|
Frank Kasimov made the staff presentation. At the direction of the Agency and Council, staff has convened a team to investigate physical and economic opportunities and constraints of the AT&T site. Opportunities include the ability to make physical changes to the structure, including window openings and architectural façade improvements; and challenges to development of the site including limited site access, the fiscal reality of the current real estate and financial markets, and the limitations of Agency financial resources.
The next step in the process is for the Agency to identify public policy objectives for the site. Several public policy objectives have thus far been identified and are presented and analyzed within the context of the opportunities and constraints analysis.
There are several alternatives for subsequent steps in the process, including 1) issue a Request for Qualifications alone or in conjunction with a Request for Proposals to test the market for and analyze feasibility of a potential project; 2) invite a panel of Urban Land Institute experts to further study our downtown and/or the site; or 3) wait for the market to stabilize, possibly with interim uses.
Staff has received requests from interested parties to access the building. Staff has postponed these requests until the Agency has determined if tours should be conducted in advance of a possible RFQ / RFP process with set objectives and, if so, until the Agency has approved a prudent and consistent process to conduct tours.
Public Comments:
Ralf Konietzko, 551 Mendocino Ave., former chair of Design Review Board: RUDAT identified AT&T Building as opportunity site; requests that the construction documents and structural analysis be available so viable proposals can look at adaptive reuse capabilities.
Kevin Kellogg, 50 Santa Rosa Ave.,
Consider public economic impacts of out-of- towners; include criteria of other plans; uses to that will enhance CHSQ, transit mall, and Arts District.
Michael Friedenburg Arts Council:
Possible use - performing arts theater or art museum. Public/private partnership for a legacy -type bldg.
Agency Members comments and questions included: look at non-profit/public uses; could be dormitories for visiting artist - Art Institute; library; condos; what are the demolition costs; was there any investigation by ATT for uses; no money from RDA to help for a large public project; bldg shouldn’t sit for 20 years while trying to get funds; show how public can help get this done; a developer could partner with the Agency in public/private partnership; look for several partners; looking for financial self-sufficiency. Members also discussed whether to allow full access or restrict it.
On motion made by Mr. Arnone, seconded, Mr. Ours, carried 4-0-0-1 (Member Evans abstained), to direct staff is directed to pursue the public policy objectives laid out in the grid and to encourage financial self-sufficiency.
On motion made by Mr. Arnone, seconded, Mr. Ours, carried 4-0-0-1 (Member Evans abstained), to recommend a joint study session with the City Council to discuss the matter further.
On motion made by Mr. Ours, seconded, Ms. Nobel, carried 4-0-0-1 (Member Evans abstained), test the market by issuing an RFQ/RFP as soon as possible to develop the site.
On motion made by Mr. Arnone, seconded, Ms. Nobel, carried 4-0-0-1 (Member Evans abstained), direct to staff to a establish a system that allows equal and fair access to the site to interested parties in looking at the building for the RFP/RFQ. |