Save our Waterfront | Burlington

City Hall isn’t listening and citizen confidence in local democracy is declining. City Hall has “a communications deficit.” Those are just some of the findings of the Shape Burlington report on civic engagement released yesterday.

Those findings (full report below) are no surprise to followers of A Better Burlington community website, and the Save Our Waterfront initiative. A Better Burlington was launched a year ago to tell residents what City Hall is doing, and to solicit feedback and participation on a range of issues.

One of the biggest has been waterfront development. Residents were not broadly and meaningfully consulted before current city council approved high-rise towers for the Old Lakeshore Road area of our downtown waterfront. Save Our Waterfront was formed as an initiative of A Better Burlington to press for community input before decisions about our waterfront are made. An update on our progress and next steps is below.

But we are not alone in raising concerns about public input. They have been echoed by many other individuals and groups, cutting across a variety of issues. The common refrain: there’s a “need for improvement” in public involvement, to quote Shape Burlington.

Credit for this report belongs to you, the people of Burlington. You raised the alarm about City Hall’s failure to meaningfully involve you in decision-making, which directly led to the creation of Shape Burlington. And you provided feedback that helped shape the final recommendations. Credit also goes to the citizen volunteers of Shape Burlington, who gave more than 2000 hours to give us this report.

Now the real work begins: to implement the recommendations.

Public input needed on the pier

A clear sign that city staff and council take the Shape Burlington recommendations seriously is to be more transparent on the costs and options to finish the pier. The public has been denied answers and shut out of the decision-making process on how to go forward. There are many questions that can be answered that don’t compromise the city’s legal position. For example: Why has the budget risen from $7 million to over $9 million in two years? What has been spent on lawyers? What was the contractor’s offer – and price – to finish the pier? Will “seeking legal action” – the city’s current path – get the pier finished or simply drag this process out even further and cost us more money? How do upper levels of government (federal/provincial/regional) who are all contributing money to this project feel about their dollars being spent on legal action?

And most important: What do the citizens of Burlington want to see happen with the pier?

I’ve been digging for answers (see report), and I plan another report on my findings shortly. In the meantime, you can still add your name to the list of residents seeking transparency on costs and options to finish the pier, by emailing me at mariannemeedward@bell.net.

The pier provides a great opportunity to put into practice the recommendations around greater public input “before decisions are made.”

Highlights of Shape Burlington report

You can read Shape Burlington’s full report below, but here are some of the highlights as they relate to A Better Burlington and Save Our Waterfront. An update on next steps for Save Our Waterfront is also below.

1. Develop an Engagement Charter that among other things outlines an “early notification system” so citizens have input “before decisions are made.” Would city council have approved towers on the waterfront if they knew then what they know now – that more than 2000 residents across the city don’t support that?
2. Involve citizens in the Strategic Planning process in 2011. That means getting your input on future development and intensification in the downtown and waterfront before the plan is approved.
3. Improve the delegation process to city committees and council meetings to increase “respect for citizens.” This is sorely needed. I’ve personally seen the lack of respect shown to both individuals and groups representing a range of issues, who have been dismissed by City Hall as an angry mob of single-issue, fear-mongering NIMBYs, who lack expertise. It’s classic dismissive behaviour that attacks the individual, rather than dealing with the issues and principles. And it doesn’t encourage citizens to give their precious time to provide input.
4. Establish an Office of Engagement to implement the recommendations, and support the work of citizen’s advisory committees whose potential “has not yet been fully realized.” One of these committees is the new Burlington Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee. Save Our Waterfront pushed hard for that committee, as one way to increase citizen input on waterfront development. More on that committee below.

Next steps for Save Our Waterfront

In the meantime, Save Our Waterfront’s work to preserve the Old Lakeshore Road area and our heritage assets from highrise development continues. Among the initiatives we are currently working on:

1. Candidate Package: We are developing an information package for all candidates in the municipal election, seeking their commitment to the broad goals of Save Our Waterfront.
2. Community-based waterfront development: We are researching how other lakefront communities have developed their waterfronts while preserving heritage, access and community character. Burlington’s waterfront can be a jewel that meets the goals of downtown intensification without simply plunking expensive, highrise residences there.
3. Property owner research: We know at least one developer is assembling property in the Old Lakeshore Road area. We are continuing to research and monitor property activity, and will let you know what we find out.
4. Heritage preservation: City staff were directed months ago to liaise with owners of heritage properties along Old Lakeshore Road, and identify key properties worth preserving. However, their time has been taken finding a home for Freeman Station. We will continue to monitor and report progress around heritage preservation.
5. Liaise with the Burlington Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee. Many of you have raised concerns about whether this committee will be effective, given its large mandate (the entire Burlington waterfront), and, more important, whether City Hall will listen to their advice. Time will tell. More than 55 people applied and were interviewed to sit on the committee. Members are currently being finalized and will have to be presented for approval by City Council. That is currently scheduled for May 3. As such, the committee probably won’t be up and running before the summer or fall.

We’ll keep you posted when that committee is finalized and begins to hold meetings, which will be public. Save Our Waterfront is a formal stakeholder to the committee. We will liaise with that group, keep you informed, and let you know how you can provide input.

We still have lawn signs available, and several large banners for those of you who may have fences. And we always have room for more volunteers. Your continued support is welcome.

Read Shape Burlington’s report here.
Read last report on pier here.

Members and supporters of Burlington Save Our Waterfront achieved a major victory for community engagement Monday, as city council unanimously passed the Burlington Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee. As soon as we get information on how you can apply to serve on this committee, we’ll post it here.

Hold on development discussed Feb. 8, 6:30 pm

More than 20 Save Our Waterfront supporters attended Monday’s council meeting. Michelle Bennett, a dedicated member of our organizing team, stood beside me as I presented to council our support of the advisory committee (full text of my delegation is below). We also asked for a hold on development in the Old Lakeshore Road area while the advisory committee consults with residents on a better plan for this key area of our waterfront.

To my pleasant surprise, Councillor John Taylor asked that discussion on the possibilities of a hold on development be added to the agenda for the next Community Development Committee meeting, Mon. Feb. 8 at 6:30 pm.

So, we’ll be back in chambers next week to hear that discussion, and invite you to join us.

Thank you!

After months of waiting, things are now beginning to move along quickly – thanks to you speaking up for our waterfront. Congratulations, and thanks for your support. We wouldn’t have come this far without you.

Continue reading →

You did it! As a member of the Save Our Waterfront movement, you’ve helped achieved a significant victory. We’ve just learned that Tim Hortons has withdrawn its appeal to exceed height limits of 15 storeys on the vacant waterfront lot east of Emma’s Back Porch in Burlington’s downtown. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing on this matter scheduled for Jan. 12-15 was cancelled after Tim Hortons unconditionally withdrew. That clears the way to set up the Citizens Advisory Committee on the Waterfront that we’ve been asking for.

Hearing cancelled – but no one told us

I found out about the cancellation just days ago by chance, from a journalist during an interview. The OMB should have contacted us, since we’re a participant in the hearing. City Hall was notified Dec. 21 – but no one told us. Our elected officials are well aware of our interest in this matter, and a courtesy call was in order.

You made it happen

But even that can’t dampen our spirits today. This is a true victory for people power – though you’re not likely to get any credit for it. This wouldn’t have happened without you speaking up and making waterfront development an issue. It wouldn’t have happened without you letting our elected officials know you’re closely watching the decisions they make on our city-wide asset, our waterfront.

Many thanks to the volunteers who signed up to take a shift at the OMB hearing, to witness the proceedings and record them so we’d all know what’s being said and done. You get your week back! But there’s much left to be done.

Next steps

What happens now? Three things:

1. We will press for the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on the Waterfront to be struck immediately. The earliest opportunity is the Jan. 18 Community Development Committee meeting. City Hall refused to set up the committee till the OMB hearing concluded. Now there’s no reason to delay. When the motion to establish the committee is presented, we’ll need you to attend and speak in favour. We’ll keep you posted on dates.

2. We’ll invite City Hall to sponsor a joint meeting once the committee is struck, to let you know next steps and how you can get involved in securing the right development along our entire waterfront, stretching from the border of Oakville in the East to the edge of Hamilton in the West. Watch this space for details.

3. We’ve struck an independent sub-committee to engage all candidates in this year’s municipal election on the issue of waterfront development. We’ll post their positions as they become available. So far, only one candidate has registered. On Jan. 4, I registered to serve as the Ward 2 City/Regional Councillor. The election is Oct. 25th.

Once again, a huge thanks to all of you for standing with this movement. This victory is yours. By continuing to work together we’ll achieve more victories in our quest to secure a community-led vision for Burlington’s waterfront, from Burlington Beach to Burloak Park.

A small turnout greeted the downtown councilor and city staff for a public meeting this week to discuss waterfront development and traffic issues. We know residents care about these issues – more than a 100 people have attended each of our last 2 meetings – so what gives?

Two thoughts come to mind. First, the meeting was poorly publicized at the last minute – a recurring theme at City Hall. Most of us only learned days before about the meeting, held Wed. Nov. 25, and a number of people heard about it from an email we circulated. Turnout would have been even lower without our efforts to spread the word. The city needs to do a better job.

City Talks, But Doesn’t Listen

Second, and this is more likely, residents have heard this song and dance before. These public meetings are mostly about residents listening to city officials defend their plans, rather than an opportunity for city officials to listen to the views of residents. The format is mostly question and answer – we ask, they answer – and there’s virtually no opportunity for dialogue and debate.

Wednesday evening was more of the same. We heard how Burlington is growing, that we need more people downtown, that the Old Lakeshore Road area of our waterfront is an eyesore waiting for redevelopment.

We get that. In fact, we even agree. This may come as a shock to our city council and staff, but it shouldn’t if they’ve been paying attention to the comments from our 2000 members across the city.

Save Our Waterfront’s goal, simply, is to achieve the right development in the right place.

Continue reading →

City council has quietly removed firm shoreline protections along our waterfront – despite telling us for months afterward that a 20- to 30-metre setback applied, inside of which no development was possible.

Waterfront setback in purple extends to the middle of Old Lakeshore Road. Taken from the city's Urban Design Guidelines for Old Lakeshore Road

Not so. All a developer needs to do is convince Conservation Halton that the shoreline can be stabilized, and there is no protection from Burlington to stop high-rises along the lake.

Tim Hortons appealing waterfront development limits

As you’d expect, Conservation Halton’s authority is now being challenged by a waterfront landowner. Tim Hortons (TDL Group), which owns the run-down vacant lot east of Emma’s, is appealing a host of issues to the Ontario Municipal Board in October. Those include the setback, height limit, and worst of all whether it is “appropriate to assume that the subject lands cannot be developed.” (click here to see Tim Hortons issues list).

If the OMB rules in Tim Hortons favour, the current zoning would permit a 15-storey building on that lot. Think about that the next time you order a double-double. Though OMB cases are site specific, you can be sure other developers will be looking at the outcome of this case as it applies to other waterfront property.

Planning meeting Sept. 28

Save Our Waterfront is applying for participant status at the OMB hearing. Meantime, we’re hosting a planning meeting Sept. 28, 7:30 pm at the Burlington Seniors’ Centre on New Street to tell you how we’re fighting this, and how you can help. You can read more about this issue below, and find links to our participant statement for the OMB hearing outlining our concerns, and relevant city, Conservation Halton and OMB documents on our media and resources page.

Continue reading →

I was recently talking to a neighbor about the city’s willingness to allow highrises in the Old Lakeshore Road area on our waterfront, which would take out almost all the heritage buildings.

“Why didn’t I know about this?!” she said.

It’s a comment we receive a lot at this website. But if you’re looking for answers, you won’t find many from the city. Thanks to you raising concerns and speaking out, the city has posted a “Vision for Old Lakeshore Road” on its website. The city also issued a press release on design guidelines for the area – a full month after council passed them – largely because you’ve made this an issue.

But the documents leave out key information about what council has approved for the area (read them on our ‘media and resources’ page).

Council made mess

Unless you dig through pages of links, you won’t read that the development option approved by this council – and outlined in the design guidelines as Option #2 – allow for 15-storey buildings and the destruction of almost all the heritage buildings. You won’t read that city council was specifically asked to take this development option off the table by such notables as former Burlington mayor Walter Mulkewich. Council refused.

You will read that in exchange for towers and heritage destruction, we’ll get one more block of pathway along the waterfront. You will read that the downtown councilor, Peter Thoem, thinks this overall plan constitutes “reasonable and careful development.”

City passes buck – blames “growth”

You’ll also find buck passing. The city postings blame the province’s Places to Grow Plan, which requires Burlington to “accept a reasonable share” of population growth. But the city doesn’t say that council determines where and how this growth occurs. It is well within council’s power to protect unique districts, as it has already done with the St. Luke’s and Emerald precincts downtown, which have a 2.5 storey height limit.

Area “unique” but city won’t protect it

You’ll read that the city is committed to protecting the heritage in the area. But you won’t read that council could at any time initiate full heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act for the 11 buildings in the area identified as having “cultural heritage significance.” Council has not done so. The buildings only have a “heritage resource” designation, meaning it takes 60 days, rather than 10, to get a demolition permit.

Public consultation that wasn’t

You’ll read that the city consulted with the public. Those consultations amounted to two meetings with landowners, and two meetings with residents in the immediate area. Between the two public meetings, council increased the height limits. The second public meeting, in March, was merely an information session to tell those of us in attendance what the city had already decided. You won’t read that the options presented to residents at the first meeting bore no resemblance to what the city eventually approved (click here to compare how city council’s approved plan differs from the options presented).

This is hardly a consultation, and certainly wasn’t city-wide.

1,000 people join campaign – 3 in 4 outside downtown

Yet this is a city-wide issue. More than 1,000 people have joined our campaign, three-quarters of them living outside the downtown area. Ten percent live outside Burlington – most of them former long-time residents, people who work downtown, or people who frequently visit our downtown because of its unique character.

As many of you have said, saving our waterfront will affect tourism and local businesses well into the future – positively if we get our plan right, and negatively if council simply allows the area to be developed like any other built up urban city (Toronto comes to mind).

What you can do

The Save Our Waterfront campaign will continue to investigate and give you the full picture of what’s happening. We will seek opportunities to influence city council members to do the right thing and stop development until there is meaningful city-wide consultations for a vision in this area that protects its unique character.

You can help by continuing to spread the word – tell your family, friends and neighbours to join the campaign, by clicking here.

Your support has already made a difference – and it’s the only thing that will continue to make a difference going forward.

Those of us raising concerns about development on Old Lakeshore Road on our waterfront that would add highrises and take out heritage buildings, have been told the public was already “extensively consulted” – and that no consensus emerged.

Consultation went “above and beyond” what the Planning Act requires, we have been told, although the Act sets the bar so low it’s hard not to exceed it.

But I wanted to learn more about what the city had done to ask residents their vision for this area of our waterfront. So last week, I spent almost two hours with Downtown Coordinator Jody Wellings, and Downtown Planner Marianna Iglesias. Both were extremely helpful in answering my questions and providing background information. I greatly appreciate the time they spent.

What I discovered, though, was shocking. Not only is there a consensus to preserve heritage and not put up tall buildings, the “extensive” public consultation consisted of two meetings.

The first, March 8, 2007, was advertised in the Burlington Post, and on the city’s web site less than two weeks beforehand. In addition, residents within 120 metres got a letter about it. This is hardly city-wide engagement. And tough luck to those outside the catchment area, or those who missed the ad, or those who had other commitments that evening.

The second meeting was a “public meeting” embedded in the city’s Community Development Committee Nov. 19, 2007. There was opportunity for residents to make a 10 minute presentation on their ideas for Old Lakeshore Road, called a delegation. Two delegations came, both from law firms representing landowners, so it’s safe to assume most residents likely didn’t know about the meeting.

Respectfully, this is not extensive city-wide public consultation by any normal understanding of what extensive means.

But this isn’t even the most shocking part. The 60 or so people who attended the first meeting, half residents and half landowners or developers, were presented a series of options for Old Lakeshore Road. They broke into groups and were asked to comment on the proposals – a kind of mini-charrettes process.

But none of those drawings included the two options spelled out in the Design Guidelines for the Old Lakeshore Road Precinct that city council passed in July 2009 – particularly the 8- 15-storey option that would remove heritage buildings. So to say the public was consulted on these particular options simply isn’t accurate.

To add insult to injury, the feedback from the public shows a remarkable consensus in favour of heritage protection and against trading off high towers in exchange for a small public walkway along the water. The public meeting broke into tables of seven, with a mix of landowners and residents at each one. Jody Wellings gave me the “table notes” for that evening. Several comments arose at a couple of tables in favour of tearing the whole area apart and putting in high-rises. But that view was in the minority. At every table, people spoke about responsible development, that would balance heritage preservation and development interests.

Here’s a sampling of those comments:

Table #1:
“There was overall agreement that height and density is not an acceptable trade off to achieve public access to waterfront.”

“Estaminet (now Emma’s back porch) has community historic value and should be maintained.”

Table #2:
“Important aspects of any proposed development….(include) a streetscape that is scaled to human dimensions, no high-rise.

“Extension of existing pedestrian shoreline walkway not worthwhile if the cost is a trade-off for high rise.”

Table #3:
“If too much congestion will be created as a result of a significant increase in density in the area, then we should give up public access to the waterfront, if the tradeoff will be more traffic.”

Table #4:
“Heritage is very important.

“Public access to the shoreline is important but not at the expense of increased density.”

Table #5:
“Heritage is important.

Table #6:
“If possible, the new design for this area should try to incorporate some of the older and more important architectural features.”

Table #7:
“Like preservation of heritage buildings and potential for specialty district.”

With comments like these, how did city council end up changing the Official Plan to allow 8-15 storey towers and the destruction of heritage on our waterfront, in exchange for another block of waterfront walkway? And how can they say this decision was the result of “extensive” public consultation?

Most of the people who were consulted, save some of the developers, don’t want that plan.

Nor do the more than 200 people who have joined the Save Our Waterfront campaign since it went online in the last few days. A group of us have formed a steering committee to organize these supporters, who grow in number every day. We have started a campaign to persuade city council to protect this area and listen to what people across the city are saying they want for Old Lakeshore Road, one of the last major pockets of waterfront land in our downtown.

You can join the campaign, volunteer and spread the word, by clicking here: www.saveourwaterfront.ca . It will take a huge outpouring from the community to protect this area and secure a truly community-driven vision for Burlington’s waterfront.