Petition Drive would have informed many people of the facts

At the end of last night's gripping City Council meeting, Brian Dunkiel, the developer's lawyer who also seems to work for the city, approached the City Attorney, Eileen Blackwood, who also seems to work for the developer, and shook her hand. "Thank you," he said, and they both seemed to wink.

What was this hand shake about and what could Dunkiel have to thank Ms. Blackwood about on a night wherein the Council voted to put the controversial zoning change that would allow Dunkiel's client, Don Sinex, to build his behemoth multi-use skyscraper (not just a mall, folks!)?

Hadn't the mayor listened to the public's comments (otherwise described as misrepresentations and misunderstandings) and decided to bring this huge zoning change to the people, jeopardizing Sinex's plan? Hadn't he saved upwards of 80 volunteers from spending the next 20 days petitioning to put this thing on the ballot?

CLC Press Conference, Monday, September 26th, at 11 A.M. Please Join Us!

Who: The Coalition for a Livable City

What: A press conference to announce our vision for a “better town center” and referendum petition plan

When: Monday, September 26^th at 11 a.m.

Where: In front of the mall entrance on Church Street

The Coalition for a Livable City will be announcing its vision for a “Better Town Center” and ways to better engage the citizens of Burlington on the proposed, sweeping changes to downtown zoning.

Although proponents of the Town Center Plan and the radical rezoning which enables it have said that opponents do not have a Plan B, the Coalition for a Livable City has a great Plan B—rooted in Plan B -T-V.

This vision of a “Better Town Center” would honor existing zoning, democratic processes, and due diligence, while allowing for a new development within what PlanBTV calls “the permitted development envelope” of 65 feet by right, or 105 feet with benefits. Utilizing the incentive amendment for underground parking approved at a recent City Council meeting, and in keeping with the city’s recent Parking Study and commitment to fewer cars downtown, the “Better Town Center” project would eliminate the three floors of above-ground parking.  Details will be revealed at the Press Conference, but you can expect recommendations for affordable housing, green building practices, bike and walk best practices, the fostering of local businesses, livable wage jobs, and more.

The CLC will use neck-craning elements to illustrate just how out-of-scale this proposed center is with existing zoning regulations. What will they use? Well, bring your cameras, measuring tapes, and binoculars to find out.

In addition to this vision, the CLC is planning a petition campaign to put the downtown mixed use overlay district zoning on the ballot in March if the City Council votes to approve it on Thursday, the 29^th. This Public disapproval referendum may be unprecedented in Vermont history.

Should the City Council vote to approve the rezoning of the overlay district on Thursday, the 29^th, the Coalition for a Livable City is ready for its campaign to petition the city to put the zoning change on the ballot for a binding referendum. We will have 20 days only to get more than 1600 valid signatures of local residents and stand prepared to begin petitioning on September 30^th, with over 60 eager volunteers.

Although it is our belief that the citizens of Burlington have already said NO to this zoning change, most recently two years ago in Plan BTV, the city’s push to pass this zoning change has ignored the public consensus.  The Coalition believes that a zoning change of this magnitude, increasing the by right height allowance from 65 to 160+ feet, increasing by right Floor Area Ratio from 5.5 to 9.5, and eliminating bonuses for affordable housing or other public benefits, is something all citizens should have a chance to vote on.

Press Release: Coalition for a Livable City Denounces Cambrian Rise Zoning Change

Press Release: Coalition for a Livable City Urges Planning Commission to Reject Zoning Change for Cambrian Rise Development

From: Coalition for a Livable City

           

To: Burlington City Council; Mayor Miro Weinberger; Seven Days; Vt. Digger; Burlington Free Press

Subject: Re-zoning of Cambrian Rise (aka former Burlington College campus)

Burlington’s Planning Commission met on September 13th and deferred action on rezoning the Cambrian Rise development from Medium Density-Waterfront to Neighborhood Activity Center-Cambrian Rise (NAC-CR). What was expected to be an easy approval of the zoning change proposed by Planning and Zoning was de-railed by Commissioner Harris Roen. With only four commissioners present--a bare quorum-- Roen’s vote was essential for passage. When he spoke against the project, its developer, Eric Farrell, asked the Commission to delay action lest its disapproval go on the record and be transmitted to the City Council.

            The project components, on 33 acres of the former Burlington College property, arose through discussions among the developer, the City’s Parks & Recreation, Vermont Land Trust, Champlain Housing Trust, and Cathedral Square. Broadly, the agreement has the City and the VLT buying 12 acres for use as recreational space and a catchment for surface water runoff from the housing and permits 770 residential units,  160 of which will be divided into senior and affordable residences under Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) rules.

            The public, represented by Save Open Space-Burlington and now the Coalition for a Livable City, was kept entirely out of these negotiations, merely presented with their results at bogus “public forums”. While not opposed to development along North Avenue, SOS-B strongly objected to this “package”, demanding much more open space and wildlife habitat on the western section which, for 100 years, was a vernacular public park exempt from all property taxes. The “park” portion, largely unbuildable due to slope and waterfront setback rules, is isolated between an abandoned train tunnel and Lakeview Cemetery. As such, it will become the recreation space for Cambrian Rise’s 2,000 residents and, by purchase agreement, the “sponge” for surface water runoff from  CR’s streets, roofs, and parking lots. If that deal weren’t bad enough, P&Z now proposes to rezone the plot as a Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC-CR) allowing offices and retail activity that further impacts traffic on North Ave. and to increase the permissible height of buildings. Other NAC’s have a 35-ft. height limit. Here buildings could rise to 80-ft. or more given features specific to the location. First, the existing Orphanage building establishes a 65-ft height for new construction on the same plot. Second, present ordinances allow height on slopes to be calculated at the midpoint of a building’s plot. With 65-ft established on the upper side, P&Z proposes to simplify this calculation by adding an additional story of permissible height wherever slopes exist, here and city-wide.

            CLC strongly objects to this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO)). Given the 10-ft. bonus a developer earns for complying with IZ, 65-ft is really 75-ft and an 80-ft. limit is really 90-ft. Add to that the slope bonus and from the west, buildings could rise 100-ft. from the ground. This is wildly out of character for medium density-waterfront, an area more generally zoned at 35-ft. 

            What we have at Cambrian Rise is a duplicitous maneuver by P&Z to add height and density to all new projects without acknowledging this to the public. Density or floor area ratio (FAR) is based not on the 21 acres to be built on but on the 33 acres of the entire, pre-park parcel. Second, this “park” will be a project-specific amenity on the City’s dime for maintenance, saving the developer from having to provide recreational space, gardens, and storm water mitigation within his development. Third, since nearly all of Burlington is on sloped land, P&Z’s proposed amendment to the CDO would add a full story to nearly all projects in the city.

            The public deserves transparency and appropriateness in zoning, respecting the broad array of values which make a city livable: height and architectural preservation respecting nearby structures, open space within projects, and environmental protections.  Thus we urge the Planning Commission to reject NAC-CR as presently drafted.     

Zoning Changes for the Burlington College Property/Cambrian Rise Development

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/13/16, on Cambrian Rise

In what was expected to be the final meeting of the Planning Commission on Planning and Zoning’s proposal to change the designation of the former Burlington College Land from medium development, waterfront (MD-W) to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC-CR), the Planning Commission delayed their decision. The suggestion for a continuance rather than a definitive vote originated with Eric Farrell, a member of the audience, when it became clear that the PC would not approve the NAC-Cambrian Rise proposal at this meeting. Only four of the six Commissioners were present even after a 40 minute delay, amounting to a bare quorum. Harris Roen made it clear that he would vote against the proposed amendment, meaning it would fail.

            This proposal would create a new zoning district for the property allowing mixed-use and a modification of the existing caps on building height, density, and the method by which these are calculated. P&Z proposed that this new method of calculation be applied to both Cambrian Heights and written into the Comprehensive Development Ordinance and applied city-wide. This aspect of the amendment failed to gain the support of Emily Lee and Andy Montroll and the Commission voted to send the amendment back to P&Z for re-writing so that the altered method of measurement was limited to Cambrian Rise. 

            Speaking against the proposed amendment were three members of Coalition for a Livable City. Charles Simpson called for a full Act 250 review of the project before any approval, with special emphasis on transportation issues. With up to 770 units under consideration by the developer including 80 senior units, the impact on this two lane section of North Ave. between the fire station and Burlington High School, is significant. Seniors require more intensive ambulance service which in Burlington comes with a fire truck.  As the “Cambrian Rise” designation makes clear, topography does not allow any vehicle access other than North Ave. to the site. By changing zoning to allow NAC facilities, non-residential traffic will be generated. Permitted non-residential uses include animal grooming, appliance sales/service, art gallery/studio, automobile & marine parts sales, a bakery, a bank, a beauty parlor, billiard parlor, bowling alley, café, cinema, convenience store, crisis counseling center, daycare, dental lab, dry cleaner, grocery store up to 10,000 sq. ft., health club, hostel, hotel, library, museum, offices, performing arts studio, pet store, pharmacy, photo studio, and post office, among others. While the intent of an NAC is to include services for local residents, it is clear that the business model for many of these enterprises will require outside employees and a wide customers base, adding to the traffic flow.

            Andy Simon presented objections to the overall development plan as articulated by Save Open Space-Burlington (SOS-B). These include the failure of the plan to preserve a maximum amount of open space and wildlife habitat, view-scapes, or public access to extensive recreational land. The impact of the city’s largest development project to-date on surface water adjacent to an already fragile lake ecosystem on which the economy of Burlington depends has not been sufficiently mitigated. Joanne Hunt of SOS-B spoke as well in support of Andy’s position and against permitting this project.

            Along with developer Eric Farrell, Michael Monte of the Champlain Housing Trust spoke in strong support of the project, Monte citing the backlog of affordable housing requests by the area’s low-income and homeless population.

            At one point in the proceedings, Planning Director David White explained that the calculation for maximum residential units is based on the roughly 33 acres of the entire plot and that this zoning change will not alter the medium residential density, waterfront (MR-W) currently applied to the 12 acres to become public parkland for which the developer will be paid 2 million dollars. Simpson then again addressed the Commission to say this was highly irregular. Not only was the public park being used to ventilate the dense Cambrian Rise development providing a view scape, recreational land, public gardens, and some surface water mitigation at public expense, now it was clear that these 12 acres were the basis for increasing the density of the private portion of the project in a bait-and-switch maneuver.

            Much of the ensuing discussion centered on P&Z’s efforts to clarify the height limits. Director White apologized for misspeaking at the previous PC meeting when he said that heights wouldn’t be changed with this amendment. They would be, he said. Because of the existing Orphanage building, new construction on that parcel can legally rise to 65 feet, the distance to the half-way point of the Orphanage roof. Because the project conforms to Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) regulations and generates 25% affordable units, an additional 10-ft. of height can be added beyond statutory limits. As a result, P&Z proposes a lot coverage limit of 72% and an FAR of 2.5. Both numbers include the IZ bonus of 10 ft. in height and 0.5 FAR. presumably calculated on the entire 33 acres but with building limited to the 21 acres that remain private land. P&C recommends a nominal maximum height of 80 ft., a third higher than the current 60ft. limit on WRM, but agian the bonus could make this 90-ft. Still, White explained, the height as seen from North Ave. would appear to conform to existing zoning. The complicating factor, he explained, was site slope. Presently, height is measured from the set-back grade on flat parcels and the midpoint in sloped parcels. As White states in the amendment packet, “A maximum height of 80-ft is proposed to ensure that new buildings can actually be 65-ft. in height at the street level consistent with the current allowed height given the Orphanage. This also means, however, that a building could be built to a maximum of 80-ft at the street level if it were on a flat site.” He then proposed that on sloped lots, rather than measuring to the mid-point, one story simply be added as measured from the downside of the slope. This would allow the nominal maximum height to be 65-ft. but as measured from the downside, to be 65-ft plus the one additional story. Unstated was that 10-ft. IZ bonus could also be added “by-right”.

            The Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) creating the NCZ-Cambrian Rise (NAC-CR), Table 4.4.2-1, would allow residences on the ground floor, unlike other NACs. New language would permit heights of 80-ft plus 10-ft and an FAR of 2.0 plus 0.5 here and a new method of measuring height city-wide. One additional story would be allowed on buildings on sloped lots above what is nominally specified by zoning. It was to this general change to the CDO that Emily Lee object to and the reason the PC sent the amendment back to P&Z staff for redrafting.

            What we have in the Cambrian Rise case is a series of duplicitous maneuvers by P&Z designed to soften the public’s perception of increased density and height. Here, a park is purchased by the public which in effect alleviates the developer of his open-space and surface water mitigation obligation while delivering the lake views, community gardens, recreational space, and veneer of wild life habitat that add profit solely to the developer. The park--ostensibly a public facility--will be for the development’s residents but maintained at public expense. Then, rather than taking the development itself as the platform on which to calculate floor area ratios (FAR) and thus density, the public park is included. Building height increases are disguised by a new method that focuses on high-ground visual appearance rather than actual height from the lower end of sloped lots and simply adds a story above nominal maximums wherever plots incline--virtually all of the city. Finally, the obvious housing needs of the poor, addressed through the IZ formula, are used to justify specific projects without any  consideration of alternate ways of addressing homelessness: a higher minimum wage; rent control; or additional direct investment by Champlain Housing Trust in other locations. Instead the only City response is promotion of intense commercial development with an IZ component, and official shaming open-space and balanced growth advocates.  

             

.

 -Charles Simpson

Show Down at City Hall: 4 Standing Up for Democracy/7 Complicit in its Demise

We were not surprised that the majority of the City Council voted to warn a public hearing for the ordinance change, simultaneously offering their support for its passing at the hearing (Thursday, September 29th, 7 p.m. at Contois), but we were surprised at how few councilors were willing to accept even the most mild compromises proposed by councilors Tracy, Bushor, and Colburn in an attempt to move the zoning ordinance even slightly in a direction that reflected the public sentiments about height, affordability, underground parking, and the railroading or process. The Mayor on the sidelines encouraged this stubborness, arguing in between eating M & M's against raising the affordable housing percentage by a mere 5% (a fraction of what it would be for a building this tall under our current ordinance). He spoke in Orwellian doublespeak, claiming that providing more affordable housing would make the city less affordable. His arguments, as well as arguments by other councilors defending their stances, could be used as case studies of the misuse of logic. It was, most likely, this entrenchment and disingenuousness on the part of the 7 council members who refused to approve the amendments, which influenced  Councilors Bushor and Colburn to join  Councilor Tracy  in stating that they would not be approving the zoning change. Councilor Giannoni voted no with them when the question of the warning of the Public Hearing was called, which may mean that she also intends to vote against the ordinance when the time comes. Unclear. Councilors Colburn, Bushor, and Tracy all gave fierce speeches about why they would not be supporting the amendment, which I will get to in a bit, but first, the details.

The discussion of the ZA 16-14 DMUC Overlay Technical Corrections began with some confusion, as Eileen Blackwood, City Attorney, interrupted the proceedings to suggest that Council President Knodell go about things differently, since, as she noted when referring to the process they were forced into that evening of approving zoning amendments and warning a public hearing on the same night, "It's funkier than that". When the City's own lawyer publicly admits that something is funky, we do well to pay attention. It seems that there might be something fishy about it. And, while the Councilors crow about the 10 meetings they had on the amendments, these meetings consisted of 1-hour each for council discussions of the complex amendments (10 hours to discuss the largest zoning change in decades). It is still too fast. One amendment even came in during the meeting, emailed by David White to Council President Knodell around 7 p.m. The Councilors voted on it without any prior consideration.

The first series of amendments dealt with the boundaries of the Overlay District. Councilor Bushor proposed removing the Lake St. and College St. garages. Failed: 2 in favor (Tracy and Bushor)/9 against. Councilor Colburn noted that while she has concerns about height and scale, she fears any minimizing of the area would bring us closer to spot zoning. Then Councilor Bushor, "ever hopeful," proposed removing Lake St, garage, College St. garage and Macy's. She said the intent was to give relief to visual corridors from the Lake, Edmund's Elementary, houses surrounding. It would be more in keeping with how we should grow our downtown, she said. Councilor Wright asked Attorney Blackwood that old question: "We are not spot zoning"  with the current boundaries, "are we?" "Correct" Attn. Blackwood firmly said, but any removal of any parcel would strengthen the argument that it is spot zoning, though, in another instance of doublespeak, she backpedaled, saying, she was not saying that it would be.  Bushor's amendment failed again, with only Tracy's support: 2 for/9 against.

Councilor Hartnett, who had been captured on camera ordering Red Sox tickets during the Police Commissioner report may or may not have been paying attention to this discussion, but did answer when President Knodell called him to present his amendment, which was to expand the overlay district even more! He noted that if he had his way we could expand it from College Street to Pearl Street! But, since he realized he would not have the support on the council he withdrew the amendment. Maybe he also did not want to take the time to explain when there were things he could be researching on the internet?

Councilor Shannon withdrew her amendment to remove the College St. garage, even though she deemed it would not strengthen a spot zoning claim, since she had "confidence"  that the City Council would not approve building something there that would ruin the view down Bank Street.

An amendment on Major Impact review was proposed by Councilor Bushor, which I could not understand at all. Councilor Bushor supported it, but noted that the amendment (written by Wright?) circles around itself and is really hard to understand. Succeeded 10/1 (Tracy against).

The next amendment, proposed by Councilor Bushor and seconded by Councilor Colburn, was a modest attempt to lower the height in the district from 160 ft. to 135 and FAR(floor area ratio) from 9.5 to 8.5. Bushor's rationale was that the "overlay district is really out of scale with what Burlington wants to be".

Councilor Shannon opposed the amendment noting that it does not achieve any of the goals it sets out to achieve. For those who don't like the height, it is still too tall. Moreover, she noted, conflating the zoning overlay with the Sinex project as usual, there is no one offering to develop the site at 105 or 135 feet, would not get us our street grid back (why not?), etc. Councilor Colburn supported the amendment,noting that while door knocking for her legislative campaign she spoke with hundreds of residents who wanted height and density and growth but who found the scale of proposed changes too great. She also noted that we do not know if it is a workable compromised since we have not heard from Sinex or any other developers about it. Most importantly, she asserted, "Our zoning should reflect the desires of the community".

Tracy noted that should the ordinance move forward at 160 feet height he would not be supporting it. As such it would not reflect a compromise between those for and against the change.  Dave Hartnett, looking up from his computer, wanted the councilors to be fair to poor Mr. Sinex, noting that when the Council voted for the Pre-Development Agreement, they knew that the 160 feet would make or break the project. Councilor Bushor fervently disagreed, noting that she had explicitly stated at the time that she would support the PDA, but not the 160 ft. She noted that Sinex, at that time, had indicated that they would "work on it". Perhaps Councilor Hartnett was watching something on his laptop at the time and missed that part of the discussion?

The Mayor then gave a little speech, saying he appreciated the points about the spirit of compromise, but only when it would be meaningful, asserting that the impact of this amendment would be to eliminate dozens of housing units. Councilor Bushor countered by noting that it was a false assumption that housing would be the element lost in such a change. She had spoken with David White and Megan Tuttle, exploring ways to keep the housing in such a scenario.

Councilor Knodell let her fellow councilors and the audience know at this point that she would not be approving this amendment, or any other one that made a "material change" to the Pre-Development agreement or that would jeopardize it. So much for looking at the zoning change separately from a particular project.

Councilor Bushor's modest proposal to reduce the height and FAR was voted down 7/4, with Colburn, Tracy, Giannoni and Bushor in favor.

The next 2 amendments were proposed by Councilor Tracy, and dealt with setting a maximum height limit inclusive of mechanicals and administrative height relief. Tracy argued that the public understands the height to be 160, when in effect it would be higher with the mechanicals and possible changes made for grade differences. Why not set a maximum height to clarify the discussion? In answer, David White said that it would mean that the mechanicals would have to be relocated, that there would be less green space, and less room for storm water mitigation. Shannon noted that setting an absolute height would take up housing space and that setting a maximum height would limit the possibility of having architectural features that would improve the skyline. What nobody except Max seems to acknowledge is that setting a maximum height is a matter of transparency. Why not set the maximum height at 190 feet, if that is what they want? Instead, they call it 160 feet when it really means 190 or 200 feet? What? Totally baffled.

Tracy noted that he was not comfortable with someone who is not elected making decisions about administrative height variance. His amendment to set a maximum height inclusive of mechanicals  was voted down: 4 for (Bushor, Colburn, Tracy, Giannoni)/7 against, as was his amendment to removing administrative height relief variance: 2 for (Colburn and Tracy), 9 against.

David White's new amendment, # 3.4,  came in between these somehow, emailed during the meeting. No time for the public to understand either before hand or during. But it had something to do with bonuses and affordable housing. It received unanimous approval. But did everyone understand it?

Bushor and Shannon tried out two amendments related to Max's two above. Bushor argued for limiting the administrative variance to only be utilized for height grade differences. Voted down 2/9. Guess who. Then Shannon argued for changing the variance allowance from 10% to 5%, approved 9/2.

There's more. Go have a drink and come back.

Okay.

Next up was the amendment to increase affordable housing percentages. Councilor Tracy proposed an amendment to raise the required amount from 20 to 25% in the district, acknowledging that he would like to see much more but could not expect to get support on the council for it. It was, I believe, a symbolic statement and it surely demonstrated who on the council cared enough about affordable housing to support an increase of a mere 25% when this whole zoning overlay takes away the bonus system that would allow for a much greater affordability profile in buildings this tall. Councilor Colburn seconded the amendment, but the Mayor stepped in to give another little speech:
Certainly I support the good intentions, he said, but the administration (speaking of himself in the third person) opposes it for several reasons: 1. It constitutes a material change from the Pre-Development agreement, and was an issue highly vetted with the developer. He seems to have forgotten than a number of Councilors clearly noted on signing the PDA that if the affordability profile was not improved they would not sign the final agreement. He also seems to be forgetting that the ordinance is not supposed to be driven by the PDA. 2. it would be a mistake and self-defeating (he originally said self-serving in a Freudian slip, but corrected himself). It would make the city less affordable, by raising the risk of no development being built downtown. That being said, he noted that the discussion with the developer is open and a higher % is possible.  Councilor Bushor begged to differ with the Mayor, noting that a 5% increase in affordable housing requirements in this zone would be something the public would embrace. This amendment was voted down 7/4, councilor Knodell, allegedly an advocate of affordable housing in the Progressive Party, voting against an increase of a mere 5% in affordable units for the downtown overlay district.

Next came parking. Councilor Bushor advocated for creating an incentive for underground parking in the zone which would make each underground parking space be counted as 1.75 spaces, taking the burden of providing more spaces off developers who agreed to put their spaces underground. She noted that in the Sinex project this could eliminate one whole floor of parking. Councilor Tracy seconded the amendment, noting that it was in keeping with the Downtown Parking Plan's commitment to better utilize the parking we have rather than building more.  The amendment carried unanimously. Thank you, Councilors Bushor and Tracy for this innovative amendment.

Councilor Tracy then made a bold move that was seconded by no one on the council: instead of strongly preferring or creating incentives, why not require underground parking absolutely. No takers.

I am skipping the one about awnings.

The next amendment, floated by Councilors Colburn and Shannon, was about LEED certification and required LEED Gold or a "nationally recognized equivalent as determined by the administrative officer". Eric Morrow had criticized this language during public comment time, noting that there was stronger and clearer language adopted by San Francisco they should consider instead. Councilor Colburn acknowledged Mr. Morrow's concerns, saying that the intent of the language was not to present a loophole, but to leave the city open to utilizing stronger requirements should they arise. The problem with this, I add, is that we cannot trust our administrative officers. In any case, this amendment carried unanimously.

Then Councilor Bushor proposed an amendment to minimize effects on the micro-climate by reducing heat islands. But the Mayor was against this, saying it would be limiting and that the other requirements presented in the overlay district were already making this zone far better than in any other part of the city in respect to green initiatives. TThis amendment could create problematic proscriptions. The Mayor had already told us about all the great things we are getting with this new zoning, neglecting to mention that we could very well get the same good things without the bad things he has tied them up with. We could set a LEED Gold standard and new storm water requirements without increasing our height and FAR limits and taking away our bonuses for affordable or senior housing.We can even get the streets back without doing this. This amendment lost 9 against/2 for.

The following amendment about Storm Water treatment was unanimously approved and provided the occasion for another self-congratulatory speech by the Mayor, who crowed about the new storm water treatment without acknowledging that the new developments allowed in the zone would put enormously new pressure on these systems. To create new systems is great. But without accounting for the reduction of permeable services and the increased pressures of population, etc, without adding green roofs and green spaces, without a commitment to preserving natural areas within the city,  this is less than a win.

Finally we were ready to warn the Public Hearing and have general statements from the councilors.

Councilor Wright thanks Don Sinex and affirmed that this district was the right place in the city for tall buildings, that it would not constitute a precedent, and that it would grow the tax base.

Councilor Colburn said she would not be supporting the ordinance as amended. The height and scale are dealbreakers, she said, since the majority of her constituents say it is too big and want a more modest proposal of around 10 stories. She also noted a false dichotomy throughout discussions: either you are for this project or you are against growth, housing, progress. Thank you, Councilor Colburn, for noting this. It is a nuance many have not been able to grasp. She also noted that she would be working towards creating a better project in negotiations in the future.

Councilor Tracy, our stalwart hero, noted that the proceedings that night had confirmed his worst fears since the Pre-Development Agreement, that the ordinance process would be a charade. He had hoped that the council would approve some amendments that would ameliorate the project and show some willingness to compromise. But instead there was an unwillingness to bend on making a maximum height, on affordable housing, on parking. There was no substantial change to reflect the public sentiment. Tracy also noted that the Public Hearing was scheduled when he would be away and although he had made that clear there had been no willingness to schedule it at a time when he would be present. He may be flying in and arriving at City Hall at around 9:30 the night of the hearing. Maybe in time to vote; maybe not.

Councilor Shannon said that there had been many many meetings. Although they had worked under a "somewhat condensed time line" the considerations had not been condensed "meeting-wise". She said she appreciated the opponents's concerned and shared many of our views, but she did not believe that we could achieve what Plan BTV wanted without making this ordinance change.

Councilor Roof, who is clearly learning how to be a good politician from the Mayor, took the time to explain to the misinformed public how TIF really works. Thanks, Adam. We had no idea.

Councilor Bushor bravely and intensely stated that she would not be able to support the proposed overlay district zoning. Sadly, she said, because there were many wonderful things in it. The fatal Flaw in the whole project, she noted, was the intertwining of the zoning overlay and the Sinex project. She noted that Attorney Blackwood had encouraged the Ordinance Committee to look at the ordinance separate from the Sinex proposal. She concluded by saying that the height and massing of the overlay were not compatible with Plan BTV.

Councilor Knodell, in opposition to the Progressive Part which sent out a press release recently rejecting the project on the grounds of process and its bad affordable housing profile, finished out the speeches by saying she would be supporting moving forward with a warning. The Zoning, she said, is right for Burlington.

7 Councilors voted to warn the meeting. 4 (Giannoni, Tracy, Bushor, Colburn) voted against.

Please plan on being there on the 29th for Public Comment and to witness the conclusion to this part of the charade. And if you want to help with petitioning to get this zoning change on the ballot, please contact us right away.

Streets, Tunnels, Cars and Bikes in the Sinex Plan

At a recent City Council meeting Sharon Bushor asked the Mayor what assurances he could give to contradict the concerns the public has about the viability of the promised streets in the Sinex proposal. Many have wondered how full streets were possible given the grade of one of the streets and the building that seems to be an obstacle to safe driving. CLC also had discovered a letter from the developer's own consultant noting that one of the streets could not be built as a full street because of the grade. Much analysis and much discussion has ensued.

What did the mayor have to say to Sharon Bushor's question on behalf of the concerned public? Basically only that they had a committee working toward attempting to make the streets complete streets and that they would have a report on it in a few weeks, many months after having promised that these streets were part of the sweet deal we would be getting. What if the committee says it is impossible, but the zoning change sold on the basis of this great boon has already been passed?

Charles Simpson reports from the NPA meeting last night:

After saying the streets will be full-service and city-owned, Sinex conceded that they "won't be perfect" in that they won't line up with existing streets and he can't get a fire truck under the Free Press building given clearances unless he lowers the ramp, but that would increase grade--he didn't say beyond ADA but that was the implication--and destroy any at-grade connection to Macy's. They'd need steps. Hence an ADA violation there. "They aren't happy" he said, but suggested that he wouldn't be doing this unless they [Macy's] closed, which he suggested was always a possibility but said he had no specific information. Just that the chain is in trouble. He asserted no more than a 4.5 degree grade on his streets and the Free Press building underpass was 12 feet. You need a margin of error for trucks and buses. Thus it seems we won't have full-service streets. It is likely that 160 plus feet of building will need a new, larger fire truck which won't be able to access Pine Street. Sounds like something no one would approve.

Later in the day, our special twitter correspondent, Tony Redington, reported:

So, the tunnel is in--and maybe will be deeper than now (9% grade now from bottom to Cherry St.). 

Second, as B. calculated and discussed with us this morning the 7.9% "grade" on the 2016 plans for public use at P&Z equal the "degrees" (different form of measurement of grade) of 1.2 percent (not sure of the number--but well below 5% "grade" which is the maximum allowed by rules for persons with a handicap).

Forget the numbers, St. Paul cannot be traversed by those with a handicap based on grades and from Bank Street to Mall concourse entrance is also inaccessible to those with a handicap because of the 12% grade I measured off the plans. 

Also, no provision for bicycle use for either street feasible to the bicycle population at large.  

Do not be confused, we continue to get mixed, changing messages regarding the two streets connect.  Our CLC analysis works off the plans that are at Planning and Zoning--unless they are specifically  changed there by some "change" message will consider those plans and our analysis as accurate.  

In recent discussions with those in the bicycle community, lack of bicycle facilities on each street re-connect is a total fatal defect in the Sinex design.   $250 million and no provision for bicycle transportation facility on either street connect. 

    

         

Ward 7 NPA Report by Diane Gayer: School taxes, Champlain College Housing Plans, roads, Mall developments, &c.

Last night's NPA meeting was a full schedule with updates on many key city concerns. The following are my comments:

1. Burlington Schools and their physical needs.  This adds up to $65million in deferred maintenance with a vote coming in November or March according to the school board.  it appears they are finally seriously considered using the existing school buildings and not assuming a tear-down as previously advised by architects.

2. Champlain College update with focus on where they are housing students this year: 287 College, Bayberry Place Ward 1 (the old Ireland concrete mix site); Eagle's Landing is several years away because of purchasing tie-up on the old parking lot.

3.UVM update: they are solving student noise problems with quick response and community action. A new Campus Master Plan is underway... and who knows where they are housing the students--we didn't' get to that.

4. Don Sinex of Devonwood presentation on the Burlington TOWN CENTER.
Where to start?  We have seen so many presentations on how great this is going to be for Burlington, but meanwhile no one is talking about the impact of this major urban renewal project on surrounding properties; viability of Cherry Street, esp in winter; or how it does not comply with our existing zoning ordinances or planning documents.  Meanwhile City Council is still moving forward on the OVERLAY DISTRICT to allow the Mall redevelopment to go forward without any of the rules that apply to the rest of us.

The presentation by Mr. Sinex and Jesse Beck of Freeman French Architects was very professional and reflected a lot of thought, but it is a massive design compared to what we collectively included as redevelopment for the Downtown Core in PlanBTV.  And it does not solve the complexities we actually face.  Why? well at minimum it is still regressive on parking, consolidates jobs that already exist, avoids ACT 250 even though promising 274 rental housing units, and believes that an 8-story building wall next to 15ft of sidewalk with triple towers above is an improvement to Cherry Street's walkability.

Scale is always troublesome for developers and architects especially when they compare their project to other places, say NYC, instead of comparing it to the existing neighborhood(s).  When asked about this last night, the response was that the adjacent small buildings and historic houses were ephemeral (ie would disappear sooner or later).  So imagine Bank Street-- all of two lanes wide--with a 160ft building on the north side and a 105ft building on the south... I am glad we might have the Waterfront for some daylight... well as long as the water is still good.

Overall, there is no reason why the Mall can't be redeveloped according to our existing codes and PlanBTV.  It could still be 105ft.  There would be less parking.  The two streets could still come back, even as pedestrian ways similar to Church Street.  Scaling back is sometimes much more affordable--for both the developer and the City.... We need to consider what's doable.

Sincerely, Diane Gayer

Proposed Zoning Change Not in Compliance with Municipal Plan, by Caryn Long

The following letter was written to the City Councilors by Caryn Long: 

Councilors:

The Burlington Municipal Plan pasted and highlighted below is not consistent with the proposed zoning amendment.   If we are a city governed by laws rather than special deals, the proposed amendment must be rejected as beyond your authority to approve.

Sincerely,

Caryn Long

Vision Statement 

This Plan envisions Burlington as a city where… …Burlington’s built environment reflects a legacy of 

a rich architectural heritage,moderately scaled buildings, and high quality urban design. The 

unique design characteristics of each neighborhood have been retained, while new construction 

and public investment respect the city’s historic character and demonstrate high quality architecture 

while effectively meeting the demand for continued growth. In higher density areas, buildings are 

closer to the street,with parking underneath or in a nearby structure. All buildings and public 

facilities are welcoming to people with disabilities. Both new construction and renovations to 

older buildings illustrate a commitment to sustainable development practices with the use of  

green building materials and energy efficient design. The streetscape is clean, well maintained 

and lined with shade trees. Overhead utilities have been relocated underground, and excessive street

         lighting has been eliminated.Important view corridors and scenic vistas have been retained, 
         and developed areas are complimented (sic) by open spaces, parks, and natural areas.

CITY POLICIES THE CITY OF BURLINGTON WILL...

• Protect its scenic views and view corridors, and encourage development that compliments

          Burlington’s natural setting.

• Retain its moderate scale and urban form in its most densely developed areas, while creating 

opportunities for increased densities.

• Conserve the existing elements and design characteristics of its neighborhoods, and maintain 

neighborhood proportions of scale and mass.

          • Retain and enhance Burlington’s historic buildings and architectural features.

• Encourage new land uses and housing designs that serve changing demographics and benefit from new 

technologies where appropriate.

• Enhance the City’s gateways and streetscapes.

          • Protect, maintain and enhance the City’s urban forest. Built Environment Page

  

SPEED ZONING: CITY COUNCIL PREPARES TO DO WEEKS OF BUSINESS IN 3 DAYS!!

You may have heard of speed dating, where a person in search of love goes from table to table and interviews prospective candidates for, what, 5 minutes each, ruling out one after another as fast as possible? Well, we are all busy, and there is no time to find love or to make an extra million dollars, so the City of Burlington has considerately started this new speed zoning program for poor developers who ordinarily would have to wait for due diligence and proper public processes before having areas of a city radically rezoned in opposition to comprehensive plans and citizen wishes for months or even years. All that has been fixed. Now a developer can do this great drive through thing, getting stamps of approval from each committee without even stopping and starting the car, as it were...just sort of idling for a few moments, which is illegal, but, hey, never mind.
So, just when you thought they had really gone as fast as was humanly possible they are fixing to go even faster over the next 3 days. 3 Days! In 3 days, the City Council will hold another meeting (third in one week!) to vote on the amendments to the zoning change (the mayor had hoped they could fit that in tonight, but, alas, they are not THAT fast yet!), to have the planning commission review those amendments and provide feedback, and to warn a public hearing with 15 days time. Selene Colburn, who is not so happy with all this speed, expressed concern because a number of councilors will be out of town during this miraculous moment (blink and you miss it!), as did Sharon Bushor (and we old-fashioned slow-pokes thank them both for their concerns!), but Council president Knodell warned her colleagues that, after all, the zoning change is being contemplated in respect to a Pre-Development agreement which most of them signed which requires this zoning change to be sealed around September 10th. Did someone say Spot Zoning? Is anyone worried about anything? Well, don't be. Just trust them. Just trust David White, Mayor Weinberger, and the City Staff. It will all be fine. No need even for assurances or sureties or requirements. If we just hope and "strongly prefer" and ask nicely the developers surely will not take advantage of us. No, not us!
Anyway, if they can pull this off it will really be impressive. 3 days! Even I will be impressed.
But I am writing this after midnight, because the break neck speed of the Council means we watch dog organizations can't take time to sleep either.
So many questions to be answered in the next three days:
Are those streets really buildable to meet standards for driving, walking, bicycling?
What about that market feasibility study that Sinex promised by August 1st? Will there be time to receive it, read it, review it?
What about that business he just bankrupted?
What about the LEED Gold security?
What about the Storm Water (Sharon Bushor wisely asked that the Planning Commission take a look at the new language...but will there be time?!)
What about the question of toxic soils under the streets?
What about the affordable housing numbers?
What about all those strange things that went on with the Planning Commission never approving the ordinance?
What about the question of the actual height? 160, 175, 190? Who cares! Let's Get This Thing DONE!
What about those parking garages? Wrapped, liner buildings? Underground? Off-site?
What about the actual area contained in this overlay district? Should this parcel be included, that one, none of them, all of them, more of them? Whatever!
What about the question of that TIF financing which the public gets to vote on in November? What if the people vote it down? What then?
Oh well.
But wait, WAIT! Wait. WAIT!
Hold On!
Please write to your councilors and to the mayor first thing you read this (no time to waste). Tell them this joke has gone on long enough. Tell them we demand due diligence when making a decision of this magnitude. Tell them it is unconscionable to play with our city like this. Do it NOW, before it is too late.

WHAT MIGHT BE ILLEGAL ABOUT THE TOWN-CENTER-RELATED ZONING CHANGE?

At last night's City Council Work session on the zoning rewrite for the Overlay district, councilors repeated many times how important it is to make the distinction between the zoning change and the particular project, so many times, in fact, that it seemed like special pleading. There is very little distinction to be made between the zoning re-write and the interests of the Sinex Town Center redevelopment, but to admit this puts the City in the Spot Zoning hot seat.

Over the last few sessions this predicament became even clearer: On Thursday evening, councilors put forth various proposals to shrink or expand the overlay district. Some suggested removing the Macy's parcel, the People's Bank parcel, the other bank parcel; Dave Hartnett suggested expanding the overlay district so that MORE buildings could go higher. Would removing this or that parcel make the zoning change spot zoning? No one was sure, but all were sure that the more parcels removed, the more danger there was. Still, the City Attorney persisted in affirming that there is no problem with the overlay as is being spot zoning. But last night the discussion about adding a section of Church Street not currently in the overlay district revealed that there may, indeed, be some anxiety about the culpability of the city. Why else add this section which is still under review by the Form Based Code committee, why else would David White be push, push,pushing the addition of this section (allowing Church Street heights to go up in a staggered set back fashion) when both the Planning Commission and the Ordinance Committee have CLEARLY recommended NOT to do this? Why else would David White feel it necessary to misrepresent the position of the Planning Commission last night (when their comments can be clearly verified on tapes of the meetings), by saying that there was "no opposition" on the part of the Planning Commission to making this change.

Over the last few meetings other questions of legality have arisen, particularly regarding the question of the binding nature of the Pre-Development Agreement approved in May by all City Councilors except Max Tracy and Chip Mason (the latter having recused himself due to conflicts of interest). Many councilors and the City staff assured the public that signing this agreement was not binding in any way, that it was really just a great way to finally get the information they needed to make an informed decision (guess what, much of that information has still not been provided and the model came too late for it to have any bearing on either the Planning Commission or Ordinance Committee discussion). Some said they would not sign the final agreement unless certain changes were made. But on Thursday, City Attorney warned the councilors that certain changes to the overlay district zoning change upon which the PDA is predicated would not only make the contract/agreement void, but might be actionable.

Suddenly we are told that to NOT change our city's zoning to cater to this one developer's wishes and the promise of one development might be illegal! When it is also probably illegal to do just that! 

Another sore point is the question of whether or not the new zoning ordinance is in compliance with our comprehensive plan and Plan BTV. The Planning Commission (as noted before in other posts and particularly by the letter co-written by Planning Commissioners, Emily Lee and Lee Buffinton, printed in full below) is required by Vermont Law to have filed a report 15 days before a public hearing on a zoning change that asserts that the change is in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and that it fosters the creation of safe and affordable housing.

The Planning Commission never filed such a report. David White did so in their name, without their knowledge, and without consulting them on these questions. They never did come to a conclusion on these vital questions, even though (after Lee Buffinton recused herself) they did agree to move the ordinance packet with their comments on to the City Council.

Why did they not come to a conclusion about these questions? Possibly because they did not have time; probably because they could not in good conscience rule that the zoning change is in compliance with our comprehensive plan, which calls for human scale development , "within the permitted development envelope"  (meaning within our current zoning), which calls for underground parking, does not call for university uses or student housing downtown, which calls for the creation of affordable housing for families and middle-income residents. They probably could not in good conscience affirm that the zoning overlay, which does away with the leverage for requiring more affordable housing units and replaces it with a by right height allowance, fosters the availability of safe and affordable housing. The specific development associated with this overlay (which they should not be considering, but, hey, no one can forget it), offers 80 units of student housing (not a relief at all for the housing problem), only 54 units of affordable (if the zoning were as it is the city could ask for up to 20% more affordable units to just get the building up to 85 feet!), and the rest of the 274 (just one below the Act 250 threshold!) will be luxury units.

What most people do not seem to understand is that it is illegal for the city to pass a zoning change that is not in compliance with our comprehensive plan and does not foster the creation of safe and affordable housing. 

One supporter of the project accused the Coalition last night of misrepresentation because we are alleging that there may be illegal things happening. She said that the CITY ATTORNEY says everything is on the up an up, so how can we allege that it is illegal?! Well, legality is ironed out in court and is not a black and white question. We do not know what the final ruling on any of these questions would be, but we certainly think there is great cause for concern on many counts. Other lawyers not on the pay roll of the City agree with us. 

In any case, the laws are made for a reason, to protect certain things like due process, public input, consistency, to avoid special interests and corruption. Would it be something to crow about if the city was able to subtly and sleezily get around the law and not get in trouble? I am sure most of us demand much more from our public officials than the ability to work the system in the interest of a developer.

Next City Council Work Session is on Wednesday at 5 P.M. Come early to sign up for Public Comment time. The Council is expected to deliver its final vote on the Zoning Change by September 12th. Let the councilors know your concerns through email or phone if you cannot come to the meeting!

Shay Totten's Blogpost about the Mall Project

https://shaytotten.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/a-down-town/

Fishes Swimming in City Hall

This video was shot by our friend, Jay Vos, at the City Council meeting on Thursday.

Please join us on Monday and Wednesday at 5 for the next two City Council work sessions (with public forum) on the town center mall project-related overlay district zoning change. 

COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS, PAID PRO-DEVELOPMENT LOBBYISTS, YOUR CITY, YOUR ZONING!

Please come to the city council meetings on:

Monday, the 22nd
Wednesday, the 24th

5 P.M. at Contois, City Hall.

There will be a public forum either before or after the council discussions.
Bring signs, bring puppets, bring your ethical selves. Be prepared to speak or just witness.

The Burlington Business Association has hired a PR firm to lobby in favor of this and other developments. They showed up en masse to the last meeting, in t-shirts saying I AM FOR PROGRESS. We are for progress too, but progress that is in keeping with our current comprehensive plan, Plan BTV. For progress that comes from what the people of Burlington want, not progress that is forced upon us against the will of the people.

See:

http://vtdigger.org/2016/08/16/lobbyists-helping-business-group-promote-burlington-projects/

We ask you, if you care about democracy, due process, and the livability of Burlington, 
PLEASE JOIN US AT THESE MEETINGS. WE NEED YOU.

Our Community, Our Zoning. 

First City Council Work Sessions on the Zoning Change TONIGHT, MONDAY, AUGUST 15th, 6 p.m.

The city's marketplace update tells us to come show our support for more housing, better retail and services, restored street connectivity, more jobs, vibrant streetscapes, and a stronger economy! Wow, great! But wait a minute...all of those things are supposed to come with 15 story buildings, luxury condos, a developer whose last company went bankrupt, and a city government that keeps pushing through a huge zoning change without any of the information they need to make good decisions?!

Join the Coalition for a Livable City at the City Council Work sessions in asking serious questions about the undemocratic process that has brought them to pushing through a zoning change that contradicts our comprehensive plan, is illegal spot zoning, and would destroy the livability of our city without providing significant affordable housing, without a plan to treat storm water, without considerations of parking, traffic, or other infrastructure issues.

MONDAY, AUGUST 15th, 6:00 (Public Forum at 7:30), Contois Auditorium

Following sessions probably to come on:

August 18th

August 22nd

August 24th

The Marketplace officials say, "Let's embrace a vibrant, growing downtown, where people can work, live, and play all year round. The future of Burlington depends on it".

The Coalition for a Livable City says, let's embrace democratic process, ecological stewardship, economic justice, and due process by rejecting this insane zoning change. The future of the planet depends upon it.

Mayor Weinberger's Book Club Selection Reviewed by Charlie Messing, with G.G.

Reading Edward Glaeser’s Triumph of the City for the Mayor’s Book Club

By Charlie Messing, with G.G.

The long-awaited model of the Town Center Mall-Redevelopment

            I read Triumph of the City, subtitled “How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier,” for the Mayor’s Book Club, and participated in a public discussion about the book. Glaeser is an economist who is focused on the idea that the future of mankind should be centered around cities, elevators and skyscrapers.  Glaeser feels that if people travelled less in their automobiles, we could fight our environmental crisis.  Although this is a good idea on the face of it, his book inadvertently reveals the problems with this one-note solution. Glaeser’s thesis culminates in a rousing defense of increasing urban infill and decreasing individuality, economic diversity, and human-scale communities. His position is that the suburbs are a gigantic waste of energy and resources, roads cost too much, those who live in rural locations use too much gas and tend toward poverty, and sprawl is poisoning the earth.  If everyone has a house of their own, we are doomed. Height and density, thus, are the keys to a successful city and a successful planet. Voila! The mayor’s selection for the summer book club cries for us to “unleash the developers”.

            Glaeser goes back through history, and tells of the greatness of Rome, Greece, and other early urban design successes.  Many cities, he says, have attained greatness through their location, temperature and atmosphere, lack of confining regulations, low taxes, room to build, low-cost housing, low cost of living, many successful businesses, a solid mass-transit system, good roads and infrastructure, and a willingness to reign in sprawl.  This translates to a justification for high buildings and a deregulation of public processes. As Glaeser writes, “It’s easy to idolize democracy, but effective city governments usually need leaders who govern with a firm hand, unencumbered by checks and balances and free from the need to heed the wishes of every disgruntled citizen.”

            Glaeser has no idea why Jane Jacobs, advocate of organic, community-driven development, was set against high-rise housing projects. Unlike Glaeser, Jacobs believed that cities are very complex interwoven patterns, with shared public spaces that allow people to encounter each other in unique ways.  Jacobs argued that the creation of art happens in old buildings (because they have become cheap property, and are fully paid off) and never in new buildings.  Old buildings are essential to a healthy, vibrant city. 

But such things as historic character and economic and social diversity must go by the wayside to achieve Glaeser’s vision.   Proximity to Nature, too, is “a luxury good.”  My state is mostly rural, and sparsely inhabited.  This city on the shore of a large lake, is surrounded by suburbs on its three other sides, which are in turn surrounded by rural areas —farms, hills, mountains, and small towns. How out-moded!

According to the new vision, we must all cluster in cities that are increasingly high and dense. But these cities will not accommodate the poor, who, according to Glaeser, bring crime and blight to cities. Foster luxury developments, pave and privatize public parks, price-out those who already work and live here, and we will have an urban paradise. We can also feel morally righteous if we argue that such development is good for the environment and counters that worst of all horrors, “sprawl”. Of course there is no accounting of the costs to the environment in new construction, servicing high towers, or the general wasteful lifestyle of urban commodification. There is no explanation of where people who cannot afford the luxury high-rise lifestyle will live (the outskirts presumably, bussed in to serve the well-heeled residents who inhabit this paradise). If these people live along public transportation hubs because they can’t afford the SUVs that wealthier suburban residents would use, if they live in tiny houses or other accessory dwelling units, there might be some benefit to the environment. But the wealthier people could do this too, without wasting valuable natural resources and increasing urban traffic and pollution within the city.

            Glaeser misses the fact that people like to own their own homes, often so far away from neighbors that they appear to have none.  They build their houses as they wish, and travel great distances, in some cases.  Other people like variety, even in cities—they don’t want them to look like they were planned by a team of experts.

At the book group discussion, when I shared this quote: “As humankind grows wealthier,” an audible jolt went through the crowd.  “What page is that on?!” someone called.  I told them, and continued to read aloud: “As humankind grows wealthier, more people will choose their locations on the basis of pleasure as well as productivity.” And, presumably, this pleasure and productivity will be found in dense cities.

Glaeser’s vision is of towering cities full of highly efficient and wealthy people making the world greener, at the mere expense of individual choice, and quality of life.  Does the Mayor want to live in that world?  I prefer this one.

           

Ordinance Committee Gets Ready to Vote Tomorrow on Zoning Ordinance ZA 16-14

Tonight the Ordinance Committee met to confer once more before their meeting tomorrow on the zoning amendment that would allow the Town Center Mall-Redevelopment Project to proceed along the developer's time line and according to his wishes. Although the Pre-Development Agreement (PDA) stipulated that certain key elements of information be provided to the City Council by August 1st, most of these things are still not forthcoming. No physical model, no market feasibility study, no serious vetting of the developer's credentials, who, as Richard Hillyard noted, is responsible for at least one company which went bankrupt last year.

 Why should the developer keep his promises to the city and provide them with what they want? They lost the leverage they had when they signed the pre-development agreement. Why did they sign it without these basic questions answered? All councilors except Max Tracy recklessly put the cart before the horse. Many of them said at the time that it didn't mean anything. Now some of them are acting like it meant everything and that they can't possibly turn back now that they have all but promised to go along with it. But has the developer kept his promises? Clearly not.So why should we honor our part of the bargain?

What's more, key elements that were promised to us from the beginning in order to sweeten the deal have been eliminated from the plan:

Amazing storm water run-off infrastructure!
LEED certified GOLD standard building!
St. Paul and Pine Streets returned to full streets!
Wow!

Storm Water? Oh, too bad. Turns out that, according to our storm water expert, Megan Moir, the 100% water treatment for 1 year touted in the PDA is not even possible. The section on storm water runoff has simply been struck from the ordinance!

Greeen Buildings? Oh, too bad. A surety on LEED certified GOLD standard would be too expensive for the developer. Although "staff," represented by Meagan Tuttle since Mr. White is on a long vacation, continued to press the committee to accept the idea that such a surety was too expensive, both Sharon and Max argued for more information. Max noted that the basis of the new method of eliminating bonuses is to establish what we absolutely always require. LEED Gold could be one of those things that we always require. If it costs a developer 10 million dollars to get the surety; that might be fine.  But, it looks like the new method is to require nothing at all that might discourage a developer in any way. No more bonuses for added height or mass; and also no more requirements.

Full Streets? Oh, too bad..(but this is not even something any of them will admit yet!) at least one of the streets promised is too steep to allow for even bikes, let alone cars and buses, to use. Why won't they explain, admit or acknowledge this? Instead, when asked, they now mumble that they are still studying the details. Still studying the details while continuing to sell the project to the public based on very uncertain information!

Another thing about these streets: if there is toxic soil where they are to be built, it will have to be transported to Coventry. The soil under the adjacent new bus terminal was toxic, and the developer is claiming that the soil where we want him to build his parking garage would be toxic (thus increasing his costs). So what about the streets? Would the 22 million in TIF money cover the hauling of toxic soil over and above the cost of building the streets? Or are we setting ourselves up for an even greater expenditure?

If you thought 160 feet was bad, watch out. The document being discussed currently calls for allowance of up to 15 feet more for mechanicals and architectural details. 175 feet or more. Both Max Tracy and Sharon Bushor were, however, clear that they would open this discussion up when the City Council gets a chance to discuss the ordinance in its upcoming work sessions, and that they both agree with many planning commissioners who argued that a maximum height should be set, without exceptions given for further allowances.

And if you think 175 or 160 feet is bad, will you be satisfied with Sharon Bushor's  vision of 130 feet? She said it "would make [her] feel okay". Not me. Why, even 105 feet of this monstrosity of mass and ugliness doesn't make me feel okay. But why go beyond the zoning height of 65 feet (105 with bonuses) at all? Sharon noted that she would share her 130 ft. idea with the rest of the council, adding, "Would I compromise? Absolutely!"  which would leave us where exactly? At 145, at 150 feet? Why? Why not 65 feet?

The most stunning moment of the meeting was in public comment time when Caryn Long read from a resolution drafted in 2008 by  Joan Shannon and Andy Montroll. This resolution was drafted to resist the push by an ad hoc committee of developers to increase the allowable building height  beyond 100 ft.  The resolution, penned by Shannon and Montroll and approved by the council, set the allowable building height at 105 feet, noting that developers were promoting higher buildings in order to increase profit, but that Burlington residents did not favor an increase. Joan, Joan, we hardly recognize you now. What happened in the last 8 years to make you deaf to the voices of Burlington residents who still do not favor such an increase? Andy Montroll has, to his credit, been sensitive to the clamor of citizens in his discussions on the Planning Commission. But the misrepresentations by Zoning staff have made any conscientious attempts at reasonableness by Planning Commission members moot.

The discussion of parking was lengthy, surrounding the question of what leverage could the city have to enforce or encourage a developer to build parking underground instead of above ground? Megan Tuttle misrepresented the positions of the Planning Commission by adding a clause to their document saying that it would be acceptable to have above-ground parking out to the facade of a building if it were above the 2nd floor! What? No. While the ordinance does document that the commission had a strong preference for parking underground, it belies the level of discomfort about other methods of dealing with the parking by making it seem as if the above-ground parking model were acceptable to the commissioners as a second or third best after underground or wrapped parking. In fact, the commissioners were grappling with a legal way to say that they wanted to require underground parking unless it were shown to be unfeasible. A discussion ensued at the ordinance committee meeting about how a city might enforce or encourage a developer to put the parking underground. Just telling a developer that he must put it under ground seemed inconceivable. Why, that might drive a developer away! Egads! Requiring anything is so 2015. In any case, the idea was floated, and supported by Sharon Bushor, of offering incentives in the form of allowing a developer to provide fewer parking spaces if he built them underground, saving space. Max Tracy noted that the recently completed parking study intended to try to better utilize the parking that we already have in lieu of building more parking in the city. In essence: why are we building more parking before we know that we need it?

If you are still with me, I question your sanity. Why is any of this even being discussed? Why does the ordinance committee have one more day to complete its analysis of an ordinance which the Pre-Development Agreement foisted upon the Planning Commission with a 120 day deadline? Why are they looking at a document the Planning Commission never had the time to vet or approve? Why are they looking at this ordinance without benefit of a promised physical model, without answers about the complete streets, the storm water run-off, the market feasibility, the developer's credentials, the cost of underground parking, and so on and so on?

It is all so absurd and, as my colleague Tony Redington said to me at the beginning of the meeting: "spooky". Who in good conscience can support this crazy project or make excuses for this obscene excuse for due diligence and public process?  These last are questions that are unanswerable. But there are questions we can demand answers to.

Please come if you can tomorrow, August 9th, 5:30 at Contois, to the last ordinance committee meeting, and weigh in about this mess. Or write to councilors Bushor, Wright, and Tracy, and give them your feedback.

For Those With Ears to Hear: Amey Radcliffe's Wise Letter to the City Council and Planning Commission

Dear City Councilors and Planning Commissioners,

When it comes to Mall redevelopment, the Sinex proposal, the predevelopment agreement, the zoning ordinance, and the height details of the overlay request, I’ve become increasingly concerned that there is a systemic problem of overlapping, conflating and confusing issues that should be handled as discrete items with adequate time and due diligence for each. Clear facts and differentiation between issues is desperately needed. A zoning change and its specific perimeters is a big deal with future implications and should not be confused with the details requested for a specific project. All zoning change details should rely on the principles of Plan BTV. The Planning Commission has said at numerous meetings that they have spent more time on much less significant zoning changes than they have on the proposed set. I contend that the speed of this process, and the details of the zoning changes are being driven by one project, thus raising concerns about spot zoning. City staff ,“partnering” with Sinex in a team to facilitate this effort, is having a very negative effect on democratic process. 

It’s become increasingly clear that while general concepts of increased density, infill and the zoning changes needed to facilitate them, are indeed supported in PlanBTV — the increased HEIGHT of buildings is NOT, nor is the specific height proposed.

PlanBTV focuses on “human scale,” lake and mountain views, a majority satisfaction with building heights AS THEY ARE, and the idea that “taller” is not necessarily the answer. To say Plan BTV supports 160 feet “by right” is completely untrue. The public is getting tired of hearing members of city staff, council or commission try to make a claim that 14-story towers are supported in Plan BTV. They simply are not.

160 feet, plus mechanicals, “by right” was driven by one project, and one developer. And the eager folks of P&Z have made it their baby. Where else could an increase of NINETY-FIVE FEET over current “by right” heights come from? This height did not come from public process and it is not supported by the majority of the public. As one participant of PlanBTV’s public process said to me, unsolicited, and I quote, the details of this zoning change “make plan BTVs workshops and charrettes seem completely BOGUS”. Was the charrette a charade?

The mall redevelopment as a general theme IS supported in PlanBTV, but that is where the connection ends. The Sinex project does not include moderately-priced housing, senior housing, public space, parking below ground, true street connectivity or livability in its
14-story three-towered mega-block. Very few of the guidelines set forth by PlanBTV for the mall redevelopment are actualized in the current proposal.

In scouring the web, the definition I find over and over for the human scale favored in PlanBTV is 6-8 stories or a 1 to 1 ratio with street width. That means a 60 foot building with a 60 foot street. These “mid-rise” buildings are: the most adaptable to changing economic times, the most cost effective to build, are more environmentally sound than their tower counterparts, and have proven to be the most livable, due to allowing greater connection between building dwellers and the street life below (think Paris). The benefits of mall redevelopment for our city’s economy, downtown vitality, and job growth, are all JUST AS POSSIBLE in a 6-8 story, human-scaled, package. Please! Stand up for what is right and is truly consistent with PlanBTV, and the public will stand behind you. The rhetoric coming from City Hall will have you thinking that all is lost in our city if these heights and this town center project do not happen. Not true. 

What we are dealing with at this moment in time is a flawed process, flawed zoning change details, and a flawed mall redevelopment proposal. The Sinex project (as it is currently proposed) is not too big to fail and letting it go will allow for proper focus on the bigger issues — preventing a real failure. There is a tremendous opportunity to do this right, and with full public support.

Amey Radcliffe,

Burlington property owner, Burlington business owner