Richmond.com has a report on how the “Tredegar Green, Brown’s Island Proposals Pass UDC”.
By the way, the Richmond Free Press has an interesting story this week on the “Marsh commission bypasses law in drive for freedom monument” on Brown’s Island, which may delineate some of the fissures in Richmond’s political establishment.
Some of my own correspondence (editorial):
Despite our Councilperson’s request for a continuance, the UDC went ahead and approved Venture Richmond’s plan at today’s meeting.
Thank you, Parker, for responding and speaking up for Richmond citizens. Certainly, we are looking forward to new information in regard to the project. I hope the City can be sensitive to potential archeologically important material on this site.
Personally, I believe the vote reflects very poorly on the UDC and Venture RIchmond.
Thank you,
Scott Burger
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Agelasto, Parker C. – Council Member”
Subject: Re: please do not approve the Venture Richmond amphitheater proposal
Date: January 9, 2014 7:46:35 AM EST
To: Scott Burger
Cc: aalmond@3north.com, ariasllc@comcast.net, dcole@cite-design.com, garlandvw@gmail.com, Bryan Green
Dear Scott,
Thank you for writing to the Urban Design Committee. I too believe the timing of final review for the Tredegar Green project is premature at this stage. In discussions with Mark Olinger, the City is planning to restore the historic wall that was demolished. This will likely change the character of the site and should be reflected in the plan. Likewise, the Section 106 and Army Crops of Engineer reviews have not been completed. According to Mr. Olinger, the City’s review can proceed but no work permits can be issued until these are complete. If DHR and COE return with material changes to the plan, it will have to begin from the beginning of the process again. That being the case, continuing the UDC review should not put any hardship on Venture Richmond to wait for final approval until after these important, independent, reviews are complete.
Finally, Venture Richmond has not applied for a rezoning of the parcel where the amphitheater would be located. Thus, the use of the site as such is only permitted four days of the year. It would seem inadvisable for the City to issue site approval for a permanent change to the landscape that only can be used temporarily for it’s intended use. Likewise, discussions are underway that would provide significant landfill for grading of the Tredegar Green site such that the canal embankments would not be disturbed. This dirt would be coming from an area on the Virginia War Memorial site and would be a win-win for them, Venture Richmond, and canal preservationists. This grading would benefit from roughly 1,600 truckloads of additional, locally-sourced, dirt and could be considered a material change to the grading plan as proposed.
I hope that the items listed about are reasons enough for the UDC to request a continuance of the final review of the Tredegar Green proposal. Unfortunately, I am unavailable to attend today’s hearing and request that this issues be brought to the attention of all UDC members.
Sincerely,
Parker C. Agelasto
Richmond City Council, 5th District
On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:54 PM, “Scott Burger”
Dear members of the Richmond Urban Design Committee,
As a citizen who lives near the site of this proposed project I plead with you to NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal.
I am greatly concerned that Venture RIchmond’s proposal will negatively impact the historic integrity of the Kanawha Canal. I note that Venture Richmond was leasing the property when a historically significant wall was illegally demolished. I note that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not completed its Section 106 review of the proposal. This is a canal that was designed and presided over by no one less than George Washington!
I am also concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will negatively impact the structural integrity of the Kanawha Canal. This is very important because Venture RIchmond’s proposal could block public plans that have been in place for decades to renovate and re-water the historic Kanawha Canal. My City Councilperson has requested funds for this very purpose. Please do not allow Venture Richmond to alter or diminish this ‘blueway’ which is so important to the City’s past and future.
As an Oregon Hill neighbor, I am very concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will have a negative impact on my community’s quality of life in terms of congestion, litter, and noise. Venture Richmond has not adequately responded to or addressed community concerns in this regard. The City’s Downtown Master Plan states that historic neighborhoods such as Oregon Hill need to be protected from unsuitable development.
I do not believe Venture Richmond can be trusted to act as a good neighbor. I note that the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has offered a compromise proposal on the location of the proposed amphitheater that Venture RIchmond has ignored. I am disturbed that City staff have not adequately responded to questions from Richmond citizens, who were told that they would have to wait for the Army Corp of Engineers review.
Lastly, I will also say that I am very angry that tomorrow’s meeting was not given proper public notice. Due to this lack of proper notice, I will not be able to exercise my rights as a citizen to speak in person at this meeting.
Again, I plead with you to please NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal. At the very least, continue this matter until necessary reviews are completed and staff has fully answered questions.
Thank you,
Scott Burger
What public did you interview for this post? I support this plan, I’m an Oregon Hill homeowner and I was not interviewed. Do you need me to repost the Overlook Condos (most impacted by the amphitheater) statement which also supports the amphitheater with some restrictions.
Josh, we have been over this. While you may be a property owner in Oregon Hill, you are no longer a resident. Why would I interview you?
The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has neighborly suggested that it could go along with a compromise that would allow the amphitheater but leave the Kanawha Canal untouched as long as other restrictions on the amount and dates of use could be codified. Yet Venture Richmond has evidently refused it. I will note that Venture Richmond has also not offered any substantial reply to the Overlook Condos on restricted use. So who is fooling who here?
There are very real, PUBLIC concerns about the Kanawha Canal-
Dear Members of the Richmond Urban Design Committee,
I am writing on behalf of the Falls of the James Group, Sierra Club Executive Committee. As you know, we are actively involved in advocating for smart growth in Richmond, and support development which benefits the City of Richmond and its citizens.
We also promote sustainability, which includes the concept that that decisions made today should not and cannot harm future generations. We have been following Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal since it was first made public, and have studied the details.
We want to see the Kanawha Canal protected and preserved so it can properly renovated and re-watered as a public ‘blue way” in the future, to allow barges, bicyclists and pedestrians to travel as far west as Maymount. This would be an important and valuable economic development project for the next generation, and promote inner-city connectivity, which all of us are currently promoting and trying to achieve, city-wide.
We believe that the plan is fatally flawed, in that it permanently prevents the proper renovation and re-watering of the canal. Therefore, the Falls of the James Group, Sierra Club, representing 1,500 voters, a majority of whom live in the City of Richmond, are strongly opposed Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal.
Furthermore, we strongly object to the way in which the proposal is being rushed through the Design review process. We were quite surprised that, without any public notice, the final review of the amphitheater on city property was scheduled for today’s UDC meeting.
We ask that this item be continued for these reasons:
1). There was no public notice of this hearing. Even as of noon yesterday the agenda for Thursday’s UDC meeting was not posted on the UDC website.
2). The amphitheater is currently under review by the Corps of Engineers and the Va. Department of Historic Resources. It is premature for the UDC to undertake a final review when these agencies will undoubtedly require changes to the plan.
If the UDC does not vote to continue the review of the amphitheater, then we ask that the location of the amphitheater be limited to the area below the canal. This will require no damage to the canal, and will make it possible to redirect the noise from the stage away from the Oregon Hill Historic District and the Va. War Memorial. This will also leave the city-owned land above the canal available for a canal boat dock when the canal is rewatered.
The extent of the Venture Richmond’s proposal should be closely re-examined in light of new research and the exciting news that City Councilman Parker Agelasto in October 2013 submitted a CIP budget request to fund the rewatering the James River and Kanawha Canal west from Tredegar. As supported by new research, it is of critical importance that the tow path not be lowered from its current elevation of around 85 feet or sliced from its 30 foot width that dates to 1801:
· New photographic evidence shows that the 48” water transmission pipe crisscrosses the canal bed just west of the proposed amphitheater. (Please see attachment: “Canal view showing 48 inch water pipe, Richmond Renaissance.”)
· Important new information from the Department of Public Utilities indicates that a water elevation in the canal of 83 feet elevation above mean sea level is necessary to clear this 48″ water transmission pipe, the top of which is at 80.5 feet elevation. (Please see attachment, “DPU report on canal water level, from Roger Cronin, principal of Greeley-Hansen to Utilities Director Bob Steidel.”)
· The water gauge is still visible in the canal at Park Hydro some 300 yards west of the proposed amphitheater, and it indicates that the water elevation in the canal was at the historic level of 83 feet that will be necessary for canal boas to clear the water transmission pipe. (Please see attachment, “Park Hydro gauge.”)
· The canal study of Whitman Requardt & Assoc. in 1990 indicated that it was entirely feasible to rewater the canal west of Tredegar at a cost of around $3 million in 1990 dollars. This study indicated that the tow path is at 87 feet elevation west of the Lee Bridge but abruptly drops to around 85 feet elevation at the proposed amphitheater site. Venture Richmond proposes to lower the tow path by two feet at the location where the tow path is already at its lowest. (Please see attachment, “Figure L, 1990 canal feasibility study.”)
· Important new deed research indicates that the 30 foot width of the canal tow path dates from 1801 at the proposed amphitheater site. In 1801 the canal company purchased land from John Harvie to build a dam to hold back the water for the planned “Harvie’s Pond.” Harvie by this deed reserved a 30 foot “public Road” for himself and his heirs at this location on top of the substantial water dam. (Please see attachment, “Henrico DB6, p. 260”)
Please consider a continuance of the Venture Richmond amphitheater project to allow the Corps of Engineers and Section 106 review by the Va. Department of Historic Resources to be completed.
If the amphitheater is reviewed, please limit of the location of the amphitheater to the land below the canal. Please also limit the extent of the project to exclude lowering or slicing the canal tow path embankment.
We stress that the Richmond Riverfront Plan of 2012 maintained that, “All public improvements to and investments in Tredegar Green should support the goal of westward (or appropriate) canal restoration, as the canal could once again become a functioning connective conduit, a historic blueway.” It would be a tragedy if Venture Richmond was allowed to damage the canal on city owned property at the very time when a budget request has been submitted to rewater the canal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John J Zeugner, American Institute of Certified Planners
Executive Committee Member, Falls of the James Group, Sierra Club
Wait, aren’t you on the Falls of the James Group, Sierra Club Executive Committee? Shouldn’t you disclose that fact?
Yes, I happily disclose I am a member of Executive Committee of the Sierra Club Falls of the James group.
I’ll make this very simple. What members of the public did you interview for this blog post? From the Richmond.com article that you referenced…
“Also, it was revealed that city staff had received 47 letters in opposition to the amphitheater proposal and 93 in support since Septermber 2013.” I think you just got served.
I got “served”? I think you are reaching.
The title of this post is “UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan Despite Public Concerns”. Is that not truthful? Are you saying that 47 letters do not matter? What about when the UDC and Venture Richmond ignore the request of a City Councilperson for a continuance? And I have no idea why you think I have to interview someone else for this editorial when I am already presenting actual correspondence on the subject at hand.
So the answer is you interviewed nobody (i.e. the public) for this blog post. You said the public is concerned when clearly the majority of the “public” is not as referenced by the 93 letters of support vs. the 47 that opposed it. Wouldn’t a headline reading “UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan because overwhelmingly the public (2:1) wants this amphitheater” be more appropriate?
The short answer is no.
The long answer is as follows-
First of all, the UDC decision was not supposed to be a whoever-gets-the-most-letters, might-makes-right, popularity contest (though that seems to be a Venture Richmond tactic). It should have been more about the substance and quality of ideas in the letters, not the quantity.
Secondly, there is the trickier matter of representation. Shouldn’t the words of Jennifer Hancock, the ELECTED president of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, a representative civic organization for the neighborhood most effected by this project, be given more weight? What about Zuegner, a certified profession planner and an ELECTED representative of the hundreds of local members of the Sierra Club Falls of the James? How about Councilperson Agelasto, ELECTED representative for the entire Fifth, Central District of the City? (And how about we contrast that with the UNELECTED Jack Berry, who told an audience at a Shockoe Bottom meeting last week that he represented CIty government on the Shockoe stadium proposal?). Should representation be an absolute arbitrator? Of course not, but it should matter at least somewhat.
Lastly, and once again, I never made any pretense of ‘interviewing’ anyone in my post, though I did include actual correspondence to the UDC. Furthermore, I marked this post as editorial from the beginning because it did represent much of my views. You don’t like it? Don’t read it.
I will also add that I have already asked Silver to let me know when his video of the UDC meeting is available online so that I can post it here. Then we can really see how much deliberation (or lack of it) took place.
I am not worried about ‘being served’ or whatever it is that you think you are doing.