Downtown Waterfront Plan - Parks or Development which is it?

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog .

Almost no one is faulting the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan (DWMP) for its approach, level of effort or the care with which it was put together.

The committee, the public and the consultant did a good job. It just looks like the City staff may have hijacked the final report.

In fact, it is just the level of attention to detail that has allowed the public to become quickly aware of the large amount of proposed development included in the plan. 

In the Public Survey, respondents were asked to rate the benefits of the Downtown Waterfront.

Page 17 of the DWMP Report:

Make the City of St. Petersburg a more desirable place to live

Improve physical health and fitness

Preserves open space

Increases property values

Protect the historical attributes of the City and Downtown Water front

Attracts tourists to St. Petersburg

Improves metal health and reduces stress

Helps attract new residents and business to St. Petersburg

Increases environmental awareness

Increased opportunities for people of different cultures to interact

Nowhere in that list is any indication that significant commercial development is a benefit to the downtown waterfront.

The DWMP includes almost 60 areas designated as "Development Opportunity Sites".

Pier District

11 Development Opportunity Sites

South Basin District

 8-9 Development Opportunity Sites some quite large around the Mahaffey and Dali

Bayboro & Salt Creek District 

40 Development Opportunity Sites including 2 large new docks in the basin.

Although it is hard to get a true read, it seems that the "Development Opportunity Site" portion of the plan was not aggressively in play during the public input. If that statement is not true will someone please show me where the public had a chance to weigh in on the development opportunity site part of the plan?

The point is five years from now when a developer comes along and wants to develop a commercial asset, that may or may not be all that desirable, on waterfront property designated as a "Development Opportunity Site" it is going to be difficult to say no when the developer holds up the DWMP and says, "I am just doing what you said you wanted to do."

For now all or almost all of the "Development Opportunity Sites" should be removed the DWMP and renamed to their current actual use.

Nothing in that approach prevents a developer from requesting waterfront property for a development, but it does not provide a plan adopted by Ordinance to back up his request.

The DWMP was conceived to protect the waterfront not provide a path to exploit it.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

City Council makes a valiant effort to fix a flawed Waterfront Master Plan

Opinion By: E. Eugene Webb, PhD

Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

  

In what seemed to me a heartfelt attempt to get to an acceptable Downtown Water Front Master Plan City Council labored until they just couldn't go any longer Thursday night.

At question was the inclusion of hotel/convention center and a host of areas all along the water front designated as "Development Areas"

The Hotel Conference center seemed to be a no brainer, with consensus it should be pulled from the Master Plan but the rest of the development parcels designated in the plan became much more difficult to deal with.

At one point there was a suggestion that all of the development areas be pulled from the Plan but that seemed too draconian to the Council.

What struck me was the tenacity that the Consultant and the Kriseman administration held onto the development portion of the plan. Struggling to keep the possibility of a Plan with massive "development opportunities" alive, both the Consultant and the Administration spoke repeatedly in glowing terms of the hotel/convention center, retail along the west side of Al Lange and other possibly wonderful commercial ideas that might evolve.

Council, concerned that future Administration's or Councils might not interpret the plan as they see it, struggled to make changes that would clarify the intent of the plan only to be rebuffed by the Administration's team.

In the end the Council continued the discussion to the next City Council meeting with instructions to staff that removed the hotel/conference center, took the "Development Areas" out of the South Basin and provided some additional language changes.

The administration will bring back a modified plan.

If all of the Council recommended changes are actually made there will still be a lot to be concerned about in the DWMP. Far to many undefined "Development Areas" remain; the approach to Bayboro Harbor seems completely impractical to name a couple.

The administration harped on the fact that the plan is "conceptual" but defined areas highlighted in red "Development Areas" are a bit more than conceptual.

Even in it's revised form the DWMP is likely to be the biggest threat to the Waterfront ever approved by a City Council.

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb, PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

  

The Downtown Water Waterfront Master Plan in it's current from can best be described as the camel's nose under the tent, the crack in the ice, the toe in the water; pick your metaphor.

Had the emphasis on "development areas" been omitted, or at least toned down significantly, it would have been a masterful Master Plan.

In the current form, the DWMP sets its self up as the lever to begin the systematic commercialization of waterfront.

Required by Charter Amendment, using a process required of and approved by City Council including well-documented public input, the DWMP is exceptional in form, context and content.

The DWMP treats the more esoteric issues of the waterfront with great care, carefully documenting the massive public input effort into these sections of the Plan.

The commercialization portion of the plan or the "development areas" as the Plan refers to them, seems to be carefully woven into the fabric of the Plan with little public input to support them.

The DWMP deftly bows to the City Charter in the Legal Context Section, but does it really?

From the DWMP

In January 2011, the city’s Charter Review Commission (“CRC”) convened with the purpose of proposing amendments to the City Charter, to be voted on by the city’s electorate in a referendum in November of that year. Among several proposed amendments that came out of the CRC’s deliberation was a proposed amendment for the development of the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan (“DWMP”). On November 8, 2011, St. Petersburg voters approved an amendment to the City Charter creating Section 1.02(g) and requiring the City Council to approve a DWMP on or before July 1, 2015. The charter amendment also compelled the City Council to adopt an ordinance setting forth the procedures for the adoption of the DWMP. The amendment required the City Council, prior to July 1, 2012, to adopt by ordinance, a process to create an inclusive master plan for the Downtown Waterfront, the criteria to be addressed, the manner of adoption and a process to assure that adequate inclusive public input is obtained prior to adoption and a requirement for review and update. The ordinance was adopted by City Council in June 2012, and created a new section of the City Code, Section 16.08, which governs the DWMP’s seven-year review and update procedures. The DWMP shall be amended by ordinance, with notice given to the public and at least one public hearing before City Council.

Note in the final sentence above, the DWMP shall be amended by ordinance. This makes the DWMP very easy to modify. A development centric or cash hungry City Council could have a field day.

From the DWMP

The DWMP is a conceptual planning document intended to provide guidance to the city and its people in their stewardship of St. Petersburg’s singular Downtown Waterfront environment, parks and amenities. The DWMP is subordinate to federal and state law, the City Charter, the City of St. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan, and the City Code of Ordinances. Therefore, specific recommendations contained within the DWMP may require a vote of the city electorate in a referendum, or other acts of city government and public input, before implementation of plan recommendations may occur. The Charter embodies the long-held core values of St. Petersburg’s citizens and, in particular, their shared desire to protect City- owned park and waterfront property. The Charter further outlines the City-wide referendum procedure required of any permanent disposition of public park or waterfront property, including the sale or lease of such property to private interests. Through this referendum provision, the public’s role in a debate on the future of its waterfront park property is fundamental and will be preserved in perpetuity.

Note the reference here: "Therefore, specific recommendations contained within the DWMP may require a vote of the city electorate in a referendum, or other acts of city government and public input, before implementation of plan recommendations may occur."

The key word here is may, not shall.

From the DWMP

The city shall perform a consistency review of certain projects in the context of the DWMP, including but not limited to, capital improvements and programming proposed for the Downtown Waterfront area. The DWMP shall be interpreted broadly to accomplish its purpose and intent. The DWMP shall be read in its entirety, with no single facet to be construed in isolation of the remainder of the document. After development of the DWMP and other documents that may from time to time be created to implement this plan, the administration and enforcement of the DWMP shall be performed by the city in its sole discretion. The provisions of the DWMP shall be effective upon adoption by the St. Petersburg City Council.

Note that the Plan indicates that once it is adopted it shall be "interpreted broadly to accomplish its purpose and intent."

One of the primary purposes seems to be commercial development of the downtown waterfront and the intent is pretty clear.

OBSERVATIONS

The question becomes in a scenario where a property on the waterfront designated as a "development area" has been singled out by a developer for say a hotel or a condo, the developer offers to pay market value for the property, the basic design is complementary to the waterfront and meets the requirements of DWMP.

The City decides to take the question to a referendum and the developer sues claiming no referendum is needed.

The Charter requires a vote on the sale of waterfront property, but the Charter mandated DWMP says implementation of Plan projects MAY require a vote.

Who wins? 

As a very good lawyer friend of mine said to me on a number of occasions: "On any given day you never know what judge or a jury may do."

Therein is the problem. One successful legal challenge based on the DWMP could start a land rush on the waterfront.

Some careful tweaking along with a moderation of the "development areas" should eliminate these concerns and put the DWMP in it's proper perspective to the City Charter.

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos