Is the Centre Square Plan the Same As the Depot Square Plan?

Is the new Centre Square Plan the same as the old Depot Square Plan?   I found many significant similarities.  If you take a look back at the Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) sponsored by the State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development in August in 2010 you will find that the 17 acre parcel was part of a submission for a Challenge Grant for a Transit Oriented Development (TOD), mixed use intermodal transportation center.

According to the CT Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) website, the projects' objectives were to, 

"...align(s) with HUD’s livability principles to provide more transportation choices. By planning and developing mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and denser communities in the station areas...the project will help provide more transportation choices to a greater number of people.  ...DECD and its partners are promoting projects that are closely aligned to the HUD-DOT-EPA livability principles, which will help leverage federal investments. Since the adoption of the state’s smart growth policy, DECD has funded several TOD, mixed-income, and mixed-use development projects and is using the requested grant to leverage its investments.... and promoting equitable and affordable housing is discussed in more detail..."

The EIE Review notice posted on the State of Connecticut's Council on Environmental Quality's website indicates that the deadline for comments on the plan was October of 2010.  The state requires the EIE due to  the project's impacts on (among other issues) , "ambient noise levels,  historic, archeological, cultural, or recreational resources, disruption of an established community or neighborhood, displacement or addition of substantial numbers of people, or a substantial increase in traffic."  Because such projects require public funding residents are entitled to a public hearing if twenty-five residents or an organization representing more than 25 residents request one.   Do you remember hearing about this? The law requires it be posted outside the clerk's office and I'm sure it was but I'm not sure that has any impact on how many residents of Bristol knew.  It seems that, with but a few exceptions, the only time that numerous city officials actively encouraged residents to attend meetings about downtown Bristol that they were directed to the meetings for Bristol Rising whose meetings took place outside the framework of our government.

 This EIE performed by Fuss & O’Neill is cited in the City of Bristol's Request for Proposal (RFP) for "Professional Services Relative to Redevelopment of Downtown Bristol" posted on February 9th of 2016 resulting in the selection of Milone and MacBroom for site design for the Depot Centre Square site.   The environmental impacts of the proposed project to which the RFP refers to includes residential development as well as 50,000 square feet of office space.   

The "new" proposal from Bristol Hospital and it's developer Rendina for a medical office building is tailored to accommodate a building of this size according to a recent resolution from Bristol Development Authority.

The  Purchase and Sale Agreement Draft for the Bristol Hospital deal refers to both the bus stop relocation as well as the allocation of 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of building space.  Both details are significant.

The City of Bristol's Parking Study for Depot Square prepared by Tighe & Bond in 2010 also indicates plans for 55,000 square feet of office space as well as citing changes to Bristol's zoning regulations to reduce parking requirements for medical office buildings to 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.  Coincidence?

The utilization of roadside space on Riverside Avenue for on-street parking is also mentioned in the 2010 document as well as in the current plan for the parcel.

What has changed?  Housing?  Transit? Parking?

As many residents have recently learned, the first phase of the project includes a transit stop in the center of the project site much like the Concept Plan created by Bristol Rising dated April of 2011 only it is now oriented around the CTFastrak instead of a rail station.  Because of the lack of population density to quantify the investment for light rail, this was likely the most probable outcome in pursuit of a TOD project in downtown Bristol.  The name may have changed but the game is the same.  The Depot is still at the literal Center of the Project.

Some officials still continue to refer to the workshops and public outreach of  Bristol Rising, (the community engagement group created by Renaissance Downtowns to gather community input and incorporate it into the plan), as the basis for the current plans for the development of the downtown.  Yet the Concept Plan presented to the public was not published until eight months after the EIE proposal was submitted.  How then could one possibly say that the basic elements of this project were derived from all of the members of the community?  You can see mention of a "strong residential component" in the image above.

In 2013 the City of Bristol made changes to it's Zoning Regulations that accommodate higher density residential development.  These changes encourage the development of more affordable housing.   Many people fail to recognize that none of that has changed.

One can find these same goals now continue to exist in city plans made after the departure of Renaissance.  Bristol's 10 Year Plan of Conservation and Development, "is used to guide land use decisions and regulations, coordinate development activities within the city as well as provide programs for implementation." according to the city's website.  The establishment of a multimodal transportation center as well as encouraging the provision of new housing units in appropriate areas in downtown Bristol is included in this 2015 document.


Seemingly from out of nowhere, (like the Bristol Rising Concept Plan and like most other TOD projects) bicycle and pedestrian amenities have been integrated into the Centre Square Project.    The Preliminary Draft incorporates the equal sharing of space with automobile-oriented and non-motorized visitors in multimodal fashion.  Do you know where this idea came from?

There are some more interesting facts contained in the Environmental Impact Evaluation dated August 2010, which can still be found on the city's website.  Here are a few worthy of thought.

They illustrate the  many things decided about the development prior to 2011 have not changed.   

A $14.3 Million renovation for a 500-750 seat Community Arts Center, a 40,000+ sq. ft. office building, an on-site structured parking during Depot Centre Square Project build-out, concerns over an increased demand on the area's healthcare system due to an increase in housing units, and a clue as to what the changes made to the zoning downtown can bring are included in the documents.   

Exactly what Public-Private Partnerships can do in Bristol is mentioned in a publication from an Architecture Faculty Member of the City College of New York's June Williamson and Professor of Architecture and Design at the Georgia Institute of Technology's Professor Ellen Durnham-Jones'  Retrofitting Suburbia.  Bristol Connecticut is mentioned in the book under the heading The Public Sector Takes the Lead.
"Developer Donald Monti of Renaissance Downtowns similarly blurs the conventional lines between public and private in his partnerships between public and private in his partnerships with small suburban cities, such as Bristol, Connecticut...Other downtown property owners are also invited into the arrangement."The Director of Bristol's Development Authority has recently stated that no kind of development has been ruled out.  What do you expect will develop under these conditions and exactly who did you expect to be interested in doing so?  Executive sessions for such projects may leave the public in the dark but needn't leave them unable to see what lies before them.  

Public-Private Partnerships, Planning & Bristol's Depot Centre Square

 You may not have heard about it but the Bristol, CT City Council passed a resolution to submit a grant application for a Working Cities Challenge Grant.  The planning grant is being offered by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and it's partners which consist primarily of local, regional and worldwide nonprofit philanthropic agencies.  

According to the document, the initiative is, among other things, to address access to transportation.  The United Way staff is partnered with the City of Bristol in this effort.



  Although we don't know exactly how the planning grant will be used in relation to Depot Centre Square, we do know that the last time that the City of Bristol was included on a Challenge Grant application it was for Transit-Oriented Development relating to the Depot Square site.
We also know that the United Way has been instrumental in the efforts to provide more affordable housing near public transportation in the State of Connecticut.  In fact, their ALICE Report was just referenced yet again at a recent forum attended by leaders across the state at the Lyceum in Hartford.  The Partnership for Strong Communities forum on January 30th, 2017 was focused on how to shape local zoning to provide for affordable housing options.  The ALICE (Asset-Limited-Income-Constrained-Employed) segment of the state's population is estimated at roughly 20% of those residents living in more than 85% of Connecticut's towns in the report.  The report addresses hardships for the working segment of the population that is living paycheck-to-paycheck.  I have included the wages of ALICE households under the heading of one sponsor of the program listed below.


A brief look into the priorities of the program and the vision statements of most of those organizations involved clearly indicates their goals are to help low-income residents as the city's document indicates.  Of course, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about wanting to help those who are in need.   But we must also keep in mind that it is important that the public is informed as to exactly how we go about doing so.  This is especially the case when we are talking about public land and public money.   Therefore, a little deeper digging showing where the program originates may provide Bristol residents some insight as to why it seems that all information about the planning of Bristol's future seems to have gone somewhat underground.


These initiatives can be found on the webpages of the many funders of the Working Cities Challenge Grant.  I'm not going to list them all but I will include a few to illustrate the point.  The following website states that Boston Fed's role in this partnership is to "design and implement the model in partnership with the Steering Committee".


 Living Citiesis listed as one of the primary funders/partners of the Working Cities program.  According to their website, the initiative is modeled after their "Living Cities" signature effort."  Their page describes the structure of their model as follows on their website:

"...a Steering Committee comprised of leaders from the public, private, and philanthropic sectors. Living Cities is proud to serve as one of these partners and believes in the potential power of The Federal Reserve Banks as influencers, conveners, and research partners for enduring change in places. The resulting Challenge takes the shape of a competition whereby an independent jury of experts evaluates teams' applications against criteria that reflect the core elements of the Working Cities Challenge: leading collaboratively across sectors, engaging diverse community members, using evidence to track progress toward a shared goal, and working to improve the lives of low-income and residents of color by changing systems."

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by "changing systems" but it's kind of concerning to see any shape or form of what would normally be locally-driven decision making moving behind the doors of some ominous board from somewhere across state lines.  I'm not sure if that's what the quote refers to but also concerning is the following statements from their site, 

"We take risks, catalyze fresh thinking and test new approaches in order to creatively disrupt the status quo."

"... We blend public, private and philanthropic financial resources in new ways to better meet the needs of cities and their residents.  ....We work with public sector leaders to foster more nimble, collaborative, and data-driven local governments."

A look at the funders page reveals that not only Living Cities, who is a primary funder of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) (who is managing the State of CT Transit-Oriented Predevelopment Fund), but many of their other international funders as well.  They are listed as, "Twenty two of the world’s largest foundations and financial institutions":
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Bank of America
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Citi Foundation
Deutsche Bank
Ford Foundation
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The JPB Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Prudential Financial, Inc.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Surdna Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Wells Fargo

I wrote a piece about funders for LISC's role in sustainable development in the State of Connecticut in a previous blog but it's noteworthy enough to mention that the following organizations are funders of both:
Ford Foundation
Bank of America
The Kresge Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
Living Cities
Citi
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Wells Fargo
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
MetLife, Inc.


I've included a few notables in the "funders/partners" category and attached some quotes from their website that indicates their support of the goals of the grant program for Bristol's downtown project and those across the state for those interested in reading further:

• The State of Connecticut
  
•  Worldwide Environmental Group Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  "Land Conservation in an Era of Climate Change- Our grant making is designed to provide frameworks and concrete examples of how practitioners can protect biodiversity in light of climate change through strategic land conservation"
  "
  
• The Kresge Foundation- "Communities that address climate change head-on will be better prepared for new circumstances and uncertainties. Decisions about infrastructure, building design, land use, transportation and other policy and funding issues can make communities stronger, more equitable and more resilient to the changing climate.  Our work is intended to help civic leaders consider a two-part climate question as they make decisions that shape the form and function of their communities."
  "Environmental Stewardship in the Tri-State Area - In addition to being home to a majority of Americans, urban areas in the United States feature some of the most creative environmental efforts underway. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation is fortunate to be headquartered in a particularly vibrant location – the greater New York City area – that features a number of cutting-edge efforts to help people live more efficiently and lightly on the land. Consistent with its emphases on wildlife habitat conservation and efficient built environments, and a growing focus on connecting people living in urban areas with the environment, the Environment Program uses a small portion of its resources to support innovative environmental projects in the Tri-State area."

• NeighborWorks America
  "About Us -We are an organization that cares deeply about affordable housing and community development and the people who benefit from them."
• Avangrid Foundation
  "Sustainability and Biodiversity- The Avangrid Foundation is committed to supporting initiatives that focus on a sustainable energy model that can effectively meet energy needs and contribute towards protecting the environment...."
• Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals BI Cares Foundation
  "36,000 TONS= The reduction in BI’s U.S. carbon dioxide emissions through its BE GREEN program."
• Hartford Foundation for Public Giving
  "The Foundation is intensifying efforts to build, join and support strong collaborations, and to forge creative, cross-cutting approaches.  Collaborating with our communities, we will employ the following key strategies: Build, Sustain and Share Knowledge, Influence Public Policy, Inspire Philanthropy and Steward Resources, Invest in the Region"
• Webster Bank
  "Signature Programs- United Way- As a long-term partner, we believe strongly in the broad safety-net of human services provided by United Way and its partner agencies"
• Eversource Energy
  "We invested a record $783 million in our electric distribution system and $213 million in our natural gas infrastructure. Not to mention, an investment of $500 million in efficiency programs and measures that will save 11 billion kWh of electricity and 130 million therms of natural gas over their lifetime, as well as eliminate the emission of 5 million tons of carbon."
• Liberty Bank Foundation-
  (This first paragraph appears to be part of the United Way's ALICE Report)
  
  "Did you know that our state has the 8th highest “housing wage” in the nation?  This is the hourly wage a person working 40 hours a week would need to earn to pay for the average two-bedroom apartment, without spending more than 30% of their income on rent. In Connecticut, the housing wage is currently $24.29.  That means that someone earning the minimum wage of $9.15 per hour would have to work 106 hours per week to afford that two-bedroom apartment. What’s more, almost half of Connecticut renters pay more than 30% of their income on housing — leaving them less to spend on the other necessities of life, and no cushion to protect them against life’s little surprises.
  
  That’s why our foundation has adopted the creation of affordable and supportive housing as a key funding priority. When families don’t have a stable, affordable roof over their heads, it’s almost impossible for them to achieve stability or success in any other aspect of life.  Here are some examples of items and activities we support with our affordable housing grants:

• Construction or rehabilitation costs for affordable and supportive housing projects
• Pre-development costs, such as market feasibility surveys
• Technical assistance to local developers and housing groups, usually offered by a larger nonprofit
• Education and advocacy efforts that build community support for affordable housing"

• Main Street Community Foundation
  "MSCF is now recognized as an organization that knows about our community needs, and can help area citizens with charitable ventures whether funds are set up or not."
  
  

What exactly is this proposal supposed to be fnding? (Click here for bill status)

The interesting thing about the Main Street Community Foundation being a participant in the program is that there are members of Bristol's boards and commissions as well as elected representatives that founded the nonprofit.
Perhaps they know more about the program and the direction we are headed than the electorate.  If that is the case then we have a lot to unwind before anyone can claim that the public is aware of, participated in or supports this endeavor.

I wonder if and when the residents of the city will become part of the process? Will the residents' role in the planning of this public project be reduced to an anonymous survey or will proper outreach efforts be taken to include the public?  I would like to remain optimistic but there has not even been an acknowledgement that there is a transit-oriented project being worked on so I am not confident that best practices will be incorporated.  Recent proposals to incorporate another overlay zone in Bristol without explanation as to it's purpose only exasperates these concerns.

  Bristol is one of sixteen Connecticut municipalities selected for this program.  Other communities include Bridgeport, Danbury, East Hartford, Hartford, Manchester, Meriden, Middletown, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwich, Torrington, Waterbury, West Haven, and Windham.  Let us hope that if this grant is awarded that the citizens of the community are not hand-picked to participate while others are left in the dark.  Unfortunately that's how this all appears to be playing out.

Overlay Zones, Busways, Public Info. & Railroading

   Where exactly is the new Overlay Zone proposed for the Farmington Avenue going to lay? Will this new zone change allow for buildings much higher than the current regulations?  Will it allow development that obstructs views or broadcasts unwelcome light or sound?  Will it lead to more traffic congestion? Will it allow people to subdivide and sell their properties in all areas of Route 6? Property owners want to know how these future plans are going to affect their own future and the values of their properties.  So after waiting more than ninety minutes to bring their concerns forth, they did so hoping their questions could be answered.  For the most part they were not.  Residents were allotted three minutes and spoke beyond that time limit but the responses and discourse was minimal.

The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission began with a 1-hour presentation of the recommendations from Fitzgerald and Halliday for the future of Bristol along Route 6.  The speaker seemed to be addressing the commission during the majority of the presentation.  It became clear that she was when she asked if there was still any concerns about the increase in density.  Our city planner responded that this concern was brought up by a resident.  The meeting then moved on without discussion of the issue.

There was little indication nor discussion from the city planner nor any members of the Planning Commission as to what purpose the creation of an overlay zone would serve during the Special Meeting on Wednesday January 25th.  In fact, the only members of the commission that indicated any concerns at all during this meeting or last December's were Commissioner Andrew Howe and City Engineer Paul Strawderman.  Of course this would make any resident feel uneasy about trusting this new proposal will not have a negative impact on their quality of life. 

Why would the city propose an overlay zone instead of just making a general zone change or allowing new development by special permit process?  The city planner's explanation during the meeting was that it would provide flexibility of having two possible options but we do not know what the intention nor specifications of these new options are.  I asked at the meeting but I was not afforded an answer.  I therefore had to ask Google.  

According to information aggregated on the website TransformingBristol, Overlay Zones are for:

*Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (most common use) 

* Protection of Historic Districts in Development Areas 

*Encouraging Dense Cluster Development Along Bus or Rail Corridors

...for more about Overlay Zones click here.
The top result of the Google search, "Why an overlay zone" produced the following information:

"CREATION
Any governmental unit with the power to create zoning districts can create an overlay district. There are three basic steps to creating an overlay district:

Define the purpose of the district. The district should have a clearly defined purpose e.g. to protect drinking water, preserve historical character, minimize erosion from storm water runoff, etc. Identify the areas that make up the district. Mapping district boundaries will depend on the natural or cultural resources and the geographic areas that relate to achieving the purpose of the district. For example, if the purpose of the zone is to protect groundwater, important groundwater recharge areas and areas prone to pollution, such as fractured bedrock or areas with a high groundwater table should be mapped.. Develop specific rules that apply to the identified district. In a groundwater recharge district for example, provisions may restrict development or require development guidelines that capture and filter water runoff.. 

It is critical that the zoning provisions offer clear guidance to both property owners and the governing body charged with approving proposals. Zoning requirements must be applied equally over all properties within the district. The ordinance not only must comply with any state and federal regulations, but must also be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the municipality’s comprehensive plan. It is important that the local governing body involve the public to clarify issues and explain the reasons behind mapping district boundaries.

An educational program targeting developers and affected property owners will help increase awareness and compliance with the new requirements. The procedures for adopting an overlay district are the same as for adopting a zoning or rezoning provision. The overlay provisions as well as changes to the zoning map must be approved by the local governing body for adoption."

Image from top search result

   
  I'm not convinced that the City of Bristol has sufficiently undertaken these efforts.  There is still time for sufficient public outreach, healthy public discourse and informing of the affected public about the details of this overlay zone.  

What actions do you feel that study stakeholders and city officials should take to ensure an amiable outcome in this situation prior to the adoption of the plan?  Will we see statutory minimum efforts or outstanding makings of an "A" effort?  Time will tell.

Building Density Along Route 6 (Building Density in Bristol, Pt. 2)

Have you heard in the local paper about the Route 6 Corridor Study?  The story mentions a few aspects of the study recommendations from the commissioned firm Fitzgerald and Halliday.  It mentions that the study draft recommendations include recommendations to make Route 6 more "walkable".  I'm not sure the study was necessary to reach that conclusion as one can clearly see that some of the major intersections lack proper crosswalks as well as functional crossing signals.  But as our former city planner Alan Weiner once stated, the study IS NOT about traffic but instead about DEVELOPMENT along this corridor.  Specifically, the Draft Recommendations of the plan refers to walkability as to, "Encourage compact, mixeduse, and walkable commercial centers/clusters."

Not surprisingly, this plan for Route 6 appears to have been coordinated with some regional transportation planning.   The study map seems to indicate that there are three new proposed bus shelters and a pull-off within a quarter mile of the city's methadone clinic.   So it is not surprising to see that the city study suggests to "encourage compact, mixed-use clusters" near these transit stops.

This is completely in line with the state's growth principles to, "Expand Housing Opportunities,  Concentrate Development Around Transportation Nodes and Corridors and Promote Integrated Planning Across All Levels of Government on a Statewide, Regional and Local Basis."  Increasing density in such areas provide investors the opportunity to cash-in on the growing land value and density bonuses.  It also is supposed to spur an increase transit ridership.   That's exactly what such a proposal is tailored for.  

If you take a look at the corridor study, it suggests two proposals.  One would allow the development of six-family mixed-use buildings in areas that are currently occupied predominantly by single-family homes through a Special Permit process.  The other would allow it as by-right development, without a special permit by creating an overlay zone across the corridor.    The "TMU Zone", which the study identifies as Mixed-Use Transitional Zone, also proposes relief from parking-minimum requirements for such units.   Much like most new Transit-Oriented Development proposals, the TUM Zone would allow people to erect buildings beyond the current standard building height and density.  Relief from current parking minimums, or the creation of a regulation LIMITING the number of allowable parking is also included in the proposal.  This is certainly not a regulation that would accommodate those traveling to these properties by automobile.   There are several reason for such considerations but it's important to note that the primary one is the idea that affordability and accessibility to public transit will decrease such demands.   I can think of at least one case in downtown Bristol where that did not pan out according to plan.  












Unfortunately it looks as though some decisions may have been made prior to the commencement of the solicitation of public opinion.   There is currently a Statewide Bus Study Workshop that does not conclude until January 20th and those soliciting public input for the State of Connecticut's Plan of Conservation and Development have not yet begun to do so.  As a citizen whom has likely expressed more interest in both the planning and transportation processes than most local residents, I was dismayed to discover that the most recent public outreach efforts from the state regarding transportation planning was not announced to the residents-at-large until the day of the event.  When this is couple this with the lack of ease of accessibility to the City of Bristol's Transportation Committee meeting times and you have one large pile of frustration about the lack of information that would encourage public participation. Such participation is not merely a matter of "best practices", it's a requirement for transportation projects that receive state and federal funds.  Many residents feel that this requirement is adequately serving the residents of Bristol.

Perhaps the reason that this planning appears to be so top-down is BECAUSE IT IS!  Consider the Capital Region Council of Governments' future planning documents for investments through the year 2040 as food for thought.


MAJOR POLICY DIRECTIONS
The Capitol Region Transportation Plan outlines a comprehensive program for improving our transportation system to meet travel needs through the year 2040... It defines the Region's greatest needs, identifies which problems are the Region’s highest priority, and outlines how the Region should spend its limited capital funds. The Plan is also the sum of many specific and detailed studies. The recommendations of those studies, such as the Regional Transit Strategy, the bicycle and pedestrian plan, and several corridor studies, are summarized in this Plan.

... The 2015 Regional Transportation Plan continues to emphasize the desire to provide our Region’s residents with more travel options, and to reduce their need to rely exclusively on the private automobile. While the automobile will continue to dominate most travel in the Region, we need to provide more opportunities for people to use alternate means of transportation. With the earlier adoptions of the Regional Transit Strategy, the Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan, and the opening of CTfastrak, we have taken major steps toward achieving that goal. ...

......The Plan continues to recognize that a common goal of both disciplines needs to be promoting sustainable communities in the Capitol Region. CRCOG’s transportation program supports livable community goals and the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. This Plan also includes a commitment to coordination with State land use plans and policies
and green infrastructure treatments. Continued Emphasis on Environmental Justice. The Region reaffirms its commitment to address the transportation needs of all its residents including members of minority groups, low-income residents, and transit-dependent residents. This Plan continues to build on the many years of progress since our initial commitment. It continues to include the environmental justice policies and procedures adopted previously and identifies a list of environmental justice issues of special interest.

The Plan also supports CTfastrak and the Hartford Line transit corridors and looks to strengthen bus rapid transit...

Policies Reaffirmed
· More Travel Choices
· Sustainable Transportation
· Environmental Justice
· Transit Emphasis
· Better Bike & Walk Options
· Better Systems Operations and Management

Continued Emphasis on Pedestrian & Bicycle Travel. This Plan continues our efforts to promote non-motorized travel modes, focusing on the 5 “E’s”: Engineering, Education, Encouragement,
Enforcement, and Evaluation to achieve our vision.

...The bus system removes a significant portion of cars from the roads during the most congested periods of the day and in some of the most congested areas, and we plan for it to have an even bigger impact in the future...

...Sustainable and Livable Communities for a Sustainable Region
The Council of Governments has been an active proponent of public policies that promote sustainable and livable communities. The concept of sustainable and livable communities seeks to build communities that are vibrant and healthy, that have protected natural resources and open spaces, equitable access to opportunities and are economically competitive. A sustainable transportation system - one which provides options that easily allow citizens to choose modes other than the automobile for daily commuting and activities – is a critical component of creating sustainable, livable communities and regions. Creating this transportation system relies heavily on corresponding development priorities. Without developing dense nodes of mixed uses to support transit alternatives, the system cannot function. Promoting sustainable and livable communities is a specific goal of CRCOG’s transportation planning program, which highlights the Council’s commitment to enhancing the quality of life and durability of our member communities. Whether referred to as sustainable development or livable communities, the basic goals are:
· Environment – Create a balanced transportation system that allows for choice and seeks to limit CO2 emissions in the Region and protects natural resources from sprawl.
· Economy - Sustain prosperity and expand economic growth and competitiveness through focusing new development in dense nodes connected by a multi-modal transportation network.
· Equity – Create a transportation system that provides equitable access to jobs and opportunity for all of the Region’s citizens. Be sensitive to vulnerable populations when making future transportation investments so as not to disproportionately burden regional citizens with the negative impacts of transportation infrastructure. "
http://crcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LRTP-April-2015.pdf


So how would you feel if you woke up one day to learn that your neighbor was building a four-story six-unit building next to your single family home?  Would you be surprised like some downtown Bristol residents?

The next meeting of the Planning Commission of Bristol addressing the Route 6 Corridor Study is on Wednesday, January 25th at 7 p.m.

Building Density Pt.1 - Downtown

Can you imagine waking one morning to find that a large multi-family apartment building is going up on the lot next door? That appears to be an issue of major concern of at least one Bristol resident so far.  Perhaps because this is only the beginning.  This one gentleman is one of the very few taxpayers who is now very-well aware of the direction that the City of Bristol is taking with it's planned growth and associated urban renewal.

The West End Study indicates that as much as 75% of the housing in that area of town is approaching the 100 year mark. With much of that housing in a state of substandard appearance combined with safety concerns, many residents and city officials see the situation as a dire one.  In fact, in a recent radio interview on Bristol's The Beat, West End Association President David Hamelin stated that roughly 25 percent of the housing stock in the area is in need of major rehabilitation.  With that in mind, the City of Bristol is embarking on a progressive endeavor to tackle that issue with the support of most of the townsfolk. The beginnings of the "blight-fight" has been mostly directed at properties owned by out-of-state residents.  Therefore,  opposition to the infringement of private property rights has been met with little to no public outcry. Most residents who support the measure are concerned neighbors whom have watched the physical appearance of these structures continue to deteriorate. Others regard the demolition as a great way to displace tenants of the unsavory type.

 The West End is identified as one of the target areas for the rehabilitation of low income housing as part of Bristol's 2015-2020 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan. In accordance with the plan, the City of Bristol is using CDBG funds for the rehabilitation of housing that has been declared blighted in the target area.  Per federal mandates, projects must meet one of three National Objectives:

(1) Benefit to low- and moderate-income persons,
(2) Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or
(3) Meet a need having a particular urgency (such as a natural disaster)

Whether or not these goals are being achieved through best use of these monies has been a subject of local debate.  With the reduction of the low income housing stock as a result of said action, there is a necessity to provide new affordable housing options for this demographic. A failure to do so could leave the city's CDBG funding at risk.  These grant monies are also tied to an obligation of HUD's mandate to Affirmitavely Further Fair Housing.  The City of Bristol's Analysis of Impediments of Fair Housing Choice indicates that a lack of transportation is an issue that needed to be addressed.

The CCRPA Housing Report illustrates Transit-Oriented Development adjacent to the target area  under the premise of providing affordability by combining both housing and transportation costs together. Essentially, the premise under such conditions is that the provision of expanded public transportation options will allow low income residents the ability to live an automobile-free lifestyle in newer housing units at the expense of taxpayers.

To accommodate the requirements for subsidies for redevelopment under the city's Consolidated Plan, the City of Bristol's plan must be in line with the State Plan of Conservation and Development(PoCD).  Planimetrics was commissioned to draft PoCDs and lead public workshops in many CT cities.  They updated the city's Plan of Conservation and Development at a cost of $61,000 to Bristol taxpayers.  In 2016, the State of CT mandated municipalities draft these Master Plans every ten years or become ineligible for discretionary state funding.*  Among the six of the state's Growth Principles municipalities must consider are the priorities to Expand Housing Opportunities,  Concentrate Development Around Transportation Nodes and Corridors and Promote Integrated Planning Across All Levels of Government on a Statewide, Regional and Local Basis.

Renaissance downtowns brought more than their vision of the Depot Centre Square project to Bristol. Their website plainly states their goal is to create a sense of local and regional connectivity, promote sustainable transit-oriented development and bring a critical mass of potential riders to support transit. This is why it comes to no surprise to hear that the developer  worked with city planners to change the downtown's zoning to create an overlay zone that allows for higher density development.  This was done so without the knowledge of one local resident whose property borders the new overlay zone.  Saying he is not pleased about that is an understatement as it will also undoubtedly alter the character of his neighborhood.


Many cities see the purpose of such a change as three-fold benefit and nothing more.  It will accommodate the requirements for subsidies for the large scale transformation of Bristol and attract investors eager to cash in on the land value capture that the density increase near transportation produces.  It will also create higher tax revenues per acre within the overlay zone.

The state has other goals.  It sees such a change as an opportunity to get automobiles off the road and fill up the empty CTFastrak buses in an effort to meet the state's carbon emission mandates and reduce roadway congestion.  Some also view it as a way to affirmitively further fair housing from a regional perspective while "ensuring not to disproportionately burden citizens with the negative impacts of transportation infrastructure. " Many experts equate this to providing low-income inner-city residents an opportunity to live in smaller towns with less pollution, less crime and better schools as urban renewal drives the most vulnerable residents out through gentrification in the state's densest cities.

According to the unified residential and mixed use developments section of the AZR13-4 draft from 11/11/2013, much of the historic Federal Hill area may be affected by these changes.  Although the document promises consideration of the impacts of new development on such properties, property owners on Center Street, High Street, Main Street, North Street, Race Street, School Street, South Street, Summer Street and West Street are no longer protected by previous zoning regulations. Vacant lots may be the site of future buildings with up to 55 stack-and-pack units per developable acre. This is a staggering statistic for wary homeowners who have invested much of their time and money to restore their homes. The requirements are as follows:

As we move forward with this agenda one can only wonder where it will lead Bristol in it's future. It appears that city leaders have thrown all of their chips on the table to bring increased density to the downtown in hopes that retail and restaurant investment will follow in it's path. If it works, Bristol's future may hold more than just a larger grand list.




 Rapid urbanization has it's risks.   Some potential pitfalls of failure includes higher crime rates, lower school grades and graduation rates and an increase in tax rates due to increased demand  for social services.  Will a denser, more urbanized Bristol hold a future more similar to the likes of Hartford, Waterbury and New Britain or Detroit?  Will residents be informed enough or included enough in the planning process to plan for themselves in the future?





The January 10th, 2017 meeting of the City Council included a resolution to approve the submission of a grant application to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for a Working Cities Challenge Grant.   The resolution was adopted and the document, which was on the city website has been taken down. The design grant is for growth initiatives that impact the lives of lower income and minority residents. The proposal concept includes reducing barriers to higher paying employment and addressing transportation issues.
Here is glimpse of portion of that document.

Season's Grantings: Why Can't We Be Stockton?

Photo credit Jessica Mulholland

  Why can't we be like Stockton, CA?  They have a walkable downtown, a community theater and a City Hall that looks much like the Memorial Boulevard School building in downtown Bristol.  Bristol is fortunate it does not carry the burden of Stockton's pension liabilities.  Those liabilities were once estimated at totaling more than $1.5 billion or $245 million dollars over the course of a decade.  But let's look at the other largest debts that helped sink the city during it's quest for progressive sustainable development during the housing crisis.

STOCKTON

 On August 23,2011, the City of Stockton, CA assumed it's former Redevelopment Agency's housing function responsibilities as required by law.  The City had existing BRT (Bus-Rapid Transit)-like service and was looking to expand it's service and spur development in the process.  It's 2007-2035 plan is a progressive long-term future development/climate action plan focused on things like Transit-Oriented, high-density housing development, preservation of historic and cultural resources, and doubling the number of residents commuting by bicycle by the year 2021.

Driven by residential development, Stockton's population grew over 24% from 2000-2014 to approximately 300,000 residents.  Stockton carried $435.5 million in total bond indebtedness according to it's 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report (CAFR).  This includes $31 million in Parking Garage Debt.  The report also states it held $649,863,743 in total pension liabilities.  The financial status the city found itself in was attributed due to two major factors.  One was that it's pension liabilities became unsustainable during economic decline.  Another was it's substantial loss in property tax revenues as the city's unemployment grew to nearly 24%. One statement in the CAFR stands out:

"Stockton continues to lag in its recovery as compared to other nearby regions of Northern California, partially due to the large number of houses that remain vacant. The median home prices fell from a peak of $400,000 in December 2005 to $118,500 in February 2012, a decline of 70%"

After rapid residential growth and subsequent economic downturn, the City of Stockton was the largest City on the history of the US to go bankrupt when it filed for chapter 9 in 2012.  City Hall and it's parking garages were seized by Wells Fargo in June of that year.

BRISTOL

Bristol's population decreased by hundreds from 2010-2015 is stands at about 60,000 residents.  Bristol's total bond indebtedness went down $6.9 million to $67.6 million according to it's 2014-2015 CAFR .   The report also states that The City of Bristol has $198,811,928 in total pension liabilities. Property taxes increased by 21% during this period to $134,240,052.  


 Until just recently, the City of Bristol's website stated:

"A city which develops a viable urban housing core with transportation links will likely be viable in the 21st century and beyond."

  During recent election debates, Democratic Party candidates for Bristol expressed their support for utilizing state monies for housing to build out along the Fastrak station in downtown Bristol.  One of those candidates won the office for the state's Representative 79th district.  Another local democrat mentioned the use of state monies for housing in Bristol to stimulate growth in a recent radio interview on Bristol's State of the City show on The Beat.   We also heard Bristol's mayor answer a question about whether or not Bristol's downtown would feature a Renaissance Downtowns' type of development with, "It could".   Nowhere have I found any evidence that the city has changed direction.

A quick review of the city's Plan of Development certainly supports this hypotheses, yet some people seem to be in a state of denial.  This plan to implement sustainable development practices into the downtown's redevelopment originated some time ago.  There has been no indication that the city is not continuing it's course as it envelops it's focus on it's decades old plan with the building slated to promote cultural arts.  The push for housing and the incorporation of transportation and cultural arts are the foundations of sustainable development objectives and among the primary focus of it's orchestrators.  The plans can also be traced back to Renaissance Downtowns' 2011 concept plan and many publications relating it to the future of Bristol including those from the regional Chamber of Commerce.  Some influential members of the community have favored the plan, some  have not.  Beyond the Chamber, it's tie to regional planning is not a secret.

Sustainable development practices in Bristol are illustrated as relevant to the State's Conservation and Development plan on the City of Bristol's website.  Therein it describes the conservation of historic resources.  This illustrates the relation of the building and it's preservation as a cultural asset to the downtown development.

click for doc

In recent history we have watched the estimates for the theater climb to twice the cost of the $6 million originally proposed.  Now we have a building that is going to cost taxpayers more than $36 million.  Of course, we are to believe that the allocation is necessary as the building now housing City Hall allegedly needs $20 million dollars worth of renovations.

The draft proposal calls for the provision for an employee gym in the new city hall.  The cost of the gym is not included in the $20 million dollar cost estimate.

I wonder how many municipalities in the State of Connecticut have employee gyms on the premises.

The Memorial Boulevard is also slated to be a gateway to the city with one lane dedicated to automobile traffic and the other dedicated to bicycle traffic.  This is a typical element of sustainable development practices and an integral aspect of the city's plan to implement a system of bicycle routes in downtown Bristol in accordance with the state's Complete Streets Policies.  These policies are designed "to develop a transportation system for sustainable and liveable communities" according to their website.  This application of however in conflict with some elements of the City of Bristol's Plan of Development that suggest traffic flow improvements in the city's major transportation corridors.

 In some planning circles, the constriction of road traffic is used as an incentive to get people out of their cars and onto public transit, bicycles and on foot.  In fact, the practice is encouraged in a book cited by former City Planner Alan Weiner on many occasions, called The High Cost of Free Parking.   The American Planning Association publication written by Robert Shoup suggests urban planners heed the warning of Lewis Mumsford:

"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar, in an age where everyone possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city."

More on that another time-


  Minutes to the November 15th Real Estate Committee workshop indicate that the Memorial Boulevard building could have been kept as a school for approximately $970,000 annually.  A bicycle lane near a neighborhood school makes for a practical application for the use of taxpayer money.  Could it be perhaps that members of Bristol's government plan to ride their bicycles to work under the current proposal?

I became aware at a recent meeting of the Bristol Development Authority that the City of Bristol is looking at a Working Cities Challenge grant for assisting in such development in downtown Bristol.    Does this scene from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston website about the grant program look familiar?

What is the Working Cities Challenge Grant?
PSC Housing, a nonprofit whom is working with regional planners, the legislature and municipal leaders on sustainable development in the State of Connecticut states on their website:

"What is the Working Cities Challenge?
The Working Cities Challenge (WCC), launched in 2013, builds cross-sector collaboration to solve issues impacting the lives of these cities’ lower-income residents. Grounded in Boston Fed research, the WCC encourages leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to advance proposals that tackle complex challenges facing smaller post-industrial cities and achieve large scale impact across communities."

Happy Holidays and Merry Grantmas!