen Dunn
Cc: Jonathan Levi; Giles Ham
Subject: Baldwin Traffic Memo

Attached is a memo from Vanasse and Associates further clarifying their strong recommendation against building a new
elementary school, even downsized, on the Baldwin site, due to the existing traffic conditions along Hammond Street.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss.

Thanks,

- Philip

Philip Gray

Senior Associate
Jonathan Levi Architects

266 Beacon Street Boston MA 02116

617 437 9458 !)!!Q://www.levlarc.com

JLA typically reviews email inboxes twice a day.

If an immediate response is needed, please call the studio.

The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from
disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
EXHIBIT 7
 EXHIBIT 7

'
.: . '-.. '
...',a •
r�tr.1,J°.•"
·1 •'-'�lh I

1 ..

":'.,
.,

-�
·�·.
\{ "'·" \'
-.

,.,
• l�

: .
;;
 r
EXHIBIT 7

.v. ... I.

Owner
Town ofBrookline, Mamchusetts

Client\.
Tow�· �f Brookline, Massachusetts

Architect
Jonathan Levi Architects LLC

6 October 2016
 EXHIBIT 7

Evaluation H�hl�htsaod Commentary � wif �

The potential for sharing 0�at.e at d1e 6altlwiR is a significant
benefit of developing the t' e both from an educational' programming
perspective and from the ; c st savings perspective. The available area
for locating a building is lim ed, but this limitation can be overcome
n·
f u. r e s=rn ;�,lrC! •l!sj<)
t o s bg a

1 ( il
_I .
(}JI
"'Aif��:������q���
l/I.
0
measures to consider r ducir)g the building's pop t!on a
recor1figuring local roa<;l ay circulation patterns, it is th · ,ion l
of the team's traffic 0 6sultant that neighborhood traffic Id be
unacceptably advers ly affectei_: �d . ------,��---'\__....:---
:__

43
EXHIBIT 8
 EXHIBIT 8

Evaluation Highlights and Commentary

The potential for sharing the upper Soule field is a significant benefit of
developing the site both from an educational programming perspective
and from the cost savings perspective. The available area for locating a
building is limited, but this limitation can be overcome by development
of subgrade spaces and removing vehicle circulation and parking to
the adjacent recreational parcel. However, regardless of measures to
consider reducing the building's population and reconfiguring local
roadway circulation patterns, it is the opinion of the team's traffic
consultant that neighborhood traffic would be adversely affected.
Please see Traffic memo in the appendix.

Baldwin School Parcel/Soule Re,creation 61

Site Selection Study Brookline 9th Elementary School, Town of Brookline, Massachusetts
EXHIBIT 9
 EXHIBIT 9

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Philip Gray FROM: F. Giles Ham, P.E.

-f6JK
Jonathan Levi Architects Vanasse & Associates, Inc.
266 Beacon Street 35 New England Business Center Drive
Boston, MA 021 I 6 Suite 140
Andover, MA O 1810
(978) 474-8800

DATE: October 3, 2016 RE: 7382

SUBJECT: School Site Selection

Brookline, Massachusetts

As a follow-up to our September 22, 2016 joint public meeting with the Board of Selectmen and School
Committee, r want to clarify my recommendation with respect to the Baldwin site. Our rating
recommendation presented in the evaluation matrix was very disadvantageous, which is the lowest rating
of any of the three sites. This rating was based upon my observation of traffic in the area, traffic counts
conduced and expertise having worked on numerous traffic studies in the area. Hammond Street
accommodates over 1,000 vehicles during the peak periods and the Route 9/Hammond Street traffic
signal is state-controlled with a priority to Route 9 traffic flow. As such, during peak travel periods,
lengthy vehicle queues on Hammond Street occur on a regular basis. A new elementary school at
800 students or downsized to 400 students cannot be accommodated with traffic inevitably required to
utilize Hammond Street to enter or exit a potential new school. A new school could generate between
200-400 peak hour trips and there is not available capacity to accommodate such an increase. Consistent
with our initial evaluation, we strongly recommend against this site for an elementary school even
downsized, due to the existing traffic conditions along Hammond Street.

VAI also reviewed the Baldwin site with a potential access and egress driveway onto Woodland Road
with Woodland Road potentially becoming modified to two-way travel. Under this plan, adequate bus
parking and queue storage for drop-offs and pick-ups could be adequately accommodated and our relative
rating would be improved from very disadvantageous to disadvantageous. Due to the existing traffic
conditions along Hammond Street, we still recommend against this site for an elementary school.

\Al121
G·\7)82 Orookli11e, MA\Memos\P Gray IOOJ 16 d0<•
EXHIBIT 10
 EXHIBIT 10

,..

To: Susan Wolf Ditkoff{susanwolfdltkoff@yahoo.com]

From: Neil Wishinsky
Sent Thur 10/13/2016 12:38:40 AM
Subject: Re:Agenda

Looking at your outline, you have Q/A in 2. Reading it quickly, I missed that. I think it is good to go. Yes, We have
petitions for each of the 3 sites with 200+ signatures. Reminiscent of the BSpace T-shirt days. Why don't you send it to
Robin for SC distribution, I'll send it to Stephanie for BOS distribution.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Susan Wolf Ditkoff <susanwolfditkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ok. I agree with your thoughts. Are you suggesting a change to the wording I had and if so can you send new wording to
#2? Do you want to send or shall I?

I think we now have all three sites with 200+ negatives.

On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Neil Wishinsky <wishinsky.neil@gmail.com> wrote:

Welcome back. This is good. Perhaps after 2, technical questions from BOS/SC for staff /consultants.
Then 3-4 minutes per member. It is good to say 2-4 minutes to set expectations but I will not put members
on a timer.
I am going out to Baldwin in the a.m. to observe the rush hour queueing.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Susan Wolf Oitkoff <susanwolfditkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thought we should give board members a heads up on the run of show for tomorrow. Here's what my notes
say (though some of this is my noodlings after we talked, subject to your thoughts.

1. Opening statement -- Neil and Susan

--Neil welcome and describes run of show for the evening
--Susan says thank you's plus a very quick reminder of process after tonight (Selectmen and Building
Commission vote to appoint a Building Committee and we need to get going)

2. New info -- traffic and 2-school layout, JLA and then Q&A from the boards. Maps from Mary Ellen (no
Q&A anticipated). Neil facilitates.

3. Go around by person and have each person say what their take is. We will give each person 3-4 minutes
to make a statement. Possible topics could include: what has been important to you out of what you have
heard over this process, the most important criteria, pros, and cons of the sites as you see them, and then
your preference if you wish. Neil facilitates.

4. Group discussion. Susan facilitates.

5. Likely at this point: Motion and vote for/against stop and shop (up/down vote), by each board
respectively (conducted by Neil and Susan respectively).

6. Any final discussion of Baker and Baldwin. Susan facilitates.

7. Each person ranks their choices 1&2. Read out or by ballot. Neil and Susan read out (Neil tabulates).

8. Summary and thank you; Reminder of next steps

1ST_0000008705
EXHIBIT 11
 EXHIBIT 11

Cc: stacey_zelbow@brookline.k12.ma.us[stacey_zelbow@brookline.k12.ma.us]; elizabeth@aw-arch.com[elizabeth@aw-

arch.com]; Shal Shahani[shalshahani@gmail.com]; Julia LanhamUulia.w.lanham@gmail.com}; Petra
Bignami[petrabignami@gmail.com]; rachelbrubin@gmail.com[rachelbrubin@gmail.com]; tamsitkoff@gmail.com[tamsitkoff@gmail.com];
hc27@verizon.net[hc27@verizon.net]; lisa cummings[lisacummings1218@gmail.com]; Jeff Feldgoise[jeff@feldgoise.com]; Deb
Polansky[polanskydeb@gmail.com]; Sara James Mnookin[saramnookin@gmail.com]; erin meyer[shoudymeyer@gmail.com]; Sarah
Reich Harris[sarahreichharris@gmail.com]; Charla Whitley[charla.whitley@gmail.com]; Cindy Tungate[ ctungate@planitmktg.com];
sara@stoutland.net[sara@stoutland.net]; vkfrias@earthlink.com[vkfrias@earthlink.com]; Lori Day[loridriscollpto@gmail.com]; Liz
Ascoli[elizabeth_ascoli@psbma.org]; Eileen.ogrady@nemoves.com[Eileen.ogrady@nemoves.com];
gaelledanty_from@hotmail.com[gaelledanty_from@hotmail.com]; rinakaul@gmail.com[rinakaul@gmail.com];
claytonrasheedah@gmail.com[claytonrasheedah@gmail.comJ; Nagmeh Ansari[nagmehansari@gmail.com];
jessicaullian@gmail.com[jessicaullian@gmail.com]; nirapollock@gmail.com[nirapollock@gmail.com];
chapuri@hotmail.com[chapuri@hotmail.com]; Sandra Wesemann[sandra.wesemann@gmail.com]; Belinda
Hsu[belinda_hsu@yahoo.com]; Sarah Johnson Weingart[jw0705@rcn.com]; djknight1@gmail.com[djknight1@gmail.com];
fmedina007@verizon.net[fmedina007@verizon.net]; cuevas_L21@yahoo.com[cuevas_L21@yahoo.com];
johnlaing@laingenterprises.comOohnlaing@laingenterprises.com]; hyoshida0327@yahoo.co.jp[hyoshida0327@yahoo.co.jpJ;
cher.duffield@gmail.com[cher.duffield@gmail.com]; maresenn1@hotmail.com[maresenn1@hotmail.com];
mariannayang@gmail.com[mariannayang@gmail.com]; caquiline@mindspring.com[caquiline@mindspring.com]; naomi
sweitzer[justicedoit@yahoo.com]; lchuang@aquent.com[lchuang@aquent.com]; Susan Gold[susangold23@gmail.com];
dlloydcharles@gmail.com[dlloydchar1es@gmail.com]; cfburke@rcn.com[cfburke@rcn.com]; Craig Haller[craig@spedadvocate.com];
Elizabeth Myska[e@thebeardgroup.com]; mschmittbef@gmail.com[mschmittbef@gmail.com];
annapurna.poduri@childrens.harvard.edu[annapurna.poduri@childrens.harvard.edu]; Meenakshi Garodia[mgarodia@rocketmail.com];
Dawn Tringas[dsohanian@yahoo.com]; ceciliajcasagrande@gmail.com[ceciliajcasagrande@gmail.com]
To: Ben Lummis[ben_lummis@psbma.org]
From: Julie Schreiner-Oldham
Sent: Mon 1/9/2017 4:56:17 PM
Subject: Re: Please pass along the word about the 9th School Community meeting on January 9 and BHS Community Meeting

At the 9th school meeting last week, there were only a couple of supporters for the 9th school and MANY vocal opponents.
We really need some people to come tonight and speak up in support of having another elementary school in town, at the
Baldwin location. Below is the email that the Baker PTO sent out to our community asking people to attend. Please
consider doing the same.

Warm regards,
-Julie

We are writing to ask you to attend the '9th School Kick-Off meeting TONIGHT at 7:00pm in the Brookline High School
auditorium.

The plans for the 9th elementary school are underway and the new school could be amazing! But we need YOUR
SUPPORT to make the school happen. Baldwin is a critical project for ensuring the ongoing health ofBrookline's public
schools. Bottom line: there will be over 25 kids in many of the elementary classes ifwe don't build a 9th elementary
school. Even as many as 30 kids in some classes!

Some abutters are aggressively opposing the Town's plans. So if you support building a new school (even if the Baldwin
location wasn't your first choice), please attend tonight, and please speak up. A sign-up sheet will be at the door.

Hope to see you tonight at 7:OOpm at the High School auditorium.

Sincerely,

The Baker School PTO Board

On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Ben Lummis <ben lummis@psbma.org> wrote:

Hello PTO Presidents and School Council Chairs,

Once again it was great to see many of you yesterday. I'm following up on our conversation yesterday to ask you to pass along the
message that just went to all families about the upcoming community meetings on the 9th School and BHS expansion.
 EXHIBIT 11

Most importantly we need helping getting the word out about the change in venue for the January 9 meeting on the 9th school from
Heath School to the BHS Auditorium. This is a late change we made today in response to concerns voiced by community members
at last night's meeting about potential for overcrowding. Part of this meeting will be explaining what will happen if a new school is not
built. Please pass the word and, as best you can, let your communities know about this change and the importance of attending
these meetings.

The notice below also announces the BHS Expansion Community meetings which we discussed is of high interest to families in your
school communities.

Feel free to use as is or alter as best fits your method of communication.

Thank you for you ongoing help in supporting these important building projects.

Best,
Ben

Begin forwarded message:

From: "BROOKLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT" <email@blackboard.com>

Subject: Community Meetings Next Week for 9th Elementary School and BHS Community- 9th School Meeting Moved to
BHS
Date: January 5, 2017 at 8:33:00 PM EST
To: ben tummis@psbma.org
Reply-To: email@btackboard.com

Dear Brookline Families,

The 9th Elementary School and Brookline High School Expansion Projects are now both in the Feasibility Phase. Community and public input Is
essential during this phase as preliminary design concepts are developed. During the upcoming months, there will be a number of large and
small group public meetings. Next week there will be community meetings on both projects to update parents and community members. All
community members are invited to attend and learn more about these Important projects.
Important Update: January 9 Community Meeting On 9th Elementary School Moved To BHS Auditorium
The Building Committee for the 9th Elementary School at Baldwin will have a Public Kickoff Meeting for the Feasibility Study Phase of the
project on January 9th from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Building Committee, the School Department, and Jonathan Levi Architects will provide a
complete update on the timeline, process, and objectives of the Feasibility Study phase. The meeting will include public comment. Community
members are also invited to ask questions and share their ideas on the project. Please note that this meeting has been moved to the Brookline
High School Auditorium to accommodate likely high participation and to respond to concerns about overcrowding raised by community
members at the January 4th 9th school meeting.
For more information about the 9th Elementary School at Baldwin project, please go the Public Schools of Brookline website
at www.brook11ne.kl2.rna.us/school9
BHS Expansion Project Continues with Community Meeting on January 12
Brookline High School will host a Community Meeting to update the public about the Brookline High School Expansion Project on January 12th
from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. This meeting will summarize work to date on the BHS expansion vision and educational planning. BHS and School
Department administrators and HMFH Architects will provide an update on the process to date, and the overview, timeline and objectives for
the Feasibility Phase that began in December 2016. Community members will have a chance to ask questions and share their ideas on the
project. Future meetings in February and March will focus on issues being addressed by the newly launched BHS Building Committee, such as
land use, building use, traffic, parking, and other capital planning items. The meeting will be held in the Black Box Theater at Brookline High
School, Greenough St. in Brookline. For more Information about the BHS Expansion, please go to www.brookllne.kl2.ma.us/BHSexpansion.
Upcoming Building Committee Meetings
The 9th Elementary School project and the BHS Expansion are being led by separate Building Committees made up of elected officials,
community members, parents, and town staff. Scheduled meetings are listed below. All meetings are open to the public.
Building Committee for the 9th School at Baldwin
Meetings scheduled for the 2"d and 4th Tuesday of each month from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. All meetings held at Town Hall in Room 103.
• January 10, 2017
• January 24, 2017
• February 14, 2017
• February 28, 2017

Building Committee for Brookline High School Expansion

• January 11, 2017 in the School Committee Meeting Room, 5 th floor ofTown Hall. 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
• Additional meetings will be scheduled at the January 11 meeting of the Building Committee
 EXHIBIT 11

This e-mail has been sent to you by BROOKLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT. To maximize their communication with you, you may be
receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call with the same message. If you no longer wish to receive email notifications from
BROOKLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, please click here to unsubscribe.
EXHIBIT 12
 EXHIBIT 12

Exh.C

Erin Gallentine

From: Cryan, Melissa (ENV) <melissa.cryan@state.rna.us>

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:51 PM
To: Erin Gallentine
Subject: Fw: Baldwin Playground (25-00192)
Attachments: 25-00192 docs.pdf

Erin,

I wanted to·torward you the response that I received from my National Park Service contact in regards to
Baldwin Playground. I wanted to verify what NPS considers to be the Gf boundary map for the park. You can
see her response below, as well as the map that shows both the paved area and the surrounding park, both of
which she considers to be a part of the park boundary.

I noticed that you were out of the office (hopefully on vacation). When you're back, feel free to be in touch
with me.

Melissa

From: Lang, Megan <megan lang@nps.gov>

Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Cryan, Melissa (EEA)
Subject: Re: Baldwin Playground (25-00192)

Melissa,
Thanks for bringing the potential conversion and school renovation project to our attention. I
pulled the project file #25-00192, Longwood and Baldwin Playground and have attached a copy of
the project agreement and maps for Baldwin. Our file includes 2 maps for Baldwin - one that
outlines the Paved Play Area, where the LWCF funds were used and a second map that shows the
paved area in pink and the rest of the playground in green.
Based on my review of the file and the maps, I believe that the LWCF protection applies to all of
Baldwin Playground, not just the paved area. The Manual that was in effect at the time that grant
was signed in 1976 says that where development assistance is given, the lands .of the park or
recreation area within which the development is located are subject to the Act. The EA for the
project describes that "th� Baldwin multi-purpose play area is within the Baldwin Playground" and
refers to the entire park, for example, "Baldwin Playground is owned and supervised by the Park &
Recreation Commission." Also, the paved play area doesn't appear to include a public entrance or.
access point, Oak Street is not directly connected to that area of the park.
Thanks,
Megan

1
 EXHIBIT 12

Exh.C

. .-
•••
UNITED STATES DEPARTMBNT OF !£HE INTERIO�
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Land and Water Conservation Fund Project Agreement

State Massachusetts Project Num

Projec,t Title Longwood. �d Baldwin t?leyg.rc>und

Project' Period· Date of Approval ... 12/31/78

Project Scope (Description of. Project),
The.project will. c.onaist of · the construct�on of i::ecreation
facilities at two plajrg:rourids. to J.nclttdG/
At Longwood - the reconstruction of · tennis
: l hard surface
courte:;1
,At Baldtd.n - the .reconstruction of a mult..iple-use play a.re1
and the dra.1nago system w'1d landscaping; all 'by the
Town �f Brookline, Norfolk C9unty.
"Pre,<lg.t;eement coS1ts.inc.ur.J;:'ed to the date o.fi project
approval in the amount not to exi;eed $6,24S�l8 shall be
allowable under this agreement:."

......

Project St�ge Covered by this Agreement

Entire stage

Project Cost The following at.ta�hments are hereby

incorporated into this agreement:
Total Cost 47, !8S. l8
Fund Su,Pport so % l. �neral Provisions !._"

23;S9�.e9 Dated December, 1965

.Fund Amount $ 2. Project Proposal
Cost of this I
Stage $ .47,188.18. 3.
Assistance this
Stage $ 23,594.09· . 4.

B,OR 8•92
fllav, .Aprit T974) J
 EXHIBIT 12

Exh.C

..,
...r, -�'..... ,,,.
. ..._ _.,

The United States of America, :represented by the Directo;, Bureao of Outd'oox·

Recreation, United States Department of the Interior, an4 the State named
above (hereinafter referred to as tl1e �ate), ·inutnally agree to 'pe-rfonn this.
agreement in �ccordance with the Land and Water qonservation Fund of 1965, Acr
78 Stat. 8 97- ( l 9$4), and with tl1e te:r:ma� promises, conditions, plans,
specifications, estimates, procedures, project praposals, maps, and assurances
· '
attached hereto and her��y made a part hereof.
I

The United States .hereby promises, in consideration of the. promises made by

'the State liexein, to obligate' t9 the �tat'e the am�nt of· money referred t<>
aboye, and to tender to the State that portion of the obligation which .is
required to _pay the United State&' sha:re of the costs of the above project
stage, based upon tl1e above percentage of assistance. .The Stat.e hereby ..
promises, in consideration of the promises made by the United States herein,
to execute the project' described above in accordanc� with the terms of this
agreement.

The following special project terms· and conditions �re added to this
agreement before it was signed by the parties hereto:

0
Tha state shall transfe:i:- to the Town of Brookline all
funds. granted �ereunder. 0
'
"This agreement le not sUbjeot to the-provisions of
section B.2(d) or �lauee D.4 of the Attached General
J?rovi.siona, dated DecembCilr, 1965. 1• • •

•
In witness whereo£, the pa.rties hereto ·have executed· this agreement as of
the date entered below.
By THE UNJ:TED STATES O�· S'l'ATE

��
OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANNER
(Titl�) By .'ts 'e\ .$-re�
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation . 'W'
United States Department of t>&" I,s•relpt
the Interj/. T'.I
ru.r••"\y

Date
.
/µ�
INTI 4804-7d
 EXHIBIT 12

Exh.C

/
..
-;--··--
. ---·---------·-----------·-·---------
• ••
-----------------------. J\� . \
'.
\
STREET --\'
''
'
io
\
\
.

,, ,
,,, ;
,, ,,,,
/ /

, ,.
--- __ ., .,
'TOIi/i Of OftOOl<LINC
, J.S.HO\IIMO CT�
./,,"
---: :::::--- -- _,,
It((') ..

----- ..
..
,0

___ ; __ _
-----
• I

-·
TOWJC Of •�OClCLIMI:

tJOJ1

110n

·r----,
,\

·or . ':---J
.
··.. • .... ·:_.?A1kJ·,�·1!;N
.. ·- ...
TOWlt Of 8�0011.!NC . . . .
'
•
.,, -·..
'..,, ..
I -

.,.
, .
EXHIBIT 12
Exh.C
EXHIBIT 13
 EXHIBIT 13

McGREGOR & LEGERE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C

I 5 COURT SQUARE- SUITE 500

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617) 338-6464
FAX (617)338-0737

LUKE H. LEGERE. ESQ.

E-mail: llegere@mcgregorlaw.com
( 617) 338-6464 ext. I 26

VIA E-MAIL & FIRST-CLASS MAIL

June I 6, 2017
Joshua Laird, Acting Regional Director
National Park Service, Northeast Region
U.S. Custom House
200 Chestnut Street, Fifth Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19·106

RE: Baldwin Playground, Brookline, Mass

LWCF Project No. 25-00192

Dear Mr. Laird:

This Firm represents the Town of Brookline (the "Town" or "Brookline") with respect to
a proposed element�ry school project which may involve construction on a portion of the so­
called Baldwin School Playground site in Brookline ("Baldwin Playground"). We are writing in
response to an April 13, 20 I 7 e-mail from National Park Service ("NPS") employee Megan Lang
to Melissa Cryan of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

Ms. Lang opined that the entirety of the Baldwin Playground site is restricted for future
use and development as a result of the Town accepting Land and Water Conservation Fund
("LWCF") grant money in 1976 for renovation of a paved multi-purpose play area at the Baldwin
Playground site.

We respectfully request that the NPS reconsider Ms. Lang's position regarding the
Baldwin Playground.

For the reasons set forth below, it is our strongly-held opinion that any restrictions on
future use and devel�pment stemming from acceptance of an LWCF grant apply only to the
paved multi-purpose play area portion of the site, and not to the Baldwin Playground as a whole.

SITE HISTORY

The Baldwin Playground was acquired by the Brookline School Committee in I 941. At
its June I 0, 1941 Special Town Meeting, Brookline 's residents appropriated $4,600 for the
School Committee's purchase of this "approximately eighty-six thousand five hundred (86,500)
square feet of land adjoining the George S. Baldwin School property" from the Rivers Country
Day School.

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

2
McGREGOR & LEGERE

Jn 1954, Brookline Town Meeting voted to authorize development of the Baldwin

Playground by the Brookline Park Commissioners for recreational purposes. That Town Meeting
vote did not, however, transfer the care, custody and control of the Baldwin Playground site.
Copies of the 1941 and 1954 Town Meeting votes are attached as Exhibit A.

It is our u·nderstanding that the School Committee has maintained the care, custody and
control ofthe parcels at all times since the 1941 acquisition.1

During the I 970's, the Town applied for LWCF grant money for improvements to hard­
surface courts at the Baldwin and Longwood Playgrounds. The Town's application was dated
December 17, I 975 (the "Application"), and the Project Agreement governing the work was
executed on or about June 26, I 976. Copies of the Application (with supporting materials) and
Project Agreement are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. Exhibit B includes the
6(f)(3) boundary map for the Baldwin Playground, which is titled "Baldwin Area Map 25-
00 I 92" and has an arrow pointing to the western portion of the Baldwin Playground site, which
is outlined with a heavy black line and labeled "PAVED PLAY AREA."

1975 LWCF APPLICATION

The Application and supporting materials define the work at the Baldwin Playground as
reconstruction of the paved "multiple play" or "multiple-purpose" area, with associated drainage
improvements and plantings for screening. This "multiple-purpose" play area is repeatedly and
unambiguously defined as the "Project Area" and distinguished from the rest of the Ba'Jdwin
Playground site.

Specifically, the Application and supporting materials include the following statements
and representations:

• The Baldwin Playground portion of project is described as "reconstruction of the

multiple play area, correction of the drainage and a planting of evergreens to
screen off a commercial area is proposed at an estimated cost of $15,000."
Program Narrative, Section I (a)( l ), p.6;
• The "Baldwin Playground multi-purpose play area occupies .43 acres of the I .5
acre Baldwin Playground." Program Narrative, Section a.2, p.7 (emphasis
added);
• "A 1954 vote of the Town Meeting authorized the development by the Park
Commissioners of Baldwin Playground for recreational purposes." Program
Narrative, Section I (a)(2), p.7;

1
It is our further understanding that the LWCF application's reference to the Baldwin Playground being "owned and
supervised by the Park & Recreation Commission" is simply a misstatement. LWCF Application, Exhibit 8
Environmental Assessment, Section 2(b), p.3. Indeed, the LWCF Application's Program Narrative, Section I (a)(2),
p.7, properly states that the Baldwin Playground "was purchased in 1941" and notes the ''1954 vote of the Town
Meeting authorized the development by the Park Commissioners of Baldwin Playground for recreational purposes."
See Exhibit B attached hereto.

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

3
McGREGOR & LEGERE
• "The multi play area is used 12 months a year" including "regular public use" and
"by the Recreation Department's program for atypical and handicapped citizens"
and is "a heavily used facility:" Program Narrative, Section I (a)(2), p.7;
• "At present the asphalt area has unraveled, making it unusable for any type of
play and there is no screening to help obliterate the noise or to screen off the
adjacent commercial areas." Program Narrative, Section l(a)(2), p.7;
• "In its present condition, the multi-play area presents a serious safety hazard and
without reconstruction cannot be used for scheduled programs for 1976."
Program Narrative, Section l(a)(2), p.7;
• "Reconstructing the entire surface of the area, providing and correcting drainage
problems and planting evergreen trees to screen off the commercial area adjacent
and eliminating any safety hazards would provide adequate facilities for the needs
described." Program Narrative, Section I (a)(2), p. 7;
• "The reconstruction of the Baldwin Multi-Play area which is also located in an
established playground will most economically ... provide an attractive, safe and
useful facility for both the handicapped and the general public use." Program
Narrative, Section 2, p. IO (emphasis added);
, The "Geographic Location" is defined as follows: "The Baldwin Multi-Play area
located in the 1.5 acre Baldwin Playground is bounded as follows: Northerly by
privately owned property on Oak Street; Easterly by the town owned Baldwin
Playground; Southerly by land owned by the Town of Brookline; and Westerly by
privately owned commercial property." Program Narrative, Section 4, p.11
(emphasis added);
• The "Environmental Assessment" states that "(t)he Baldwin multi-purpose play
area is within the Baldwin Playground. The proposal consists of reconstructing
the entire surface of a .43 acre area, providing and correcting drainage problems
and planting evergreen trees to screen off the adjacent commercial area ... (i]n its
present condition, the unraveled asphalt surface is not usable." Environmental
Assessment, Section I (b), p.2; and
• The "Environmental Assessment" states that "(t]he multi-play area is not usable,
the surface of the asphalt is cracked and unravelling and is not a safe area for
present use. The adjacent commercial area is unsightly, noisy and interferes with
activities on the multi-play site. The drainage is poor." Environmental Assessment,
Section I (b), p.2.

Again and again, the Application unequivocally describes the project as reconstruction of
the paved "multi-purpose" play area constituting only .43 acres of the 1.5-acre Baldwin
Playground. The Geographic Description contained in the Application (and later incorporated
into the Project Agreement) is particularly illuminating, especially when considered in
conjunction with the 6(f)(3) map.

SpecificaJly, the Application's Geographic Location description explicitly defines the

. "Baldwin Multi-Play area" as being bounded to the east "by the town owned Baldwin
Playground ... ." The inquiry should end there. Furthermore, the Geographic Location
description describes the Baldwin Multi-Play area as being bounded to the north "by privately

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

4
McGREGOR & LEGERE
owned property on Oak Street"; this accurately describes the "PAVED PLAY AREA" boundary,
but does not accurately describe the boundary of the Baldwin Playground as a whole. 2

LWCF PROJECT AGREEMENT AND INSPECTION REPORT

Similarly, the Project Agreement and supporting materials state the following:

•The Project scope is described as "[c]onstruction of recreational facilities at two

playgrounds" and, with respect to the Baldwin Playground, "the reconstructic;m of
a multiple-use play area and the drainage system and landscaping; all by the Town
of Brookline, Norfolk County.";
• The 6(f)(3) boundary map for the Baldwin Playground was attached and
incorporated by reference - the map is titled "Baldwin Area Map 25-00192" and
has an arrow pointing to the western portion of the Baldwin Playground site,
which is outlined with a heavy black line and labeled "PAVED PLAY AREA";
• The "locus map" that shows the locations of the Baldwin and Longwood
Playgrounds in Brookline likewise distinguishes between the paved multi-purpose
play area and the rest of the Baldwin Playground site, with the former area
colored pink and the latter area colored green (an enlargement of the Baldwin
Playground portion of this map is included in Exhibit C attached hereto); and
• The Project Agreement also incorporated by reference the documents submitted as
part of the LWCF Application, including the Application form and supporting
materials discussed above.

Furthennore, a July 20, 1989 Post-Completion On-Site Inspection Report states "[a]t
Baldwin the project included the reconstruction of a multiple-use play area, drainage system and
landscaping." That Report also attaches a "Photo of Baldwin Tennis Courts" which pictures a
fence with "Baldwin Courts" LWCF sign posted. 3 A copy of that Inspection Report is attached as
Exhibit D.

NPS STAFF OPINION ON EXTENT OF LWCF PROTECTION

Ms. Lang's April 13 e-mail opines that the entirety of the Baldwin Playground site is
restricted for future use and development, as a result of the Town accepting LWCF grant money,
based upon three factors. A copy of that e-mail is attached as Exhibit E. We disagree with Ms.
Lang's reasoning and conclusion, and shall address each factor in turn.

2
The Baldwin Playground site shares its longest northern boundary with the Town-owned Baldwin School property,
as illustrated by the 6(1)(3) boundary map .
.1 This Report also replies "yes" to the question "Was the 6(f)(3) boundary re-verified or established at the time oft'he
inspection, particularly for older projects?" The Town understands that only the ''multi-use play area" is within the
6(f)(3) boundary, and we are aware of no evidence to support a conclusion that the 6(f)(3) boundary was ever
defined as including the entire Baldwin Playground site. Consequently, it appears that the position set forth in Ms.
Lang's April 13 e-mail represents a significant change in NPS's interpretation of the 6(f)(3) boundary.

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

5
McGREGOR & LEGERE
First, Ms. Lang points to language from the "Manual that was in effect" when the Project
Agreement was executed in 1976, which provides "that where development assistance is given,
the lands of the park or recreation area within which the development is located are subject to the
Act." It appears that Ms. Lang is relying on the January 27, 1975 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Manual. However, that document leads the Town of Brookline to a different conclusion with
respect to the Baldwin Playground site.

Part 685 of the 1975 Manual is titled "Responsibilities following Project Completion."
Part 685, Chapter 1, section 2 states that:

The rules given in this Part apply to each area or facility for which assistance is
obtained from the Fund, regardless of the extent of participation of the Fund in
that area or facility. That is, in cases where assistance is provided only for an
acquisition, the entire park or recreational area involved, 'including developments
on the lands so acquired, are subject to the provisions of this Part. Where
development assistance is given, the lands of the park or recreation area within
which the development is located are subject to this Part. (emphasis added).

This language lends itself to an interpretation other than the one that has been adopted by
Ms. Lang. It plainly distinguishes between LWCF grant money used for acquisition and grant
money used for development. This section may fairly be read to mean that with regard to land
that is acquired with LWCF funds, the entire park or recreation area is subject to Part 685, while
for development projects, only those areas that are developed with LWCF funds are subject to
Part 685. 4.

If the intent of the Manual were to encumber the entirety of any park or recreation area
touched in any way by LWCF grant money, this section could have simply said so. If that were
the case, there would have been no need to differentiate between using LWCF grant money for
acquisition versus development. Since it is undisputed that the Baldwin Playground renovation
project qualified as a development project under the L WCF, it follows that only that portion of
the site "within which the development is located" should be subject to the Project Agreement.

This conclusion is supported by the 6(f)(3) map, which clearly defines only the paved
multi-purpose play area as the area that is to be developed and protected. It is also consistent
with the LWCF Act of I 965, §5(f), which provided that "[n]o property acquired or developed
with assistance under this section shall, without approval of the Secretary, be converted to other
than public outdoor recreation uses."

Secondly, Ms. Lang says "[t]he EA for the project describes that 'the Baldwin multi�
purpose play area is within the Baldwin Playground' and refers to the entire park, for example,
'Baldwin Playground is owned and supervised by the Park & Recreation Commission.' " The
reference to "the Baldwin multi-purpose play area [being] within the Baldwin Playground" must
4
This is also consistent with the first sentence of the paragraph, which states that Part 685 applies "to each area or
facility for which assistance is obtained from the Fund ... ." It is worth noting that the terms "area" and "facility"
are not defined by the Manual.

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

6
McGREGOR & LEGERE
be considered in the context of the Application as a whole. The very next sentence of the
Application's Environmental Assessment states that "[t]he proposal consists of reconstructing the
entire surface of a .43 acre area, providing and correcting drainage problems and planting
evergreen trees to screen off the adjacent commercial area ... [i]n its present condition, the
unraveled asphalt surface is not usable." Environmental Assessment, Section 1 (b), p.2 ( emphasis
added).

As discussed above, the Application narrative repeatedly describes the work as

reconstruction of the paved "multi-purpose" play area constituting only .43 acres of the 1.5-acre
Baldwin Playground. The Geographic Location description defines the "Baldwin Multi-Play
area" as being bounded to the east "by the town owned Baldwin Playground" and to the north
"by privately owned property on Oak Street."5 The 6(f)(3) boundary map for the Baldwin
Playground shows an arrow pointing to the western portion of the Baldwin Playground site,
which is outlined with a heavy black line and labeled "PAVED PLAY AREA.'' 6

The Application's statement that the "Baldwin Playground is owned and supervised by
the Park & Recreation Commission" has no legal weight and is apparently nothing more than a
misstatement reflecting the 1954 Town Meeting vote authorizing development of the Baldwin
Playground by the Brookline Park Commissioners. LWCF Application, En;ironmental
Assessment, Section 2(b), p.3. Elsewhere, the Application correctly states that the Baldwin
Playground "was purchased in 1941" and that the "1954 vote of the Town Meeting authorized
the development by the Park Commissioners of Baldwin Playground for recreational purposes."
Program Narrative, Section 1 (a)(2), p.7. In other words, the Baldwin Playground was acquired
by the Brookline School Committee in 1941, and has remained in the care, custody and control
of the School Committee at all times up to the present day.

Thirdly, Ms. Lang states that "the paved play area doesn't appear to include a public
entrance or access point, Oak Street is not directly connected to that area of the park." This is
simply incorrect. There is a paved path running to the paved multi-purpose play area from a
parking lot closest to Hammond Street on the �djacent, Town-owned Soule Recreation Center
site. There is also a gate providing direct access from the paved multi-purpose play area to the
Baldwin Playground site. Photographs illustrating these two access points are attached as
Exhibit F.

Thus, two entrances provide public access to the paved multi-purpose play area. The
public entrance providing direct access from the public parking lot on Hammond Street is
completely separate and independent from the rest of the Baldwin Playground site. Therefore,
the paved multi-purpose play area can be accessed and used by members of the public without
entering any other portion of the Baldwin Playground.

5 Again, this accurately describes the "PAVED PLAY AREA" boundary, but does not accurately describe the
Baldwin Playground as a whole.
6
The color-coded ''locus map" that shows the locations of the Baldwin and Longwood Playgrounds in Brookline
likewise distinguishes between the paved multi-purpose play area and the rest of the Baldwin Playground site.

0 Printed on recycled paper.

 EXHIBIT 13

McGREGOR & LEGERE

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. it is our opinion that rny rcstnctlons on future use and
development stemming from acceptance of an LWCF grant apply only to the puved nmlti­
purposc play area portion of the site, and not to the Baldv. in Playground as a whole.

We look forward lo receiving your response soon, nnd please do not hesi1utc lo contact
me should you have any (1ucstions in the meantime.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

cc: Melissa Cryan, Massachusetts Executive omcc of Energy and Environmental Affoirs
Megmt Lang, Nutional Park Service

0 1'111111:J 1u1 rc..:\..:kil 1m�r

EXHIBIT 14
 EXHIBIT 14

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NonheasL Region
United States Custom House
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
IN kEl'LY REFU ro

8.B. (LWCF) AUG 2 3 2011

Mr. Luke H. Legere

15 Court Square - Suite 500
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Re. Baldwin Playground, Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, LWCF project #25-00192

Dear Mr. Legere:

Thank you for your letter dated June 16, 2017, sent on behalf of the Town of Brookline, MA and
the supplemental details provided following the conference call on July 12, 2017. Your letter
requested the National Park Service (NPS) reconsider an April 13, 2017 boundary detennination
provided by our Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State and Local Assistance (SLA)
Programs staff member to our state contact with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs (MA-EEA). The MA-EEA administers the LWCF Program in
Massachusetts and is responsible for compliance and enforcement from pre-grant consultation
through post-completion and stewardship. In light of your request, we reconsidered all of the
details associated with Baldwin Playground and your analysis. We agree with our colleague's
original detennination that the entire 1.5 acre Baldwin Playground is subject to the provisions of
LWCF (54 U.S.C. 200305(t)(3)).

We understand that LWCF funds were used to assist in the reconstruction of a multiple-use area
(hereafter referred to as the "paved play area") of Baldwin Playground and that the project
application materials contain references to the paved play area as the project area within the
Baldwin Playground, as described in attachments to your letter. Similarly, the Town of Baldwin
area map (the project pre-dates the introduction of the 6f boundary map requirement) identifies
the footprint of the LWCF-assisted recreation facility (the paved play area) within the larger
Baldwin Playground. However, the interpretation that the L WCF boundary is limited to this .43
acre footprint, as opposed to the 1.5 acre park is incorrect. As we mentioned during the
conference call, it is not unusual for LWCF application materials to be focused on the specific
area where the project will occur within a park.

The purpose of the LWCF Act was to create and add to a nation-wide permanent outdoor
recreation estate. Although the wording used to describe it has been tweaked over time, the
 EXHIBIT 14

LWCF policy for what is considered the protected park/recreation area has been in place since
the start of the program. As stated in the LWCF Manual that was in effect at the time of the
grant agreement, "[w]here development assistance is given. the lands of the park or recreation
area within which the development is located are subject to this Part." (Emphasis added.) By way
of example, the LWCF program provides grants for work or facilities in parks that support the
outdoor recreation but do not themselves provide it, such as installing restrooms or concession
stands, burying overhead utility lines, or constructing erosion control protection. The LWCF
protection boundary is not placed around the footprint of the bathroom, utility alignment, or sea
wall. The boundary requirement applies to the park or recreation area, not the assisted facilities.

We also evaluated the paved play area in the context of whether it could have been considered a
stand-alone park. Although the project application materials provide the specific size of the
paved play area (.43 acres), the acreage provided for Baldwin Playground {1.5 acres) is inclusive
of the .43 acres. There are no other indications that the paved play area was considered a stand­
alone park unit distinct from Baldwin Playground as a whole. As articulated in our
contemporary Manual, an LWCF boundary must encompass a viable public outdoor recreation
area that is capable of being self-sustaining without reliance upon adjoining or additional areas.
Except in unusual cases where it can be shown a lesser unit is clearly a self-sustaining outdoor
recreation resource, the area subject to LWCF protection will be the park, open space, or
recreation area being developed or expanded.

One element of establishing whether a park is self-sustaining is how the public accesses it. In
trying to make the case that the LWCF boundary is limited to the paved play area, your letter
described that there are two options for access: (1) a gate providing direct access to the paved
play area from Baldwin Playground, and (2) a path running to the paved play area from the
parking lot closest to Hammond Street on the adjacent, town-owned Soule Recreation Center
site. The first option does not help establish the paved play area as self-sustaining because
access from the rest of Baldwin Playground is needed for the public to reach it from a street (i.e.,
the paved play area relies on adjoining park area). Regarding the second option, we understand
from your follow-up email that it was not constructed until the mid- l 990's, and therefore could
not have been presented as the access at the time of the grant, making (1) the likely access.
Given this, it's hard to imagine the paved play area was considered a stand-alone recreation area
in 1976 versus one of the recreation facilities of the Baldwin Playground.

Lastly, your letter said that the LWCF application contained erroneous infonnation when it
stated that the "Baldwin Playground is owned and supervised by the Park and Recreation
Commission." However, we learned during the July 12111 conference call that regardless of the
particular municipal divisions (i.e. Brookline School Committee, Park and Recreation
Commission, etc.) the entire 1.5 acre property is owned by the Town of Brookline, which is
consistent with the application materials and project agreement.
 EXHIBIT 14

If you have further questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Megan Lang,
SLA program officer at215-597-8875 or megan_lang@nps.gov.

Sincerely,

dL(I/L� �C(,i(u��L
Cynthia MacLeod
Acting Regional Director
Northeast Region

cc: Robert O'Connor, ASLO, Division of Conservation Services, MA Executive Office of

Energy and Environmental Affairs

cc. Elisabeth Morgan Fondriest, National Park Service, SLA Program Washington Office
EXHIBIT 15
 EXHIBIT 15

MEMORANDUM

TO: Chin Y. Lin, AIA LEED AP FROM: F. Giles Ham, P.E. �

HMFH ARCHITECTS Vanasse & Associates, Inc.
130 Bishop Allen Drive 35 New England Business Center Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139 Suite 140
Andover, MA O 1810
(978) 474-8800

DATE: March 14, 2018 RE: 7826

SUBJECT: Preliminary Transportation Assessment

"Baldwin North"
Brookline, MA

INTRODUCTION

Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VA() has conducted a Preliminary Transportation Assessment with respect to
th
the "Baldwin North" 9 Elementary School Alternative. The "Baldwin North" School, as currently
proposed, would consist of a 550-600 student elementary school to be located on Heath Street, just north
of Hammond Street in Brookline, MA. The school will be serviced by two driveways on Heath Street
with a one-way circulation for drop-offs and pick-ups. The queue area for drop-offs and pick-ups would
be approximately 640 feet. In addition, an approximate 240-foot bus parking area is proposed along
Heath Street. The conceptual school plan is attached.

Heath Street

Heath Street, in the vicinity of the proposed school, is a roadway under local jurisdiction that generally
travels in an east/west orientation in Brookline Massachusetts. Heath Street accommodates a two-lane
roadway in each direction with travel separated by a double yellow centerline. Concrete sidewalks are
generally provided along Heath Street within the area. Land use along Heath Street consists primarily of
residential, school and recreational properties. There is no posted speed limit on Heath Street in the
general vicinity of the proposed school. Existing Heath Street traffic volumes are summarized in Table l.

Table 1
EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC-VOLUME SUMMARY

Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday Afternoon Pc1tk Hour

Daily Percent of Percent of
Volume Volume Daily Predominant Volume Daily Predominant
Location (vpd)' (vpht TmfTic' -----
Flow (vp h) Traffic Flow

licuth Street, cast of 4,850 489 10.1 86%Wl:3 314 6.5 82%WB
Soule Recreation Drive

'Two-way daily traffic expressed in vehicle.� per day; from ATR Coun1· s November 2016.
• Ma11u11I tum ing movement counis conducted in November 2016.

�.
'The percent of daily traffic I.hut occL«s during the peak hour.
WB = westbound

G:\7826 Orookline, MA\Memo,\(;hin Un Ol 14 IR �oc,

 EXHIBIT 15

As can be seen in Table l, Heath Street was found to accommodate approximately 4,850 vehicles per day
(vpd) with 489 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday morning school peak hour and 314 vph during
the weekday afternoon school peak hour. Directional traffic during both the morning and afternoon
periods is heavily directional in the westbound direction.

Trip Generation

Trip-Generation estimates were based upon the methodology presented in the February 2017
Transportation [mpact Assessment for the proposed Baldwin Elementary School. Based upon the reduced
student population of 550-600 students, the revised trip-generation is shown in Table 2, which includes a
600-student school and 175 students would be bused with one METCO bus accommodated.

Table 2
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY: 600 STUDENTS/150 BUSED

Drop-off/
Time Period Staff Buses Pick-up Total Trips

Weekday Morning
Peak Hour:
Entering 74 7 232 313
Exiting _Q 1 232 239
Total 74 14 464 552

Weekday Afternoon
Peak Hour:
Entering 0 7 147 154
Exiting Q 1 ill 188
Total 0 14 328 342

As can be seen in Table 2, the "Baldwin North" School at 600 students is expected to generate
approximately 552 vehicle trips (313 vehicles entering and 239 exiting) during the weekday morning
peak-hour. During the weekday afternoon peak hour the "Baldwin North" School is expected to generate
approximately 342 vehicle trips (154 vehicles entering and 188 exiting).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Contained in the February 2017 Transportation Impact Assessment is a series of recommendations with
respect to pedestrian improvements, off-site changes and school drop-off and pick-up Traffic
Management Plan. Overall, most of the recommendations still apply with respect to the reduced school
program and impacts will be less than the prior 800-student school. However, with the drop-off area
reduced to 640 feet, there is not adequate area to accommodate the expected vehicle queues and backup
are expected to extend onto Health Street during peak volumes.

G:\7826 Orouklioo. MA\Memu1\Chln Lin OJ 1418 docx 2 �.

EXHIBIT 16
 EXHIBIT 16

-......._ ·--..
E�ENT OF·, >--� '-. . -240°\LF BU$. QUEUEING
-....... ._
.,.0.,., • 0 •• I t
•
_;.
: � - -

_:...:t.EARNfNG-;':: :_ =- - � =- � ' --..

L

·�-!---·��
-
\..:.· �--- ;�11'-�GOMMONS ..
i

·-:--..:
1

N� 1431000 SF
( _:-:-- ATR�UM-····{ I· i ·I s STORY �Ci1QOL
I ' : .j I
�INE OF ZON�NG···· �
640 LF PARENT
I -

I
YAgO-SETBACK :···-·- · r \
.=_;,./..
4� \ '
�;
··.,.
· / , :, · -' , _9.UEUEING
1

i PAfi�ING UNDER . �:, _;,

- • ·-·
(!'······
•. , · ,.--- ,,
_,,

'
I BUILDING- - - - - I, : --..j�'/' ·--
-�:__:---BAJ \� �SCHOOL.,
.DWIN \ (.//A' ,/
_:
0
A
l - - -- _ _ I ;N---/� PROPERTY LINE'"_.,-,I:,4 ,.
f:
'! ; i
t ·1.4 ACRE EXISTING
�
\
_ .., -·· .
/ ' ,,,• ;

1 .. �CHOO� SITE .��,� ...

�' '

/ /A;ROXIMATE EXTENT
, '

OF�··� . -­
4"i.

:f'FEDERAL PARK COVENANT i

. -'""' -. �- ": ' ......... '

.. . �ISTIN� lJEES
:r ...

_.,' .
I '
./
... -- ...-···- '
PRE-CONCEPT
9TH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
 EXHIBIT 16

9 th School Alternative Site

Study
---------------�---------------------------------�-------------�----------------- � -����-----------�-------------------------�-----�--------------------------

JOINT SESSION OF THE

SELECT BOARD,
SCHOOL COMMITTEE,
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE

MAY 17, 2018

1 of58
 EXHIBIT 16

Baldwin (North)
(JLA YR16-17)
27 CLASSROOMS 3+ SECTION
640 SEATS
+27 NET CLASSROOM CAPACITY

NEW CONSTRUCTION
• New 3+ Section School, 143,000 sq ft
• Organized into three clusters (PK-2, 3-5,
and 6-8)
• Plus includes 3 Pre-K classes, RISE and
native language support program
• 5 floors to fit on compact site
• Dedicated collaboration and project
space in each cluster
• Teacher collaboration and workspace in
each cluster
• Parent queuing on site, parking below
ground
• Single learning common
 EXHIBIT 16

Baldwin (North)
SUPPOR TING EDUCATIONAL PLAN CHARAC TERIS TICS 01
• Two 3+ section schools in South Brookline • Previously develo
avoids a large single school. • Small tight site w
• All spaces meet MSBA standards. CONS TRUC TION SCHE
• Provides capacity for Pre-K classrooms. • Swing Space and
• Equity of instructional space across the school. • Property Acquisit
TRAFFIC, PEDES TRIAN & PARKING CONDI TIONS • Small tight site re
• Drop-off/Pick-up queuing capacity is not on-site. 5-floors, plus a be
• Bus Drop-off/Pick-up is not on-site. excavation at led�
• Lack of on-site queuing will impact Heath Street.
SCHOOL ENVIRONMEN T/ EXPANSION NEEDS 27 CLASSROOMS 3-
• Expands common core facilities in South 640 SEATS
Brookline. + 27 NET CLASSROOM
• Separate 9th School location avoids disruption to
other schools during construction.
EXCLUDING the SoulE
• South Brookline projected enrollment needs are Open Space and Park
met.
EXHIBIT 17
 EXHIBIT 17

11/23/2018 apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/Uvt4Jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pU37611232018115157784.htm

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE SELECT BOARD,SCHOOL

COMMITTEE, AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE ON A 9TH SCHOOL

FOR
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018
SELECT BOARD'S HEARING ROOM
6 FLOOR, BROOKLINE TOWN HALL
TH

• Neil Wishinsky- Chair

• Benjamin J. Franco
• Nancy S. Heller
• Bernard W. Greene
• Heather A. Hamilton
• Melvin A. Kleckner - Town
Administrator
Present: Select Board Members: Neil Wishinsky, Ben Franco,
Nancy Heller, Bernard Greene, and Heather Hamilton
School Committee Members present: Mr. Pollak (Chairman), Mr.
Glover (Vice Chairman), Ms. Charlupski, Ms. Federspiel, Ms.
Schreiner-Oldham, Ms. Monopoli, Mr. Pearlman
Advisory Committee Ad hoc Subcommittee Members: Sean Lynn­
Jones, Carla Benka, John Doggett, Fred Levitan, Michael Sandman

Select Board Chair Neil Wishinsky announced that 9th School Alternative Site Study Program Manager, Joe
Connelly, is not available tonight to make this presentation; however, his work is evident throughout the
presentation. Ben Lummis, Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Strategy and Performance and Pip Lewis
of HMFH Architects will make the presentation. He welcomed newly elected School Committee Members
Jennifer Monopoli and David Pearlman. He added that the goal is to make a decision on a 9 th school site by the
end of June.

School Committee Chair, David Pollak added that Stalwarts have been part of this process for a long time, and
welcomed those new to the process. He spoke about a recent tour of the New Devotion School with some school
community members, the renovations were well received; it was a long process, but we will get there.

Board Member Wishinsky spoke about the Lincoln School process twenty something years ago; had it been
presented today it may not have come to fruition, there are traffic concerns and sits on a small site; however it
works.

Ben Lummis, Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Strategy and Performance, standing in for Joe Connelly
and Pip Lewis, Architect began their PowerPoint presentation.

Powemoint Highlights:

Phase I of the project. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation on potential sites for a 9 th school.

Outline of the process to date.

Identify, review and project elementary enrollment and growth numbers.
Cost assumptions.

Proposed standalone site selections: Putterham, Baldwin Plan D, Baldwin North and Pine Manor College.

Putterham is adjacent to the Town's Municipal Golf Course and Fire Station number 6. The proposed entrance
will be offHamond Street opposite Laurel Road, with a long entrance drive and space for surface parking for 90
cars. It would be a 3 plus section school in South Brookline that will expand the common core facilities, add 27
http://apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pt/37611232018115157784.htm 1/5
 EXHIBIT 17

11/23/2018 apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pt/37611232018115157784.htm

classrooms and 640 seats. An important component to consider is the proximity to the new fire training tower
currently under development. The site would also require a land swap due to Article 97 requirements. The
projected cost is $11 lM plus property acquisition for the land swap.

Baldwin, Plan-D would expand the common core facilities in South Brookline, and be in partnership with the
Soule Recreation Center and Brookline's Parks and Recreation. This property is protected under the Land, Water
and Conservation Fund (LWCF), and Article 97 and would require a land swap. It would add 27 classrooms, 640
seats and would be a 3 plus section school at a cost estimate of $103M plus acquisition and land swap.

Baldwin North, presents a more compact, 5 story building in efforts to avoid Article 97 issues. Garage parking
would be under the building with limit onsite parking. Student drop off and pick up would be limited onsite, at
Heath Street. The Heath and Hammond Street intersection would be significantly impacted. This would sit on a
tight site; add 27 classrooms, 640 seats and would be a 3 plus section school at a cost estimate of $1 l 7M.
Escalation costs are not projected.

Pine Manor College would involve an eminent domain taking from the college. There would be adequate space
for onsite parking with both underneath and surface parking. It would be a modern building similar to the
Baldwin Plan-D with drop off and pick up onsite. It would expand the common core facilities, add 27
classrooms, 640 seats and be a 3 plus section school. The cost is estin1ated at approximately $121M plus
property acquisition costs.

Expand in place proposals.

Baker School site offers four recommendations that would minimize new construction on the wetlands, preserve
open space, and provide additional play areas. Each proposal offers extending the parking area and service
roads out to Beverly Road and would provide a long queuing space. Stmctured parking would be provided
underneath.

Baker KS/678 includes a renovated Baker School, taking down part of the D and E wings and adding a new
Upper school. This would be a 6 section school with a projected cost estimated at $184M plus swing space costs.

Baker 5 would be a renovation and expansion, eliminating the E wing and be a 5 section school with 8 net
classroom capacity. The estimated cost is from $92M-I38M plus swing space costs.

Baker 3/3 option 1 would include a three section independent school and renovation to the existing school,
reducing it to a 3 section, avoiding a large 6 section school. It would be two separate schools addressing all the
core facilities needed for the 1,000 plus enrolment. Open space per student decreases with this design. The
estimated cost is $109M-163M plus swing space.

Baker 3/3 option 2 would provide the same program as the previous option; the difference is the new
constmction would be away from the existing school with a full renovation. It would be a more compact school
with a larger play area. The plans reflect the same size as option l with a cost estimate of $184M plus swing
space costs.

Pierce School offers four recommendations, the existing building is unusual in shape and there are current
handicapped accessibility problems that would be difficult and expensive to fix. If the cost of any renovations is
more than $5 million, the town would be required to bring the entire facility up to the current code. There is a
wide range of costs, play space would remain across the street and they would be looking to purchase
commercial properties on Harvard Street.

Pierce KS/678 Renovation Addition to lower/New Upper School. This would be a 6 section school with
classroom and acoustic upgrades. It would require purchasing 62 and 68 Harvard Street, adding 17 classrooms at
a cost of $108M-173M plus the acquisition and swing space costs.
http:/lapps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pt/37611232018115157784 .htm 2/5
 EXHIBIT 17

11/23/2018 apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pU37611232018115157784.htm

Pierce 5, option 1, Renovation Addition as a 5 Section School. This would be a full renovation with the same
program as the Devotion School. There would be parking below, and an increase to the cafeteria and a new gym.
This would only provide 8 net classrooms. The cost is estimated at $142M plus property acquisition plus
possible swing space.

Pierce 5 option 2, Renovation Addition Lower/ New Upper School. This would be 2 school buildings for
upper/lower grades, and expand the common core facilities, add 50 parking spaces below grade, and would add
8 classrooms, and be a 5 section school over 2 buildings. The estimated costs has a wide range from $70M
-$148M

Pierce 3/3, two new 3 Section Schools. This would be a construction with 5-floors, and be two independent 3
section schools, requiring demolition of the existing Pierce including the parking garage structure. There would
be 17 additional classrooms, new open play space. The preliminary cost estimate is $225M plus property
acquisition and swing space costs.

Driscoll School: Renovation Addition 4 section School. This would expand to a 4 section school, with a new
addition and expanding the cafeteria. There would be underground parking, and green space would be preserved.
There would be an additional 9 classrooms at a costs estimate of $60-$83M.

Heath School is expanded to a four section school, renovates the 24 existing classrooms, adds 9 net classrooms,
expands the cafeteria and adds a new full sized gym. The estimated costs is $63M-$75M.
Discussion:

Select Chair Wishinsky stated that this is a daunting amount of information to sort through, and it is essential to
approach this in a structured way. He asked if staff could bundle up the information to claiify the options. He
feels it is important to not only consider the educational plan, whether to expand in place or build a new school,
but the project cost is an essential factor. He also spoke about the cost estimates which most likely would change
and their impact on the voters for the override cost. Looking at some of the cost estimates, it could result in a
10% increase in property taxes compared to the lower options that would be approximately 3.36% increase
looking at a $1 OOM project. He also noted that the Putterham School presents challenges with the traffic
impacts, and its location to the Horace James Circle, the Fire Training facility, and the land swap requirement.

Ad hoc Committee member Michael Sandman spoke about the calculations which he has calculated to cost an
average of $SM per classroom for a new school building, times that with the proposed 27 classrooms, it is
significant. He noted that the presentation shows adding 17 classrooms here and 9 classrooms there for an
average cost per classrooms $9M-$10M for a renovation project. The difference is significant.

Ad hoc Committee member Sean Lynn-Jones spoke about the cost structure over the next ten years and how
much is planned for school capital spending. Both the Pierce and Driscoll Schools ai·e due for renovations, and
may be done at the same time frame we are adding capacity. The proposal estimates using Y4 billion dollars for
about 27 new classrooms. The question is, how much would the town spend renovating Driscoll and Pierce
anyway, over the next 5-10 years $SOM, higher? For the Pierce School are we going to make a decision to do a
minimal renovating that is not ADA compliance, to keep cost down, and how much do we spend looking at the
policy and equity question. Also, it does seem implausible to do a school renovation, plus build a 9th school.

Board Member Franco endorsed Chair Wishinsky's comment about packaging the options for better review. He
also noted that none of the options achieve the 36 additional classrooms that were articulated at the beginning of
the presentation. He also asked about the concept of taking on more than one project at the same time; he is not
sure there is the capacity to oversee such an undertaking. He would like to see the cost numbers phased out and
the expenditures of funds rolled out.

Ad hoc Committee member John Doggett stated that they need to consider the operating cost; buses for
Putterham and Baldwin, grounds staff and the overhead for a standalone school, over I 0-20 years this could add
http://apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pt/37611232018115157784.htm 3/5
 EXHIBIT 17

11/23/2018 apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pV37611232018115157784.htm

up significantly. They need to take a look at the total cost package.

School Committee member Hellen Charlupski added that there is a problem today, and they need a solution
today. There may not be the capacity to borrow to do three projects. Perhaps there is a solution that works that
would provide some relief for Driscoll and Pierce Schools, and wait for the Massachusetts School Board
Authority (MSBA) to help out. She added that they need to take a holistic view of the situation and not try to do
it all, there could be incremental ways of doing this over ten years, because either way there would be a process
of ten years. She asked if it would really take until 2020 to get things moving.

Architect Pip Lewis replied that schematic design and construction documents would be required before the
project goes out to bid and could take a little more than a year.

Ms. Schreiner-Oldham asked about the assumption cost related to swing space; is the cost to utilize the Old
Lincoln School attributed to that? What if the Old Lincoln School is being used during the High School
renovation and additional space would be required.

Mr. Lummis replied that some of those costs are included some are not. It is important to know if looking for
swing space it will not be at the Old Lincoln. The consideration would be; where is the space, is busing
involved, renovations needed, and who pays for it. We have learned about some of these issues the Devotion
School move.

School Committee member Suzanne Federspiel asked for an update on the lawsuits relating to potential land
acquisition and the potential time delay. Mr. Lummis directed her to a public memo. Chair Wishinsky added that
some of this discussion should be held in executive session.

School Committee member Michael Glover asked about the land swap process. Chair Wishinsky responded that
this is currently being reviewed.

Ad hoc Committee member Fred Levitan asked about a brook that was deadened and buried on the Driscoll
School property and if that could interfere with the proposed underground parking. Mr. Lewis replied that the
proposed plans would not disturb the brook.

Mr. Doggett spoke about capacity and where to put the classrooms to relieve that. He reviewed some data that
has been presented at va1ious times and each presentation offers a different method of calculating the enrollment
growth numbers. One report shows that� of the students are in North Brookline, indicating that is where the
overcrowding is. The south of Brookline shows a different enrollment model. He recommends that Mr.
Connelly form a working group tasked to review the methodology and prepare any required adjustments. We
need a school to be where the students actually are.

Chair Wishinsky spoke about walkability as being one of the many dimensions and a redistricting exercise is a
very complex undertaking.

Chair Pollak spoke about the MSBA process, and reviewed that they started the process for the Devotion School
in 2006. The Town applied to their program 5 times and where invited to proceed in 2011. This school will open
in the fall of 2018. He noted that the MSBA usually supports only one project in a community at a time.

Mr. Lummis added that their projections indicate an increase of 223 students in North Brookline, and 120
students in South Brookline. He noted that it makes sense to agree on a methodology, but questions the
distribution of the methodology.

Chair Pollak added that there would be a best attempt to provide a transparent way to see where the children are
now, if building more than one project, there would be a need to look around and determine where the children
actually live; our best predictor is where the children live today.

http://apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pV37611232018115157784.htm 4/5
 EXHIBIT 17

11/23/2018 apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/Uvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pV37611232018115157784.htm

Ms. Charlupski stated that the focus appears to be on North and South Brookline, there should be some
consideration addressed at central locations, this may be able to capture an area where more students may have
access. Wherever a school is located there will be busing required.

Mr. Sandman added that a school can't be built based solely on walkability; it should not focus only on where
the students live, but where we can put classrooms.

Chair Pollak reviewed some material he had passed out that outlines his overview.

1. The quality of the school itself- inside and outside, building and site - to fully realize our Education
Plan. Size, configuration, visual and physical access to natural light and outdoors. Secondarily,
community benefits, recreation benefits, and other secondary programming.
2. The location relative to safety, accessibility, convenience, walkability, traffic/congestion, adjacencies.
3. Deliverability- risk analysis (can we deliver), time to complete (when can we deliver), etc. All options
need debt exclusion override and 2/3 vote at Town Meeting. What else might be a "deal breaker"
4. Cost- including project construction cost, land acquisition, sewing space/disruption, and escalation.
5. Degree to which it solves the expansion need - how much total school capacity is provided (assuming the
need for all spaces including play space is significant as the need for classrooms at this point).
6. Degree to which it solves the renovation need - at Pierce and Driscoll, and eventually at other buildings
(Lincoln opened almost 25 years ago).

Chair Wishinsky proposed taking out Baldwin North as an option due to significant traffic concerns, Pierce 5
and Baker 5; these have a very high costs associated to them with very a low return; he feels these three options
are not worth further consideration.

Mr. Lummis asked the committee members and the public to consider and offer their thoughts on a proposed site
selection, and a format for the requested, condensed package. He noted that on Pierce 5, Option 2 there is a large
cost range.

Chair Pollak added that there may not be a fundamental difference in terms of solving the expansion challenge
between Pierce 5 and Baker 5, but when we say the next renovation project we are committed to be Pierce,
which might be spending money and reducing enrollment capacity. The incremental cost of Pierce is different
than Baker. If we are just trying to solve classroom issues right away, I understand the point that it is so
extensive; however, in his mind a Pierce 5 maybe something he would be interested in with a partnership with
the MSBA.

Chair Wishinsky announced that there will be a public hearing on June 6, 2018 at the Brookline High School
Auditorium.

There being no further business, Chair Wishinsky adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M.

ATTEST

http://apps.brooklinema.gov/sirepub/cache/2/tlvt4jhpgm3fjkkndlaa22pt/37611232018115157784.htm 5/5
EXHIBIT 18
 EXHIBIT 18

SCHOOLS AND CAPITAL SUBCOMMITTEES REPORT ON WARRANT ARTICLES

3(E) AND 4
OCTOBER 16, 2018

The Schools and Capital Subcommittees of the Advisory Committee held a public
hearing on October 2, 2018 in Room 108 of Town Hall. Attending were Schools
Subcommittee members Bobbie Knable, Dennis Doughty, Mariah Nobrega, Mike
Sandman, and David Lescohier; Capital Subcommittee members Cliff Brown, Amy
Hummel, Carla Benka, Pam Lodish, Harry Friedman, and Fred Levitan; Deputy Town
Administrator Melissa Goff; Select Board member Bernard Greene; Superintendent of
Schools Andrew Bott; Deputy Superintendent for Administration and Finance Mary Ellen
Dunn; School Department Acting Project Manager Ben Lummis; School Committee
members Julie Schreiner-Oldham, David Pollak, Susan Wolf Ditkoff, Suzanne
Federspiel, and Helen Charlupski; Advisory Committee members Janice Kahn, John
Doggett, and Sean Lynn-Jones; Town Meeting members Linda Olson Pehlke, Ruthann
Sneider, Scott Ananian, Julie Jette, Jane Flanagan, Nathan Shpritz, Carolyn Thall, John
Doggett·, Bob· Miller, Martha Farlow, Kristine Knauf, Lauren Bernarc t Richard
Nangle,and Susan Cohen; Attorney Daniel G9ldberg; David Bohn of VHB, and
members of the p>ublic, .including V;Jendy Mt:J�phy, Stacey McCarthy, Victor KuS'min
(Driscoll Building '.Committee).· Sara Stoutland (Dris.c.011 Building Committee), Ryari
Garms (?), Jenny Doggett, and .David Breen.

SUMMARY
Article 3(E) has been submitted by the Select Board and requests that Town Meeting
appropriate $1.5 million for schematic design services for the renovation, repair and
expansion of the Driscoll School. Plans for a 4-section school are in the Feasibility
Study phase, which, according to the Working Document dated 9/20/18 and entitled
"Schedule of Milestone Deliverables," is currently scheduled to be completed during the
week of December 101h. Funds for the Schematic Design phase are expected to come
from a surplus in the Overlay Account.
Article 4 has been submitted by the Select Board and requests that Town Meeting
release the $1.5 million appropriated under Section 13, Special Appropriation 65 of
Article 7 of the 2018 Annual Town meeting* to fund schematic design services for a

* Advisory Committee recommendation: $1,500,000 ($1,000,000 Revenue Financed, $500,000

reappropriated), provided that the money not be releasedfor expenditure without an affirmative
vote of a future Town Meeting, thereby providing Town 1\1eeting with the opportunity to restrict,
condition or re-appropriate such funds.
 EXHIBIT 18

new school at 490 Heath Street. Plans for "Baldwin 2+++", a two section preK-8 school
with two district wide programs, English language Learners and RISE, are in the
Feasibility Study phase which, according to the Working Document dated 9/20/18 and
entitled "Schedule of Milestone Deliverables," is currently scheduled to be completed
during the week of December 3rd.

BACKGROUND - BALDWIN SCHOOL

Expand in Place
Since 2005, Brookline has experienced vigorous enrollment growth in its public schools.
The K-8 elementary schools have grown by 40% going from 3,904 students in 2006 to
5,482 students in 2017. Preliminary projections anticipate additional growth of more
than 10% from FY 18 through FY 22, although recently there has been some discussion
as to the accuracy of those projections. These enrollment increases, coupled with
School Committee policies, have led to the need to expand educational facilities at both
the K-8 and high school levels. Nearly 60 classrooms have been added to address the
exparided school population by building new classrooms (CoQligg� Corner. School,
Lawrence, Heath, and Runkle), renting space in privately-owned building's (Pierce and
Pre-K), adding modular classrooms (Baker), and creating new classrooms from existing
spa. ces
. within the eight K-8 ·scliools. This expand-in-place approach was
� recommended
by the "B-SPACE11 Committee in 2013.

Civic Moxie - 2016 Site Selection study- 9th School At Baldwin

In 2014 the School Committee and Select Board commissioned an elementary school
site identification study. Civic Moxie was selected and asked to research both public
and private parcels between three and one-half and six acres in size that would
accommodate a K-8 school of approximately 100,000 square feet for 550 students and
100 school staff with onsite parking for 60 vehicles. Civic Moxie's research resulted in
an initial list and matrix of 26 properties. That list was eventually reduced to six sites
considered to be the most promising. After further investigation and a series of public
meetings, three sites were chosen to be the focus of a site selection study: Stop and
Shop on Harvard Street, Baker School, and Baldwin School.
Jonathan Levi Architects (JLA) was chosen to undertake the Site Selection Study. In
October 2016, the Select Board and school Committee chose the Baldwin School site to
be the location of the Town's 9th School. Given its role in the Site Selection Study, JLA
was hired to build on its earlier investigation and preliminary analysis of the Baldwin site
and undertake a Feasibility Study. In its efforts, it was guided by a 15-member 9th
School at Baldwin Building Committee, whose membership included neighborhood and
Heath School community representatives; representatives from the Select Board,
School Committee, Building Commission, Advisory Committee, and Park and
 EXHIBIT 18

Recreation Commission; and School Department and Select Board staff. This
Committee met approximately ten times between November 2016 and May 2017.
In February 2017, the School Committee voted in favor of a 3-section school at Baldwin,
and in the spring the Building Committee voted that "Plan D" be the preferred
configuration (although it never took a vote on its feasibility). The decision to move
forward with building a school on the Baldwin site was not without controversy. An April
3, 2017 letter from an attorney hired by a group of neighbors noted "fatal flaws" with the
site and asserted that numerous legal obligations and encumbrances would subject the
town to multiple legal challenges.

Feasibility and Site Evaluations: November 2017 - June 2018

In November 2017, Town Meeting voted $300,000 to fund feasibility and site
evaluations for the Baldwin School site, the campus of Pine Manor College, Baker
School, Pierce School and other potential 9th school locations. A total of 12 sites were
eventually investigated and assessed and included three different configurations (new
construction,and renovation) at both the Bake.r ar.id Pierce Schools; expansions at the
Driscoll and Heath Schools; and new construction on sites at Putterham Woods, Pine
Manor College, and the Baldwin School (Baldwin North, to be built on the portion of the
Baldwin site under the control of the public schools of Brookline, and the 2017 "Plan D").
(http�://www.brookline. k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907509/Centricity/Domain/722/3.,22.18_
School_Committee_Update.pdf)
HMFH was hired to undertake this work and after a public presentation of its findings in
May and a public hearing in June, Baldwin 2+++, a scheme neither investigated nor
evaluated by HMFH nor previously discussed in recent public forums, was proposed
and approved for further feasibility by a substantial majority of the Select Board, School
Committee and Advisory Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee at their June 18th meeting.
In addition, a substantial majority of the three bodies also voted to undertake the
feasibility of expanding/renovating the Driscoll School and to reiterate their commitment
to partner with the MSBA in pursuing the renovation and expansion of the Pierce
School.
JLA was awarded both feasibility studies with a contract for Baldwin totaling $269,514,
and a contract for Driscoll totaling $318,858. (Of the original $700,000 allocated by
Town Meeting, $111,628 currently remains unexpended and unencumbered.) School
officials expect to hear from the MSBA regarding their submitted April 2018 Statement
of Interest for Pierce in December.
 EXHIBIT 18

Baldwin 2+++
The work of the 9th School at Baldwin Building Committee was suspended in May 2018,
and the Baldwin Building Committee was appointed in September. It held its first
meeting on September 27. Two citizen members of the former 9th School at Baldwin
Committee were appointed to the new committee, including one designated as the
"greater Baldwin Community" representative. (Two of the other three community
representatives live in the Baker School Neighborhood, while one is a Heath School
parent and lives near the Baldwin School.)
Baldwin 2+++ calls for the demolition of the existing Baldwin School and the
construction of a new building consisting of approximately 120,253 square feet, to
house 453 students in Pre K through 81hgrade, including students from three district­
wide programs. Current plans call for 27 classrooms to be added to the PSB's
inventory, and according to the School Department's October 2nd public hearing
presentation, Baldwin 2+++ will address the growth of student enrollment at Baker,
provide capacity for the expanding RISE and English Language programs, and offer
three BEEP classrooms, adding capacity for PreK and/or reducing the continue reliance
on rental ·space for BEEP classro
,. --, ,.
, oms.
Staffing, includin@ food:s-ervices ancd administration, is expected to total 86 people, and
the possibility of c·reating 86 on-street parking spaces is being .�xplored by the S€hool
Department and Ttansportati©lil Board. The school .bl,Jilding is �xpected to incluqe a PV­
ready roof and qualify for LEED1Silver, at a mimimum. Accorc;Hng to the 10/09/2018 draft
of the Baldwin Expansion Program Statement, 1
its preliminarily projected operating cost
is approximately $7.8 million.
Some of the feasibility work, such as Site Survey, Geotechnical Engineering Data
Report, Environmental Site Assessment, and an Asbestos Survey Report had already
been undertaken by JLA in its 2016 contract with the Town, however the Educational
and Space Plan for Baldwin, developed in 2016 by School Department staff for a 4-
section or 3-section school, is now being revised. Additionally, the Traffic Study portion
of the Feasibility Study will need to update the 2016, 3-section school study and will
include a new traffic impact analysis and according to a letter from Vanasse and
Associates to JLA, a comparison to three other Brookline K-8s, (to be determined).
According to its schedule, the Baldwin Building Committee would view three design
strategies at its October 11th meeting. It is expected that by either October 25th or
November 1, the design strategies will have been refined and will be presented to the
Committee, along with cost estimates and the preliminary findings of the traffic report.
On November 291h, the Committee is scheduled to discuss and approve the revised
preferred design alternative and to be presented with updated cost estimates.
 EXHIBIT 18

BACKGROUND - DRISCOLL SCHOOL

One of the 2013 B-SPACE Committee's recommendations was to "Renovate and

expand the Driscoll School to the maximum extent that the site, project feasibility, cost
(including potential MSBA partnership) and pedagogical considerations allow."
(https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/2604/B-SPACE-Report--­
Final?bidld=)

The School Committee proceeded to move forward with the submission of a Statement
of Interest to the MSBA, despite objections from some members of the Driscoll
community, and in June 2014, Town Meeting appropriated $1 million for feasibility and
schematic design services, subject to an invitation from the MSBA to enter into the
Eligibility Period. (https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/4366/Final­
Votes-for-the-Driscoll-School-Feasibility-Study-Appropriation-PDF?bidld=). In
December, the MSBA declined to partner with the Town in further exploring expansion
opportunities.

Like Baldwin 2+++, Driscoll was approved for a Design Feasibility Study in June 2018.
JLA was selected to undertake this project wh.ose goals are to dev�lop a preliminary
design for the renovation and ·expansion of the school, to prod'uce a sfte survey and tree
and environm·ental assessment, and to report on traffic and transportation impact. This
work is expecte� to be completed during the week of December 1Qth .

DISCUSSION of•the Baldwin and Driscoll Projects

Superintendent Bott gave a summary of enrollment growth during the past 13 years and
reviewed the three-prong approach to addressing capacity needs: 18 additional
classrooms for K-8, and 9 classrooms for expanded services at a new Baldwin School
(estimated cost, including on-site parking, $117 million); 7 additional classrooms at a
renovated/expanded-to-4-section Driscoll School (at a range between $60 million and
$83 million, based on HMFH estimates); and 4 additional classrooms at a renovated
Pierce School (at an estimated range between $70 million and $148 million). He
described the current deficiencies at Driscoll, including undersized cafeteria, middle
grade classrooms, and nursing area; inadequate science classrooms, poorly organized
outdoor play space, and lack of community space. He also noted that there were legal
issues pertaining to the Driscoll site, specifically the culverted brook running under the
property that were currently being investigated
The Superintendent went on to describe steps taken since June 2018, including
appointing the Baldwin and the Driscoll Building Committees, holding meetings with
Driscoll staff, and convening an Education Visioning Session and Neighborhood Forum
with the Driscoll Community. He also pointed to initiating the traffic study and legal
review of the Baldwin School property. Preliminary traffic findings for Baldwin are
expected at the end of October or beginning of November and legal guidance is
anticipated in mid-October.
 EXHIBIT 18

Superintendent Bott concluded by summarizing the Feasibility Study schedule and

describing ongoing outreach efforts, including upcoming neighborhood community
forums to be held at Baker and (tentatively) at the Soule Recreation Center to discuss
plans for Baldwin, and Community Forums to be held at Driscoll to discuss plans for that
school.
In response to questions, he noted that enrollment growth has remained unchanged
and that the earliest date to expend Schematic Design funds was likely to be January.
During the public comment session of the meeting, there were many more comments
pertaining to the Baldwin project than to Driscoll. While some participants expressed
appreciation for the current pace in going forward with Baldwin, others voiced concern
that the process was being rushed. It was also noted by some members of the
subcommittees and the public that the information necessary to make an informed
decision about schematic design funding would arrive too late to be studied by Town
Meeting members or might even become available only after Town Meeting adjourns.
Other comments pertained to lawsuits that could be filed to stop Baldwin, costing the
Town time and money. It was suggested that the Town contact staff of the National
Parks Service and the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs to ask whether
using the protected portion of the Baldwin property for public school recess and physical
education would constitute a "change in use."
Additional comments addressed the anticipated negative impact of the traffic gelilerated
by a 453-student school on the neighborhood and acljoining streets and the cur�ent lack
of information on a parking plan, an educational plan/program for the building and a
redistricting plan for the district. Questions were also raised about 1) the effect that
attending such a small school would have on its students, particularly when they arrive
at the High School and 2) the ability to create community when so many families will
need to commute from other parts of Brookline. Lastly, some members expressed
frustration with the lack of transparency, particularly how and why Baldwin 2+++ was
proposed and approved last June, when it had never been previously discussed at a
School Committee or public meeting.
There was also a lengthy discussion about the possible impact of committing $3 million
for Driscoll and Baldwin without knowing whether the MSBA would vote to partner with
the Town on the Pierce project. There was concern on the part of some participants
that "Pushing Driscoll and Baldwin forward pushes Pierce back."

VOTE
 EXHIBIT 18

At the conclusion of public comment, after a series of motions, a motion to table the
discussion was made due to the belief that subcommittee members should have the
completed feasibility studies and first-round cost estimates in hand before
recommending the commitment of a further $3 million to these two projects. The motion
to table the discussion of Article 3(E) passed by a vote of 6-5 and the motion to table
the discussion of Article 4 passed by a vote of 7-3-1.
EXHIBIT 19
 EXHIBIT 19

PUBLIC SCHOOLS of
Four Phases of Construction BROOKLINE

1. Design Feasibility (Sept. 2018 - Dec. 2018)

Building Committee, with input from the community members, Town Boards, PSB Staff and
Families, select a preferred design option for the Baldwin School.
2. Schematic Design (Jan. 2019 - May 2019)
Architects work with Building Committee, community members, Town Boards, PSB Staff and
Families to develop interior and exterior layouts based on selection of preferred design.
3. Design Development and Construction Documents (July 2019 - June 2020)
Final design, floor plans and architectural drawings will be completed. Application for building
permit.
4. Construction (July 2020 - Sept. 2022), Occupancy by Fall 2022

Desi� Schematic Design Oevelo ment and

Feasibility Design Construction &ocuments Construction

Fall
2018
t
Annual
Fall
2019
Fall
2020
Fall
2021
Fa11
2022
Town
Meeting
EXHIBIT 20
 EXHIBIT 20

REPORT OF THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE BALDWIN BUILDING COMMITTEE ON THE USE

OF THE BALDWIN PLAYGROUND BY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN

1. In connection with previous plans for the wider Baldwin site, the legal issues relative to the use of
the Baldwin Playground raised by the 1976 federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
grant and Article 97 were previously considered by Town Counsel, the Select Board, the School
Committee, Park and Recreation Commission, and other Town agencies, with the assistance of
Special Town Counsel.

2. With Counsel, the Town bodies reviewed the LWCF Project Agreement, related documents,
National Park Service guidance documents, then relevant cases and, as they became available,
subsequently decided cases, and the historical uses of the Baldwin Playground over time, including
in 1975-1976 when the LWCF grant was applied for, accepted and used.

3. Based on the previous examination of these issues, updated analyses, and communication with the
National Park Service, Town Counsel and Special Town Counsel advised the co-chairs of the
Baldwin Building Committee that the National Park Service interpretation of the LWCF Project
Agreement and National Park Service guidance documents prohibits anything that would be deemed
a "conversion" of the Baldwin Playground from its current public outdoor recreation use to another
inconsistent use.

4. Based on that advice, the co-chairs of the Baldwin Building Committee consulted with the design
professionals associated with the project and are satisfied that the current plans for the Baldwin
School would not result in a "conversion" of the Baldwin Playground.

5. Those plans include (a) using the Baldwin Playground, on a non-exclusive basis, for outdoor recess
and physical education while school is in session, (b) maintaining the open grounds of the Baldwin
Playground without any additional fencing, building structures, or other impediments to public use
for outdoor recreation - similar to the Longwood Park used by the Lawrence School and other parks
adjacent to Brookline public schools, (c) preserving existing mature trees on the Baldwin Playground
site, (d) replacing certain existing play and other structures with modern and safe structures that are
appropriate to a broader range of ages and are accessible to and inclusive for children and adults
with disabilities, thereby increasing the opportunity for public outdoor recreational use of the
Baldwin Playground, consistent with the LWCF Act, and (e) refurbishing the tennis court area to
make it accessible and usable by a more diverse range of abilities and uses by the public, consistent
with the original intention of the LWCF grant that the area be a "multiple-purpose" play area.

6. While we expect that opponents to the Baldwin School project will continue to fight us on this and
other issues, the co-chairs of the Baldwin Building Committee are satisfied that the Baldwin School
can be built on the designated site and the Baldwin Playground can be utilized by the Baldwin
School as contemplated by the Baldwin Building Committee and the School Committee and we will
so advise the full Baldwin Building Committee at its next meeting on October 11.
EXHIBIT 21
 EXHIBIT 21

OFFICE OF TOWN COUNSEL

NINTH SCHOOL SITING

LEGAL SUMMARY

April 30,2018
 EXHIBIT 21

Ninth School Legal Summary

Our office has been asked to provide a legal summaty identifying all existing and potential restrictions on
9th school sites being considered that could impact the selection of a site as the partial or full solution to
the PSB's projected school capacity needs.

Please note that a statement as to the existence of a potential restriction is not and cannot be a
commentary on whether it could be a means of preventing the use of a site. Many of the restrictions
described below require review by a state or local agency. The stringency and impact of that review vary
depending on the restriction. Further, decisions by state and local agencies are often subject to appeal,
which creates another layer oflegal uncertainty. This list is intended to provide a list of what we have
determined are site-specific restrictions based on the plans that have been provided to us. If the
parameters of the use of a particular site change then additional restrictions could, theoretically, come into
play. In addition, certain of the restrictions listed below are purely theoretical and would require
additional investigation to determine how they might affect a potential Ninth School.

The final section of this summary deals with certain legal issues that are not site-specific, but should be
taken into account nonetheless.

We have made this summary based on the plans for each parcel provided to us by Joe Connelly in March
2018. If further information is brought to our attention, this document may need to be amended.
 EXHIBIT 21

PIERCE

Eminent Domain: If neighboring parcels at 60-62-64 Harvard Street or 68 Harvard Street are acquired by
eminent domain,the owners ofthe parcels would have the right to challenge the validity of the taking. In
addition, the owners would have the right to challenge the valuation used by the Town in determining the
amount to pay as compensation for the taking. A challenge based on valuation would not undo the
taking, but it could lead to a significant increase in the cost ofacquisition if successful.

Title: The title exam for the property known as 60-62-64 Harvard Street has revealed a number of
ambiguities as to what entity currently owns the property.

Title: No title exam has been prepared for the 68 Harvard Street property.

Historic Preservation: The Pierce School and neighboring buildings are all either on the National Register
of Historic Places or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Applications for
demolition permits for these buildings will trigger an 18-month demolition delay pursuant to the Town
By-Law unless the Preservation Commission elects to reduce the stay.

MEPA review: Demolition of a historic structure will trigger MEPA review. The Town would need to
either file an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)or seek to consult with the Massachusetts
Historical Commission in an effort to obtain a "no adverse effect" determination or a MOA with the
MHC in lieu of filing an ENF.

Zoning: The Pierce site proposals all exceed the zoning allowed for the G-2.0 district. As currently
crafted, the proposals all exceed the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list of the waivers
required would depend on which proposal was chosen as well as the final dimensions, but construction of
this size and density would likely need a significant amount ofzoning relief. Although use of the Pierce
property is unquestionably an educational use and therefore qualifies for the exemption from zoning
requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover Amendment"),the Town customarily opts to seek
zoning relieffor such projects. Abutters would have the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,
or any decision exempting the project via the Dover Amendment.

LWCF: The current Pierce Playground has benefitted from an LWCF grant, and must therefore remain
accessible for "public outdoor recreational use." This requirement may conflict with an increase in the
number ofclassrooms at the Pierce site. Open access to the playground could raise security concerns,
limit the playgroimds' usefulness during recess periods, and could lead to additional maintenance or
replacement costs if it accelerated wear and tear on the facilities.

Significance of previous uses: A portion of the greenspace behind the Public Health Building has been
designated as the Garden ofRemembrance as a memorial to victims of domestic violence.
Nuisance: Traffic impacts fi'om an expansion at Pierce could lead to a suit in tort alleging nuisance.
 EXHIBIT 21

BALDWIN

Article 97: The southern halfof the Baldwin property is protected under Article 97. Use of it in the
Baldwin Plan D proposal for school purposes would require removing it from Article 97 protection via a
2/3 vote of both houses of the State Legislature, which would almost certainly require following the
EOEEA Land Disposition Policy and acquiring or swapping in land of equal or greater fair market value
and significantly greater resource value.

LWCF: Land benefiting from an LWCF grant must remain accessible for "public outdoor recreational
use." This could conflict with any attempt to use the southern half of the Baldwin parcel as dedicated
playspace for a new school. Open access to the playground could raise security concerns, limit the
playgrounds' usefulness during recess periods, and could lead to additional maintenance or replacement
costs if it accelerated wear and tear on the facilities.

M.G.L. c.45. $7: This statutory section bars the construction of buildings in park land without leave ofthe
Legislature.

M.G.L. c. 214. S7A: Pursuant to this statute, any ten citizens can bring a suit in superior court alleging
damage or imminent damage to the environment, and the statute specifically allows the court to enjoin the
allegedly damaging action(s) until the case is resolved.

Historic Preservation: The Baldwin School is eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic
Places. Applying for a demolition permit will trigger an 18-month demolition delay pursuant to the Town
By-Law unless the Preservation elects to reduce the required stay.

MEPA: Disposition ofland protected under Article 97 will trigger MEPA review, and will require at
least the filing of an ENF and likely additional submissions such as an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)ifthe Secretary of EOEEA requires it. Demolition of a historic structure will trigger MEPA
review. The Town would need to either file an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)or seek to
consult with the Massachusetts Historical Commission in an effort to obtain a "no adverse effect"
determination or a MOA with the MHC in lieu of filing an ENF.

Zoning: The Baldwin site proposals all exceed the zoning allowed for the T-6 district. As currently
crafted, the proposals all exceed the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list of the waivers
required would depend on which proposal was chosen as well as the final dimensions, but construction of
this size and density would likely need a significant amount ofzoning relief. Although use of the Pierce
property is unquestionably an educational use and therefore qualifies for the exemption from zoning
requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover Amendment"), the Town customarily opts to seek
zoning relief for such projects. Abutters would have the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,
or any decision exempting the project via the Dover Amendment.

Nuisance: Use of the Baldwin site could lead to suits in tort by abutting owners alleging nuisance due to
stormwater runoff or excessive traffic impacts impairing the use and enjoyment of their property. Both
Baldwin proposals involve construction in close proximity to the neighboring houses on Oak Street. This
could lead to nuisance claims if abutters claimed damage due to noise, shadowing or other impacts of the
proposed ninth school.
 EXHIBIT 21

PINE MANOR

Eminent Domain: If the Town acquired the referenced portion of Pine Manor College by eminent domain,
the owner would have the right to challenge the validity of the taking. In addition, the owner would have
the right to challenge the valuation used by the Town in determining the amount to pay as compensation
for the taking. A challenge based on valuation would not undo the taking, but it could lead to a
significant increase in the cost ofacquisition if successful. Such a challenge could include a claim that
the damages should include the loss in value to the remainder ofPine Manor College. Certain neighbors
that are parties to a Declaration of Restriction on the land barring access to it from Woodland Road could
also bring a claim that this covenant created a eompensable interest entitling them to damages as well.

Wetlands: A portion of the property borders wetlands. The state Wetlands Protection Act restricts any
development within 100 feet of a wetland, and the Town's wetlands bylaw extends that buffer zone to
150'. A Notice of Resource Area Delineation would have to be filed with Conservation Commission to
determine the presence and type of the wetlands.

MEPA: Development within 200' of the wetlands will trigger MEPA review and may require the filing of
an Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Disposition of land protected under Article 97 will also
trigger MEPA review, and will require at least the filing of an ENF and likely additional submissions
such as an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)if the Secretary of EOEEA requires it.

Zoning; The Pine Manor site proposal may exceed the zoning allowed for the S-40 district. As currently
crafted, the proposal may exceed the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list of the relief
required would depend on the final dimensions, but construction of this size and density may need a
significant amount ofzoning relief. Although use ofthe property is unquestionably an educational use
and therefore qualifies for the exemption from zoning requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the
"Dover Amendment"), the Town customarily opts to seek zoning relief for such projects. Abutters would
have the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,or any decision exempting the project via the
Dover Amendment.

Nuisance: Use of the Pine Manor site could lead to suits in tort by abutting owners alleging nuisance due
to stormwater runoff or excessive traffic impacts impairing the use and enjoyment of their property.
 EXHIBIT 21

BAKER

Article 97: Utilizing the west side of the Baker parcel could give rise to a challenge alleging the land is
protected under Article 97.

Wetlands: It is our understanding that a Phase I ESA of the site has not been completed. A portion of the
property borders wetlands. The state Wetlands Protection Act restricts any development within 100 feet
of a wetland, and the Town's wetlands bylaw extends that buffer zone to 150 feet. A Notice of Resource
Area Delineation would have to be filed with Conservation Commission to determine the presence and
type of the wetlands. If the Commission's Order of Resource Area Delineation found that the wetlands in
question was a perennial stream or river, the Rivers Protection Act will apply and bar any development
within 200 feet from the mean annual high water line where: a) there will be a significant adverse impact
on the stream or b)a practicable and substantially equivalent alternative to the project exists.

Historic Preservation: The Baker School is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Application for a demolition permit will trigger an 18-month demolition delay pursuant to the Town By-
Law unless the Preservation Commission elects to reduce the required stay.

MEPA: Development within 200' ofthe wetlands will trigger MEPA review and may require the filing of
an Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Demolition of a historic structure will trigger MEPA
review. The Town would need to either file an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)or seek to
consult with the Massachusetts Historical Commission in an effort to obtain a "no adverse effect"
determination or a MOA with the MHC in lieu of filing an ENF.

Zoning: All the Baker site proposals exceed the zoning allowed for the S-10 district. As currently crafted,
the proposals all exceed the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list of the relief required would
depend on the final dimensions, but construction of this size and density would likely need a significant
amount ofzoning relief. Although use ofthe property is unquestionably an educational use and therefore
qualifies for the exemption fi-om zoning requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover
Amendment"),the Town customarily opts to seek zoning relief for such projects. Abutters would have
the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,or any decision exempting the project via the Dover
Amendment.

Nuisance: Traffic impacts to Beverly Road from the expansion could lead to a suit in tort alleging
nuisance.
 EXHIBIT 21

HEATH

Zoning: The Heath proposal exceeds the zoning allowed for the T-6 district. As currently crafted, the
proposal exceeds the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list ofthe relief required would depend
on the ftnal dimensions, but construction of this size and density would likely need a significant amount
ofzoning relief. Although use ofthe property is unquestionably an educational use and therefore
qualifies for the exemption fi-om zoning requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover
Amendment"), the Town customarily opts to seek zoning relieffor such projects. Abulters would have
the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,or any decision exempting the project via the Dover
Amendment.

Nuisance: Traffic impacts from the expansion could lead to a suit in tort alleging nuisance.

Neighboring Land: Eliot Street is subject to an MWRA Easement.

Neighboring Land: A nearby parcel at the comer ofReservoir Road and Route 9 is a former gas station.
Its proximity and the fact that it is uphill from the Heath School will require an environmental study to
determine whether there has been a release of pollutants at the gas station that has contaminated the Heath
site.
 EXHIBIT 21

DRISCOLL

Zoning: The Driscoll proposal exceeds the zoning allowed for the T-5 district. As currently crafted, the
proposal exceeds the height allowed for the zoning district. A full list of the relief required would depend
on the final dimensions, but construction of this size and density would likely need a significant amount
ofzoning relief. Although use ofthe property is unquestionably an educational use and therefore
qualifies for the exemption from zoning requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover
Amendment"),the Town customarily opts to seek zoning relief for such projects. Abutters would have
the right to appeal any permit granted by the ZBA,or any decision exempting the project via the Dover
Amendment.

Nuisance: Traffic impacts to Westbourne Terrace from the expansion could lead to a suit in tort alleging
nuisance.

Additional Restrictions: There is a Town utility easement running the length of the site that may need to
be relocated to accommodate the expansion.
 EXHIBIT 21

PUTTERHAM WOODS

Article 97: The Putterham Woods parcel is considered to be Article 97 land. Utilizing it for school
purposes would require removing it from Article 97 protection via a 2/3 vote of both houses of the State
Legislature, which would almost certainly require following the EOEEA Land Disposition Policy and
acquiring or swapping in land ofequal or greater fair market value and significantly greater resource
value.

M.G.L. c. 45. S7: This statutory section bars the construction of buildings on park land without leave of
the Legislature.

M.G.L. c. 214. S7A: Pursuant to this statute, any ten citizens can bring a suit in superior court alleging
damage or imminent damage to the environment, and the statute specifically allows the court to enjoin the
allegedly damaging actions until the case is resolved.

Wetlands: A portion of the property borders wetlands. The state Wetlands Protection Act restricts any
development within 100 feet of a wetland, and the Town's wetlands bylaw extends that buffer zone to 150
feet. A Notice of Resource Area Delineation would have to be filed with Conservation Commission to
determine the extent and type of the wetlands. If the Commission's Order of Resource Area Delineation
found that the wetlands in question was a perennial stream or river, the Rivers Protection Act will apply
and bar any development within 200 feet from the mean annual high water line where: a)there will be a
significant adverse impact on the stream or b)a practicable and substantially equivalent alternative to the
project exists.

MEPA: Development within 200' ofthe wetlands will trigger MEPA review and may require the filing of
an Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Disposition of land protected under Article 97 will also
trigger MEPA review, and will require at least the filing of an ENF and likely additional submissions
such as an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)if the Secretary ofEOEEA requires it. The impacts to the
West Roxbury Parkway will also be considered by the Secretary during MEPA review.
Zoning: The proposal exceeds the zoning allowed for the S-15 district. The proposal's height, and
potentially other charaeteristics, requires zoning relief. The contemplated use ofthe property qualifies for
the exemption from zoning requirements found in M.G.L. c. 40A,s. 3(the "Dover Amendment"), the
Town customarily opts to seek zoning relief for such projects. Abutters would have the right to appeal
any permit granted by the ZBA,or any decision exempting the project via the Dover Amendment.
Access: Any modifications to the West Roxbury Parkway that may be needed for site access will require
permission from the state Department of Conservation Resources. In addition, the Town may need to
acquire a construction and access permit from DCR,if it is clear that a new school will generate a
substantial increase or impact on traffic from the current use. This is likely.

Neighboring Uses: Fire Station 6 directly abuts the site. Upon its reopening in March 2019 after
renovations, it will contain an active fire company, with attendant noise and vehicular traffic. It will also
contain two bays for servicing vehicles and apparatus, which will mean the potential storage ofchemicals.
It will also serve as a training facility, including live fire training that will generate paniculate smoke.

Nuisance: Traffic impacts from the expansion could lead to a suit in tort alleging nuisance.
 EXHIBIT 21

Restrictions that are not Site-Specific:

Article 3.7 of the Town's General By-Laws lays out a specific procedure for the construction and
alteration of Town buildings and structures. If the Town elects to deviate from this procedure, it may
pursue a waiver pursuant to Section 3.7.4. Based on the cost of the project, such a waiver would require a
Town Meeting vote.

The authority to select a site for a ninth school does not clearly rest with any one body in Town
government. The Town could face a challenge alleging that its site selection was improperly made.

Pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §53, ten taxpayers of the Town of Brookline could file suit to enjoin any project
they alleged represented an unlawful expenditure oftaxpayer funds.

10
EXHIBIT 22
 EXHIBIT 22

Baldwin School Building Project - Project Roadmap Updat�

This Project Roadmap is designed to summarize the work done to date in key areas during the Feasibility Design Phase and to
illustrate the type of details and questions that will be answered during the Schematic Design Phase in these same areas.

FEASIBILITY DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN

Post 12/13/18
What is complete/Questions that Remain Open Examples of the types of questions/details that will
be studied during the Schematic Design Phase

Where will the children who • Developing map that shows the total possible • Work on redefining school boundaries will not
go to Baldwin come from? catchment area for Baldwin School - to be begin until after the town decides to fund the
shared no later than 11/29 SBC meeting project and there is a clearer path forward on all
three elementary school building projects.

• For more details, see October 2016 Memo on

Redefining SchQol BQuods:irie� on home page of
district website
.
Traffic • Preliminary Report - complete and presented • Specific alterations to traffic patterns and roads
on 10/25 including traffic calming and safety measures
• Draft Report is being shared with Police, Fire,
and Traffic departments • Coordination with Massachusetts Department of
• Final Traffic Study Report will be reviewed at Transportation on any proposed changes to
11/29 meeting Route 9

Will Provide:
• Answer on what's changed from previous
traffic analyses - provided with Final Report
• Comparisons with Driscoll, Lincoln, and Runkle
- included in Final Report

How will students get to the • Assumptions on how many walkers, c;ar riders, • Work with the town departments on traffic
school and bus riders detailed in Traffic Study study recommendations, parking plan, and safe
routes to schools
 EXHIBIT 22

• Recommendations on improving safety of • Work with Massachusetts DOT on any

How will students get to the sidewalks and crossings recommended in adjustments necessary for Route 9 and other
,
school (continued) Traffic Study roads
• Busing - School department anticipates two • SBC consider the use of electric buses
school buses

Parking Staff parking • Specific decisions on staff, parent, and visitor

• Developed to accommodate all staff and parking based on further development of
shared with Transportation Board (10/15) preferred design, estimated project cost, and
and at public meetings (10/25, 11/1) Town Meeting decision on Oak Street property
•
["
Identified up to 40 possible spacE;1s built Work with Transportation Board to finalize staff
below surface on site parking plan
Parent and Visitor parking
• Comparable to all other schools and will
use combination of parking onsite and on
town streets
• Visitor parking during school day in queuing
lane

Pick up and Drop Off Cars

• Site Designs include a 650 feet queuing
lane, the longest drop off lane in Brookline

Buses and Vans

• 2 buses and 9 vans will drop off in a
dedicated zone off of Heath Street

Legal Questions • Outside couns�I retained and provided opinion

to School Committee, and Select Board.
• SBC chairs proviqed summary statement
(10/11)

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions assessment� completed • Preliminary permitting discussions with Building
Department

Costs Conceptual Project Cost Estimates - completed
Zoning Preliminary Zoning assessment - completed
Oak Street Opportunity Does not impact the selection of a Preferred
Design as project is fully feasible on the existing
site
EXHIBIT 22
• During Schematic Design Phase more detailed
project cost estimates are developed that will
hold through the life of the project and will be
used for Town and Town Meeting vote to fund
construction
• Work with Planning Department on Design
Advisory Team process to identify any special
permitting necessary
• Vote at·Town Meeting will determine if Okak
Street properties are part of the project.
• If property is added, then adjustments to
selected preferred design happen during
- Schematic Design Phase