Item A: City Council Priority Issue - City Hall Complex

Home Browse Search

Council Comments Bettman I support vertical as opposed to horizontal expansion potential. A development site is an opportunity either public or private and city hall, like the library, will be [an] economic asset to downtown, and an anchor. Although publicly funded it will stimulate private investment. I support consideration of all development sites that are available for City Hall. Kelly I think most of the criteria are fine. But I have mild to major disagreements with a few, as I describe below. I'd also note, as much as I love criteria and an engineering approach, that we'll also probably have a "gut reaction" to some of the site possibilities (as will the public). Ability to accommodate future horizontal expansion space I understand the problem that Dana wrote about future vertical expansion due to building codes. However, I view this horizontal expansion criterion as just a "tie-breaker" level of criterion. I can imagine there might be a perfect 1/2 block site at which we wouldn't expect to be able to buy the other highly developed 1/2 block - but we'd still pick the 1/2 block site due to its other positive qualities. Optimum sustainable design potential I've got a problem with this one as phrased because it sounds like an absolute - "optimum"? I'm worried that this is code-language for "we want a full block rather than 1/2 block". The 7/19 AIS talked about a full block giving more opportunity for energy saving (e.g., potential for more solar exposure, different HVAC routing....) but when it came down to a number estimate of the difference it looked like 5-10%. That's not enough to discuss from my point of view. So, I'd like this criterion dropped or much better explained in advance as to what it means. Easy access to transportation corridors for public safety vehicles As the Mayor pointed out, this criterion only seems relevant if we pick police consolidation option B, rather than C or D. They're all on the table. Minimal existing improvements and site preparation requirements "Minimal" is too limited, since it's utterly undefined. I would argue - depending on other site attributes - that an existing 1 story building (or even a 2 story lower-quality) may be worth clearing from a site if other positive attributes are present. I understand the intent here - it would be laughable (to be hyperbolic) to propose demolishing the Citizen's Building - but I'd like the criterion better defined. Not displace prime private development sites I agree with the Mayor and Bonny and Betty (were there others I've forgotten?) that this is stated in too black-and-white terms. That's my preference, but "should not" is too absolute. Ortiz No comments. Papé No comments. Piercy Under site configurations, why horizontal expansion opportunities as opposed to vertical? Don't we have to grow "up" so we don't grow out? At the recent city design meeting I went to, one of L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060809\S060809A.doc