What Is This Plan? And Who is Its Master?

As we detailed in a previous post, three distinct views on the Lakefront/Downtown Development Plan emerged during the first Council meeting devoted exclusively to that topic. At the Ramada Inn, the majority of speakers indicated general support for most elements of the plan. The major exception was the now infamous “Building #12.”

Since that time, Augustine held a ward meeting to further explore the plan and to seek input on amendments that she would offer to the proposed document. It took us by surprise to hear Rob Gladden, Executive Director of the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce, say that “no one wants Building #12” and that Bergmann Associates, the consultants who drew up the plan, “did the City a real disservice” by including that building.

While we agree with Gladden’s statement at the ward meeting, it seemed to directly contradict his, and the Chamber Board members’ statements at the earlier meeting at the Ramada. As you might recall, it was the Chamber of Commerce that was most adamant that the plan be approved “as is” and that the City seize on the opportunity to commence the work on Building 12, using the state money delivered by Senator Nozzolio.

Just prior to that meeting, the Chamber put out a newsletter in which it called opponents of Building 12 people who didn’t care about job creation or taxes or progress. In other words, in the Chamber’s eyes, anyone who opposed Building 12, was anti-Geneva, anti-Nozzolio, and anti “free money”. (Though we don’t agree that state money is ‘free money’...just look at the State’s debt and its impact on the economy to see the price we pay, not just in taxes, but in long term service cuts to pay for some of these member items),

With Gladden’s, and presumably his board’s, change of heart on Building 12, the City Council took up the issue of amending the plan at its November 12th work session. At the start of the meeting, City Manager Horn distributed a series of staff amendments to the plan, for Council consideration. The amendments were primarily aimed at setting additional parameters for development on the East Castle Street parcel adjacent to the Ramada. Rather than striking "Building 12” altogether, the document proposed a five point test for any building that might go on that site.

The five elements were: 1. Positive contribution to downtown’s economic viability; 2. Rigorous architectual review to ensure that any building is complementary to the existing downtown architecture; 3. A purpose (use) that is distinct from, yet complementary to, downtown. (This was later amended to read “excluding residential uses”); 4. A project that had few negative environmental impacts, if any, with a preference for projects that use sustainable building practices, such as LEED certification; and 5. A priority consideration on projects that dedicate additional space (above and beyond the required 40 ft. waterfront right-of-way) for public use and have plans to maintain and enhance that public space.

We believe that these principles are sound and should guide the review of all development projects in and around the downtown area (with the exception of #5 that is applicable only on the East side of Rtes. 5 &20). However, there are two issues that need to be resolved.

First, the amendment, in current form is more of a guiding document for the issuance of RFP’s and/or review of development proposals than a master plan document. Here’s why: by Horn’s own description, a master plan is supposed to be a broad vision statement. And that’s where we believe much of the consternation about the Bergmann plan is coming into play.

In their totality, the 28 oversized pages of the plan, as presented, contain much more than just a master plan. They contain a community narrative portion (pages 1-6) and an individual project justification component (pages 12-27). Although the former (narrative) component is fairly straightforward, the latter element provides a level of detail that subjects itself to unnecessary scrutiny. To put it another way, one part of the plan says “some elements must wait” and another part of the plan says “here’s how you proceed with each element.” It’s an inherent contradiction.

The picture, the grand sketch of possible projects, supports a community focus on the second part of the plan while ignoring the critical work of the “Policy and Action Items” section (pages 7-11). But, in reality, it is the text of pages 7-11 that should be most appropriately considered as an amendment to the city’s existing master plan document.

We encourage readers to download the plan from the city’s website or peruse the copy on hand at the Geneva Public Library, and read this section. As a broad overview, the plan provides the following four Policy Areas:

1. Downtown Revitalization. This includes improving coordination between the City and BID, enhancing the local and regional image of downtown Geneva, continuing to improve the physical appearance of downtown, efforts to increase pedestrians, and capitalizing on Geneva’s location within the Finger Lakes region.
2. Connect Downtown and the Lakefront. The three objectives here are to mitigate the impact of traffic on 5&20, enhance visual connection between downtown and the lakefront, and physically connect the downtown and lakefront areas.
3. Waterfront Programming. This includes improving water-dependent and water-enhanced uses, enhancing pedestrian connectivity, making the waterfront a destination, and capital improvements to enhance the user experience of the lakefront.
4. Recreation and Open Space. This focuses on improving the experience in downtown and the lakefront, creating a cohesive system of public and recreational space, and encouraging year-round use of public spaces.

These policy areas are, on their face, relatively non-controversial. They seem to most like common sense suggestions. And, as they say, “the devil is in the details” so reviewing each action item beneath those priority areas, we find only three references to actions that would lead to a building like “Building #12”.

First, Policy Area 1, Action Item A-2 states “explore the feasibility and programming of an Ecological Interpretive Center within the Visitor’s Center along the lakefront.” This does not mean to pursue a center within the current Chamber of Commerce building. Instead, the plan assumes that a new Visitor’s Center, on the lakefront, made possible by the Nozzolio earmark is a foregone conclusion. We believe that item should be revised to read “explore the feasibility, programming, and location of an Ecological Interpretive Center on or near the lakefront.”

Next, is Policy Area 2, Action Item C-1, which reads “promote development in key locations along East Castle Street that would provide the continuation of downtown’s urban form into the lakefront zone and provide strong linkages between downtown and the lakefront.” A proposal is currently on the table to tack on “except residential development” to the end, but we actually believe that the statement should be rewritten to read “pursue only those development opportunities along East Castle Street that conform to the standards laid out in the attached RFP guidelines” (that would be the document we previously referenced).

Last, is Policy Area 3, Action Item C-4, which reads “create a taskforce on the programmatic elements of a Visitor’s and/or Interpretive Center adjacent to the lakefront that will draw visitors into Geneva and provide information to enhance their experience while in the area.” We believe that should be rewritten to read, “create a taskforce on the programmatic elements and best location of a Visitor’s Center and/or Interpretve Center that will draw visitors into Geneva and provide information to enhance their experience while in the area.”

We would also suggest the addition of two action items:

First, to Policy Area 1, we would add (consistent with our previous posts and the comments of Councilor Cosentino) “Pursue funding opportunities and collaborative efforts to improve upper-floor access to downtown buildings, including elevators.”

Second, to Policy Area 2 (and 4) we would add, “Sponsor design competitions, on a national scale, to bring significant public art pieces to focal points within the downtown and along the lakefront.” This has been mentioned at several meetings and meets several of the stated objectives.

With these changes, Council would effectively regain control of this process, which means that the final document would achieve its dual purpose of solidifying a public vision for downtown and the lakefront and also communicate to the development community what standards and opportunities they can expect in doing business with the City.