(Take a picture of Main Street with 305, take a picture of the cell tower and backs of buildings behind it, then put them together for this view of Main Street without 305, assuming fencing to protect pedestrians from the steep drop)
On Tuesday, April 8th, about 40 people gathered for the “Section 106 Consultation Meeting.” A court stenographer was present so that there would be an official record of all comments, as required by federal law. In addition to an agenda, and a list of ‘ground rules’ for the discussion (no interrupting, be respectful of others, etc.), a two page Project Update was distributed to all in attendance (click Page 1 and Page 2 to read the Update).
The BRS consultant stated that demolition of 305 was necessary to “effectuate the cleanup” of the petroleum located behind the building. Because 305 and surrounding properties are either eligible for, or already listed on, the National Register of Historic Places, a Section 106 review of the method of cleanup was triggered. The purpose of the inquiry was to mitigate any “adverse effect” caused by the cleanup.
Demolition is, by definition, an adverse effect. The City, therefore, cannot access EPA funds until a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is reached between the City, the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the EPA. The MOA must provide a plan to mitigate that ‘adverse effect’. As Jim Warren from SHPO’s Technical Services division explained, what that amounts to is that his office would require the City to demonstrate that all alternatives to demolition have been explored before they would sign the MOA.
Daniel Mackay of the New York State Preservation League, an independent advocacy group, began by pointing out the reasons that the building was named one of their “Seven to Save”. He referenced the 150 pages of documentation that the City was offering in support of the decision to demolish. According to Mackay, those technical studies demonstrate, instead, that “demolition is not a necessity.”
At that point, the focus of the studies, which was to prepare a clean building site for a performing arts center became the topic of discussion. Former City Councilor and Geneva Arts Development Council member, Alaine Espenscheid, addressed the group. She explained how she was “instrumental” in getting the City to acquire the building so it could be renovated and given over to the Arts Council to be used as a performing arts and conference center. Espenscheid’s on-the-record testimony directly supports the account we gave in previous posts. That account was further confirmed by Carl Fribolin, who was also in attendance and spoke about the initial plan.
Developer Bob Stivers, who owns the Red Brick Inn adjacent to 305, expressed his concern about the stability of the building and the road. He said he had been told by the City that it is structurally unsound. He then recounted his own bid to buy 305, renovate and reuse it. That bid, along with three others, was turned down by city council.
Sam Zeoli, operator of the Red Brick Inn, expressed his concern about the retaining wall. He was told by the City that the wall might collapse if something isn’t done to fix it. Much of the discussion centered around this point: whether or not the wall and the road were stable. That will take an entire post of its own to cover, which is forthcoming with all relevant documentation submitted by former City Manager Rich Rising, consultants hired by the City, and NYS Department of Transportation.
Next, City resident Cynthia Hsu questioned the consultant who prepared the EPA grant for the City about her reason for including several community agencies as being ‘involved’ in the project when they weren’t, and for suggesting they supported the proposed plan to demolish the building when there was no evidence they had.
The agencies listed in the grant include: the Geneva Public Library, the Geneva Historical Society, St. Stephen’s Church, the Women’s Club, and the Smith Opera House. You can read the grant application in its entirety here (the list of agencies appears on a table on page 9). Most of these agencies had not even been contacted about the project and were unaware that they had been named in it.
The former Executive Director of the Historical Society, Charlie Bauder, had come to the City Council podium to go on record with his opposition to demolition. Hsu reminded the group about another Council meeting when it was discussed that the current director, Ken Shefsiek, was only notified that the agency had been included in the grant application after it was submitted. The consultant did not respond to Hsu’s questions.
Downtown property owner and attorney David Linger submitted a statement to be included in the record and verbally stated his concern about the proposed demolition. He said that he believed the meeting’s purpose should be to explore options to remediate the soil without demolishing the building, but that everything being stated by the City and its consultants indicated that demolition was “a foregone conclusion.”
Linger went on to explain how he, and attorney Wendy Marsh, had recently purchased the Guard Building on the corner of Linden and Seneca Streets. He reminded folks that many years ago that building was ravaged by fire and was slated for demolition. But it was restored and now he felt most people would agree that it is an important building for downtown. He pointed out that the architect of the Guard Building, Geneva native I. Edgar Hill, was also the architect of the 305 Main Street service station. The building could become a pride point for the City if restored.
Geneva City Planning Board Member Tony DiCostanzo stated that he felt most people in the City would want the building saved if it were feasible to do so. However, his concern was that the City has portrayed the building as too costly to save and therefore we should be talking about some way to save the facade, even if the rest of the building must be torn down. With that, the discussion turned to those cost estimates that Council relied on in making its demolition decision.
Augustine tried to draw attention to the fact that there is a difference, in definition and cost, between stabilizing the building and restoring it. The numbers touted in the newspaper to ‘save the building’ were estimates for restoration. Of course those would be high, given prevailing wage requirements for municipal projects. But at no point, she said, has she or any other councilor advocated the expenditure of city dollars on restoring the building. Instead, her goal and that of other Councilors, was to see the soil remediated and the building stabilized so that it could be sold to a private owner, putting it back on the tax rolls. It would then be up to the private owner to do the interior decorating. She also noted that grant funds are available, from private sources (not local, state, or federal tax dollars) to do this type of work but the city has made no efforts to complete the applications for these funds. That, in her opinion, is a lack of due diligence in pursuing options.
Councilor Steve O’Malley explained his involvement with a group that had tried to purchase the building three years ago. He said that the local group, with expertise in rehabilitation of historic buildings, submitted a purchase offer of $50,000 to acquire the building, complete the required work to improve the building’s condition and then market it for a tourism-based end use such as a restaurant or art gallery (and paying full taxes on it in the meantime). He made clear that the group was not seeking to make a profit, but was only interested in saving the building and seeing it reused in a way that added value to downtown and the tax base. He said that the group would sell the building for only as much as it had invested in materials, indicating again that there was no profit motive.
The City’s consultant jumped in at this point to ask what the group’s asbestos remediation plan was. O’Malley indicated that the asbestos issue was never raised until the City received the group’s offer. This occurred only after members of the group toured the building. O’Malley explained that the City said the group would be required to remove any asbestos when it is common practice, and less costly, to encapsulate it.
In fact, O’Malley pointed out, several buildings throughout the city have dealt with asbestos in far less-expensive ways than the City was proposing for 305 Main Street. O’Malley went on to review, in detail, the pre-demolition asbestos survey that the City paid for. The survey (available here for your review) says that only a handful of sites tested positive for asbestos, such as a small amount of roof material, a patch of spackle on a non-load bearing wall, and traces of pipe insulation in the basement.
O’Malley challenged the City’s conclusion that all debris on the floor is ‘asbestos contaminated,’ because the debris on the floor is fallen ceiling material and the report shows that all ceiling samples tested negative for asbestos. But regardless of the extent of contamination, O’Malley described the building as “built like a bunker” and pointed out the full accessibility of both levels, because a backhoe can be driven right into the lower bays from the back of the building. Gordon Eddington, the city’s Director of Public Works agreed that the lower level is stable and could support construction equipment.
Larry Campbell, another Planning Board member, asked for clarification about the memorandum of agreement (MOA). The EPA representative present at the meeting and Mike Carmody of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group responded that the City, EPA, and SHPO would have to agree to a strategy to mitigate the adverse effect and sign the MOA before any funds could be expended by the City. Mr. Campbell asked if an MOA would be required if the City did not demolish the building, and the answer was that it would not be. So, the City could begin the soil remediation now, using the EPA funds, if the building stays standing. That was affirmed by the group.
There were several additional comments made and questions asked that expanded on the topics presented above. However, at no time during the meeting did anyone advocate for demolition of the building. The meeting concluded with the Dovetail consultant making three announcements. First, he stated that the Section 106 process allows ‘interested parties’ to review and participate in the formation of the MOA (though they are not required to agree with it) and offered a sign up sheet for that. Second, he reminded those present that there would be a meeting the following night simply to discuss the soil remediation plan for the 305 site(which is independent of the demolition of the building). Lastly, he indicated that there were copies of the studies available for people to take and review.
The following evening’s meeting was shorter and focused only on the soil remediation, But, one point of similarity was that it was made clear that many options remain unexamined with regard to this building. We believe that before any taxpayer dollars are spent, the City must make clear to the public what the intended outcome is (A clean site? A taxable reuse? The empty lot pictured above? A performing arts center?) and demonstrate that the selected course of action is the most cost-effective approach and yields the best return for the investment.
No comments:
Post a Comment