Congress Square Redesign Study Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2014-08-20

Agenda
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 August 20, 2014 6:00 to 7:30
 Room 24, City Hall

1. Welcome and Introductions


2. Discussion of updated charge

  Additional members
  Expansion of scope
  Review and evaluate two redesign options
 1. Existing footprint of Congress Square Plaza without an event center
 2. Event Center with a public park over the event center
  Consult with Land Bank Commission, Parks Commission, and other
 appropriate organizations
  Produce a written report to City Council
 1. Evaluating two redesign options
 2. Assessment of necessary improvements
 3. Cost estimates for each option


3. Next steps

  Develop a work plan for November 17, 2014



Attachments:

 1. Council Order 60 08/09 – appointment of committee
 2. Council Order 34 14/15 – charge to committee
 3. Memorandum to City Council 7/21/14
 ATTACHMENT 1


 Order 60-08/09
 Amended & Passed 9/3/08 8-0 (Skolnik absent)
EDWARD J. SUSLOVIC (MAYOR) JAMES I. COHEN (5)
KEVIN J. DONOGHUE (1) CITY OF PORTLAND JOHN M. ANTON (A/L)
DAVID A. MARSHALL (2) IN THE CITY COUNCIL JILL C. DUSON (A/L)
DANIEL S. SKOLNIK (3) NICHOLAS M. MAVODONES (A/L)
CHERYL A. LEEMAN (4)



 ORDER APPOINTING CONGRESS SQUARE REDESIGN STUDY GROUP
 Revised to reflect Council Order 34-14/15
 (annotated w/ member listing as of 8-14-14)

 ORDERED, that a Congress Square Redesign Study Group is hereby appointed with representatives
 to advise and guide the design and engineering process for the assessment of the best use and
 design of Congress Square including the High, Congress and Free Streets intersection;

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Committee shall be co-chaired by Councilors Kevin
 Donoghue and David Marshall;

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the following organizations shall nominate members to the
 Committee to be appointed by the Mayor:

 West End Neighborhood Association Roseanne Graef, WENA President
 Parkside Neighborhood Association Frank Turek, PNA Treasurer
 Bayside Neighborhood Association Alex Landry, BNA President
 Portland Arts and Cultural Alliance Peter Bass, PACA/CP Board Member
 Greater Portland Landmarks Hilary Bassett, GPL Executive Director
 Friends of the Parks Commission Jaime Parker, FOPC
 Public Art Committee Pandora LaCasse, PPAC Member
 Portland Development Corporation Jack Lufkin (or designee), PDC President
 Eastland Park Hotel Bruce Wennerstrom, New Castle Hotels
 Portland Museum of Art Mark Bessire, Director or Kristen Levesque
 Portland Convention and Visitors Bureau Lynn Tillotson, CVB Executive Administration
 Councilor Jon Hinck Jon Hinck
 Friends of Congress Square Park Bree LaCasse

 Two at-large members shall also be appointed by the mayor:
 Mayor’s Appointee Michael Boucher, Landscape Architect,
 Portland Society for Architecture
 Mayor’s Appointee Steve Hewins, Portland Downtown District
 Executive Director

 for a total membership of 17.

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Study Group shall develop re-use and redesign principles
 for Congress Square and criteria to evaluate various alternatives and make a recommendation to the
 City Council for improvements, with associated cost estimates.
 Order 34-14/15
 Passage: 7-0 (Leeman, Donoghue absent) on 8/4/2014 Effective 8/14/2014
MICHAEL F. BRENNAN (MAYOR) JOHN R. COYNE (5)
KEVIN J. DONOGHUE (1) CITY OF PORTLAND JILL C. DUSON (A/L)
DAVID A. MARSHALL (2) IN THE CITY COUNCIL JON HINCK (A/L)
EDWARD J. SUSLOVIC (3) NICHOLAS M. MAVODONES, JR (A/L)
CHERYL A. LEEMAN (4)




 ORDER REFERRING REVIEW OF CONGRESS SQUARE REDESIGN TO THE
 CONGRESS SQUARE REDESIGN STUDY GROUP


 ORDERED, that the membership of the Congress Square Redesign Study Group (as
 appointed in City Council Order 60-08/09 attached hereto as Attachment
 A) is hereby expanded to include Councilor Jon Hinck and a
 representative of the Friends of Congress Square Park for a total
 membership of seventeen (17); and

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Study Group continue to advise and guide the
 City Council with regard to the assessment of the best use and design of
 Congress Square including the High, Congress and Free Streets
 intersection; and

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Study Group specifically review and evaluate
 the following two (2) redesign options for Congress Square:

 (1) Existing footprint of Congress Square Plaza without an event center; and
 (2) Event Center with a Public Park over the event center; and

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Study Group consult with and seek advice from
 the Land Bank Commission, Parks Commission and other appropriate
 organizations regarding the aforementioned Congress Square redesign
 options; and

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that on or before November 17, 2014, the Study Group
 provide the City Council with a written report evaluating the two (2)
 aforementioned Congress Square redesign options including within said
 report an assessment of the necessary improvements and cost estimates for
 each option.
 Attachment A

 Order 60-08/09
 Amended & Passed 9/3/08 8-0 (Skolnik absent)
EDWARD J. SUSLOVIC (MAYOR) JAMES I. COHEN (5)
KEVIN J. DONOGHUE (1) CITY OF PORTLAND JOHN M. ANTON (A/L)
DAVID A. MARSHALL (2) IN THE CITY COUNCIL JILL C. DUSON (A/L)
DANIEL S. SKOLNIK (3) NICHOLAS M. MAVODONES (A/L)
CHERYL A. LEEMAN (4)



 ORDER APPOINTING CONGRESS SQUARE REDESIGN STUDY GROUP

 ORDERED, that a Congress Square Redesign Study Group is hereby appointed with
 representatives to advise and guide the design and engineering process for the
 assessment of the best use and design of Congress Square Park;

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Committee shall be co-chaired by Councilors
 Kevin Donoghue and David Marshall;

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the following organizations shall nominate
 members to the Committee to be appointed by the Mayor:

 West End Neighborhood Association
 Parkside Neighborhood Association
 Bayside Neighborhood Association
 Portland Arts and Cultural Alliance
 Greater Portland Landmarks
 Friends of the Parks Commission
 Public Art Committee
 Downtown Portland Corporation
 Eastland Park Hotel
 Portland Museum of Art
 Portland Convention and Visitors Bureau
 Two at-large members shall also be appointed by the mayor

 for a total membership of 15.

 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that the Study Group shall develop re-use and redesign
 principles for Congress Square Park and criteria to evaluate various alternatives and make
 a recommendation to the City Council for improvements, with associated cost estimates.
 1



 Memorandum
 Planning and Urban Development Department
 Planning Division

 To: Mayor Brennan and Members of the Portland City Council
 From: Jeff Levine, Department Head, Department of Planning & Urban Development,
 Alexander Jaegerman, Planning Division Director, and Caitlin Cameron, Urban
 Designer, Planning Division
 Date: July 18, 2014
 Re: Congress Square Redesign


 Our staff has been looking at various options for the future design of Congress Square. One
 chief concern from a planning and urban design perspective is the comprehensive aspect of the
 design. The design of the Square must be of one solid concept that unifies all of the urban open
 space, making it comfortable and accessible to everyone. We feel confident that the current
 design team is still well qualified for the redesign of Congress Square, and that most of the work
 done to date is valuable regardless of what direction the Council chooses to take on this issue.
 However, if the scope of the redesign were to change, then a new contract will be required
 with additional design fees.

 For the purposes of this memo, we have outlined three basic redesign scenarios for Congress
 Square. For each one we have attached a rough concept and an order of magnitude cost
 estimate*:
 1) Existing footprint of Congress Square Plaza without an event center (Attachment 1)
 2) Event center and a smaller footprint for Congress Square Plaza (Attachment 2)
 3) Event center with a public park over the event center (Attachment 3)
 *Cost estimates based on conversations with design team for costs of comparable projects, not based on quantity unit take-off.
 Cost estimates are for construction alone and do not include the additional 10-15% fees for construction documents.



Scenario Cost: Square Cost: Plaza Design Cost In Hand Operations
 (excluding plaza)
1) No Event $2m - $2.5m $1.5m – $2.25m $100,000 $100,000 Moderate
Center/Full plaza for design
footprint ($100-150/sf)
2) Event Center/ $2m - $2.5m $500,000 - $50,000 $100,000 Low
Reduced plaza $750,000 for design
footprint [plus $525K
 purchase price
 ($100-150/sf) plus $45K
 contribution]
3) Event $2m - $2.5m $1.5m - $2.5m $120,000 $100,000 Highest
Center/Public roof [assumes 5,000 sf surface for design
 plaza plus 10,000 sf roof
access plaza]
 2


Considerations
 - Work to date: The work to date contributing to the redesign of Congress Square is
 significant and includes valuable community input, expertise and assessments from
 consultants on the topics of transportation, urban design, and open space planning, a
 survey of existing conditions, and a vision statement as a result of the visioning process
 (Attachment 4). The majority of this work remains valid and applicable to the three
 redesign scenarios presented.
 - Easements: The Westin Eastland Harborview Hotel has three existing easement
 agreements (one not execute) in the public open space (Attachment 5).
 - Cost and available funds: Each redesign option carries a different cost implication which
 should be weighed against available funds and possible funding sources. Congress
 Square is not located in a CDBG eligible area and therefore, CDBG funds are not a
 funding source option.
 - Partners: The successful redesign of Congress Square, including Congress Square Plaza,
 will rely on strong partnerships. Friends of Congress Square Park could play an
 important role as an advocate for the plaza space. If they are identified as a partner
 then we recommend their role in the redesign process should be formalized. They could
 also play a role in fundraising and programming the space. The Westin Eastland
 Harborview Hotel has a vested interest in the success of the square and plaza and
 therefore is a critical partner in this process. Having already contributed financially to
 the design services for the square redesign, they should be engaged in discussion of
 what their role would be moving forward.
 - Phasing: Phasing will be a necessity for cost reasons, the design of the square cannot be
 a piecemeal approach and should be accomplished with a comprehensive design
 approach that unifies and creates a strong public open space.

Work to Date
A great deal of good work has gone into the redesign of the Square to date. Most of it is
valuable regardless of what direction the Council chooses to take:
  Initial Congress Square Redesign Study Group Meetings (2008 through 2012)
 September 3, 2008: Congress Square Redesign Study Group Appointed by City Council
 April – Sept., 2010: CSRSG meets 4 times to determine future use of Plaza and
 recommends that an RFP for design services be developed.
 October 19, 2011: Rockbridge Capital, new owners of the Eastland Hotel, presents
 proposal for a ballroom facility in Congress Square plaza.
 November 21, 2011: CSRSG sends Communication to City Council in response to
 Rockbridge proposal.
 May 9, 2012: Rockbridge presents proposal to HCDC with public comment by
 CSRSG members and others.
 August 1, 2012: CSGSG met and sent a communication to the HCDC with a
 recommendation not to proceed with the Rockbridge proposal as
 submitted.
 3


 April 24, 2013: HCDC Meeting with presentation by Rockbridge with revised
 proposal followed by a month of outreach meetings by
 Rockbridge with community stakeholders and CSRSG
 May 22, 2013: CSRG considers revised proposal by Rockbridge and makes
 recommendation (split vote) to HCDC
 May 29, 2013: HCDC meets and reviews and takes public comment on further
 revised proposal by Rockbridge;
 August 21, 2013: HCDC recommends revised proposal purchase and sale
 agreement to the City Council.
 September 16, 2013: City Council votes (6-3) in favor of selling a portion of the parcel to
 Rockbridge to build the event center and directs staff to proceed
 with a design contract RFP.

 Visioning process (completed, Summer 2013)
 Over the course of several months a city-wide visioning process was held to collect input
 from stakeholders and the general public about their vision for this important public
 space. This process included public workshops, an online survey, sign boards in
 Congress Square and at City Hall, opportunities to respond through social media such as
 Twitter and a Neighborland website to post and vote for ideas, and supplemental
 educational programs such as a history lecture about the square and a film screening
 about urban design. The result of this process is documented on the project webpage
 and culminated in a vision statement to guide the redesign process.
 Team: Planning staff in cooperation with Friends of Congress Square Park, Portland
 Society for Architecture, and the Congress Square Redesign Study Group, Public meeting
 moderator services provided by Pam Plumb
 Cost: $1,500 from Planning budget

 Congress Square Redesign consultant team hired (ongoing, Spring 2014)
 On Council direction at the September 16, 2013 meeting, the City has a contract with
 Klopfer Martin Design Group for the redesign of Congress Square. The scope of this
 contract includes schematic design for Congress Square and design development of the
 smaller Congress Square Plaza in coordination with the proposed event center. To date,
 the design team has met with TY Lin to determine curb alignments, provided guidance
 on the Public Art Selection Panel, coordinated with the Westin event center design
 team, and presented at two public meetings – the first being an assessment meeting
 observing existing conditions and the second was to present the results of the site
 assessment and to present the proposed curb alignments and three concept schemes
 for the square. Much of this work is applicable to any and each of the alternative paths
 forward.
 Team: Klopfer Martin Design Group, Utile, Nelson/Nygaard, Planning Staff, TY Lin
 Cost: $50,554.05 expended, sources are CIP and $50,000 matching funds from
 Rockbridge Capital LLC
 4


  Survey of existing conditions (completed May, 2014)
 Work includes a survey drawing of existing conditions in Congress Square and including
 Congress Square Plaza.
 Provided by: Owen-Haskell
 Cost: $4,970 from City contractual services budget

  Transportation consulting on shared-use, two-way feasibility (completed, June, 2014)
 Work includes one day of services from transportation consultant Ben Hamilton-Baillie
 with site observations, consultant meetings with Congress Square Redesign design team
 and State and High Two-way Study team on the feasibility of shared-use transportation
 solutions, and a lecture with examples of shared-use space
 Provided by: Ben Hamilton-Baillie
 Cost: $3,113 with $1,613 paid by City through CDBG funds, and $1,500 matching funds
 provided by Portland Society for Architecture

  Creation of the Congress Square Art Selection Panel (ongoing, Spring, 2014)
 The Public Art Committee, with the assistance of City staff and the contracted redesign
 team, formed a committee of stakeholders, artists, and Public Art Committee members
 with the purpose of selecting the artist or artwork to be sited in the redesigned
 Congress Square. Since its formation this group has met once to set goals and a vision
 for public art in Congress Square. They will resume once the direction for the redesign is
 determined.


Possible Funding Sources for Additional Planning and Design Work
Amount ($) In Hand? Source To be used for:
$100,000 Yes CIP FY13 $50,000, Contract design services
(under Rockbridge Capital LLC $50,000 for the redesign of
contract) Congress Square (Concept
 design of Square, Design
 Development of Plaza)
$613,640 No CIP Request FY16 Construction of Congress
 Square Redesign Phase I
$1,000,000 No CIP Request FY17 Construction of Congress
 Square Redesign Phase II
$179,913 Yes Public Art Committee budget Public Art acquisition
 (CIP % for Art), private
 fundraising will also be required

 - Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding is not a potential funding
 source for Congress Square redesign because the square is not located in a CDBG
 eligible census tract.
 - Tax increment financing is proposed as one funding source to fill the cost discrepancy.
 A1




E
xampl
 es:
 A2




E
xampl
 es:
 A3




E
xampl
 es:
 5


 ATTACHMENT 4

Vision Statement
Congress Square is a high quality, distinctive urban space that epitomizes the Arts District while
remaining accessible and inviting to all. Year-round, the Square provides a welcome break in the
dense, historic district street wall where one encounters a range of activities including events
and installations that celebrate local arts and culture, and fosters spontaneity, informal
gathering, and fun. As a gateway intersection, the redesigned Congress Square places priority
on the pedestrian experience and safety while accommodating all transportation modes in an
efficient manner.

Final design should:
  Deliver an identity of the Square as a whole
  Be of high quality and visually interesting (with quality materials, details, and lighting)
  Acknowledge that the Square is the heart of the Arts District as well as a gateway into it
  Be conscious of its context within the Congress Street Historic District and surrounding
 landmark buildings
  Attract a range of users of all ages (including shoppers, employees, residents, visitors,
 and hotel/museum/theater patrons)
  Prioritize the pedestrian experience and safety by enhancing visual and pedestrian access
 throughout space
  Be accessible to varying physical and financial abilities (elderly, ADA, children)
  Accommodate potential programs & events (such as First Friday, political rallies, musical
 performance, temporary or interactive art installations)
  Provide for daytime and evening use
  Provide for year-round use
  Feature appropriate balance of green space and hardscape
  Coordinate and integrate with the new Event Center design
  Coordinate with proposed public art installation(s)
  Address night lighting, power, and security needs

Further Considerations for Design:
  Potential for introduction of performance space(s), outdoor dining or food vendors, water
 feature, and/or public restrooms, etc.
  Adequate seating of various types and in a variety of conditions (sun/shade, etc.)
  Potential for transit accommodations (e.g. bus shelters)
  Relationship amongst the public spaces (Museum Plaza, H. H. Hay Building Plaza, and
 Congress Square Plaza)
  Potential for shared-use intersection conversion
  Wayfinding and signage compatible with the City’s wayfinding plan

Base Assumptions:
  Clock mechanism from former Union Station will be relocated to another site
  Direct access for Event Center onto Plaza will be maintained
  Sunken aspect of Plaza shall be eliminated
 Attachment 5




 EASEMENT AGREEMENT
 (NOT EXECUTED): 1/3 OF THE PARCEL
 AREA ADJACENT TO THE HOTEL

 ACCESS EASEMENT




ACCESS EASEMENT

Meeting Minutes
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 August 20, 2014 6:00 to 7:30
 Room 24, City Hall

Call to order 6:05pm

Welcome and Introductions

 In attendance: Co-chair Kevin Donoghue, Co-chair David Marshall, Roseanne
 Graef, Frank Turek, Alex Landry, Peter Bass, Hilary Bassett, Ralph Carmona
 (representing Friends of the Parks Commission), Pandora LaCasse, Bruce
 Wennerstrom, Kristen Levesque, Bree LaCasse, Michael Boucher, Steve
 Hewins

 Not in attendance: Jack Lufkin, Lynn Tillotson, Jon Hinck

Discussion of updated charge

  Additional members
  Expansion of scope
  Review and evaluate two redesign options
 1. Existing footprint of Congress Square Plaza without an event center
 2. Event Center with a public park over the event center

 Councilor Marshall reminded the group that although there are two options
 to review for the plaza, keep in mind that the whole square is to be covered
 and additional options may be considered.

 Hewins asked how the two-way study affects this work. Cameron replied
 that the Congress Square design team coordinated with TY Lin (State/High
 team) to set curb lines that will work for either one or two-way traffic in the
 intersection. The design work thus far can accommodate either option.

 Landry asked whether interim measures could be considered as well.
 Councilor Donoghue replied that they could as long as the Council charge is
 met.



Back-up material and work to date:

Attachments:

 1. Council Order 60 08/09 – appointment of committee
 2. Council Order 34 14/15 – charge to committee
 3. Memorandum to City Council 7/21/14
 4. Roof Park cost analysis (Friends of Congress Square Park)
 5. Report from Project for Public Spaces (Friends of Congress Square Park)

Staff then presented the back-up material included as attachments. Jaegerman
presented the budget estimates and how they were calculated. He noted that the
cost estimate for the park over the event center was for landscaping only.
Cameron briefly recounted the work that has been done to date, existing and
possible funding sources, and the considerations for evaluating the options
moving forward.

Councilor Donoghue asked whether staff have further considered the budget
estimates that were presented as part of the memorandum to Council on July
21. Jaegerman replied that staff did not invest further time into this because
there is no design scheme to use to generate more precise estimates. Cameron
then deferred to the CSRSG members P. LaCasse and B. LaCasse to explain the
two attachments provided by Friends of Congress Square Park. One attachment
was prepared by David LaCasse, in the audience, as an alternative cost estimate
based on case studies with pricing data acquired from the architects and design
firms of the completed projects. The second document is a report prepared by
Project for Public Spaces summarizing and analyzing the visioning data
generated through the public visioning process completed by the Portland
Planning Department and the assessment work done by the design team hired
to date. The report also includes recommendations for design amenities and
ongoing management structures.

CSRSG members were then given a chance to respond to the Council discussion
from the workshop on July 21, as well to the charge.

Carmona stated that the Parks Commission view was that there is a need for
greater Parks Commission involvement. A letter will be sent stating the position
that the role of the Parks Commission should be strengthened with a stronger
advisory role in the case of the Congress Square redesign.

Graef stated that the biggest question for the West End Neighborhood
Association was in regards to the ownership in a hybrid model with the public
park on a private roof.

Landry stated that it was difficult to conceptualize a park on a one story building
that would work well. The challenges would include making it visible and well-
used. Landry also asked whether staff or the co-chairs had feedback on the
second cost estimate produced by Friends of Congress Square Park.
Bass mentioned that the concept of a rooftop park is not new and when the
Congress Square Redesign process began, this option was discussed. He asked
why and how this particular option is back on the table. Marshall asked who, at
the time, had discussed that option. Bass responded that it was a discussion
between local architects and the hotel. Wennerstrom said that the rooftop
option was dismissed at that time because Rockbridge was expected to carry the
whole cost. Marshall clarified that he heard, on July 21st from Nathan Smith that
the cost of the structure to support a public park roof would be borne by the
public. Wennerstrom added that a rooftop park concept came from a desire to
find a win-win solution. Bass commented that he was glad to see this option
back on the table. Donoghue tried to clarify who would cover the cost of
necessary upgrades to the building structure and park in this option.
Wennerstrom replied that Rockbridge’s understanding was the City would
cover that cost.

Levesque stated that she was interested to learn more about the roof option.
Donoghue wished to clarify whether choosing the rooftop option would mean
the design of the event center building would remain the same as before.
Wennerstrom responded that the same square footage would be needed as
before but the external appearance could change.

Bassett asked how the analysis that CSRSG is charged with relates to the whole
square concept and design. Donoghue stated he thought they were interrelated
but not interdependent. He asked what is it important for the CSRSG to
consider in making this evaluation. Bassett responded that Greater Portland
Landmarks is open to a lot of different options but how the design and future
square engages people is at the heart of the matter. There is an expectation for
high quality design that respects context.

P. LaCasse showed concern that the cost of the roof option will be very high. She
suggested that the CSRSG should consider the visioning and assessment data,
which show that people want trees, green, food, tables and chairs, etcetera. She
asked whether these desires could be provided for with the roof option.
Accessibility of the park is very important and visual sight lines are important.
The rooftop option limits both physical and visual access. She further added
that food trucks have been successful in this location and a rooftop option
would not support this model. Additionally, she felt the CSRSG needs to
consider the vision in addition to the cost. In the Project for Public Spaces
report, PPS posits that roof parks eventually become very private. Donoghue
confirmed that one evaluation criteria for both options should be how well they
meet the vision of the community.

Hewins agreed that historic elements and buildings need to be kept in mind. He
added that he has a hard time resolving the one-way/two-way question as it
relates to this design process. Hewins asked whether it was true that the cost of
the plaza would be the same in both options, as it suggests in the staff
Memorandum to City Council 7/21/14. He also asked how the staff cost
estimates compare with the Friends of Congress Square Park estimates. David
LaCasse clarified that their estimates used case studies from existing completed
projects from other cities with green roofs or parks over sunken structures. He
further noted that the estimates do not include access equipment such as an
elevator in the cost. Jaegerman reiterated that the cost estimates depend on
what assumptions are made and it is difficult to compare the two because they
are based on different assumptions. He further noted that his estimates did not
include upgrades to the building structure that would be required to support a
park. Hewins went on to add that the Portland Downtown District was
supportive of an event center and win-win solutions. They are not in favor of
turning this public space into a food truck parking lot; that is not seen as the
best and highest use.

B. LaCasse wanted to make sure that the CSRSG uses the data from the visioning
process in evaluating options. The Friends group has seen an increase in use
based on management, new amenities and events. Management is a critical
component to the success of the space in addition to design, so ongoing
management and maintenance costs should also be considered. She suggested
the CSRSG should clarify whether they were evaluating an elevated green roof
or an elevated park. LaCasse liked the PPS recommendation to have a more
permanent commercial kiosk or similar in the back corner to activate the back
of the park. She felt that a successful park could be created without completely
redesigning every aspect of the park.

Turek stated that cost is a big part of the evaluation but evaluation with the
vision data is a good metric. He asked how the design meets the vision and
needs assessment. He further mentioned that over the course of the summer,
there has been a lot of good use of the park. Turek would like to see a cost
assessment of how to reuse aspects of the park instead of a complete overhaul.
He would like to consider incremental implementation or phasing built into the
plan. Turek did not feel the square needed to be designed now, only the plaza.
He further pointed out that the Council order calls for necessary improvements.
He added that seeing examples of existing public/private roof parks would be
helpful.

Boucher made the point that the question should not be about cost but rather
about the value we are getting from the redesigned space. He added that by
reaching for modest designs we won’t achieve the full benefit and vision for the
space and meet all the interests and needs. Getting more might cost more but
the result would be more value. Boucher further added he had strong
reservations about an elevated park – there are inherent limitations on
movement when a space is elevated. He added that part of the functionality
issue now in the plaza is in part from a change in elevation and lack of visual
 connection. Boucher mentioned that other examples of elevated parks have not
 necessarily been successful – Lincoln Center is under-used; the High Line
 required a lot of resources and management in the beginning to make it work.
 He asked how the City will own something on top of a private building. Finally,
 Boucher asked whether the option to redesign the whole plaza been discounted.
 Donoghue clarified that was Option 1 of the two options. Boucher’s final
 statement was that cost should not be a deterrent to doing this the right way.

 Wennerstrom felt that to make a decision going forward, CSRSG members need
 a true scope of work and bids on what it would cost. He further encouraged the
 group to not lose the vision of the whole square and hoped to do something
 dynamic.

Hewins leaves at 7:30pm

 Next steps

 Donoghue reiterated that there are two clear scenarios to evaluate. He asked
 what is the best way for private entities to add value to public space and vice
 versa. Further, when considering the event center/park option, it seems that
 the same footprint is needed. Donoghue asked Wennerstrom to clarify if the
 same envelope is also needed, or if part of the event center could be sunken.
 Wennerstrom replied that the same one-story envelope would also be
 needed to have a street presence, and that the hotel was not interest in
 sinking the structure.

 Marshall stated that he would like to keep an incremental approach in mind.
 Based on past City projects, $1.5-2 million seems to be on par for a redesign
 for this park. He added that every year the City bonds out $10 million for
 public infrastructure investments, and therefore, this scope seems feasible.
 Marshall added that he is excited to talk about the whole intersection and
 pointed out that some issues of the park cannot be solved without looking at
 whole intersection. He stated that the decision between one-way and two-
 way affects some aspects of the design such as the location of stop bars but it
 appears the configuration of the intersection can remain consistent. Marshall
 requested examples and hard numbers to give the CSRSG a good idea of the
 options. He did not feel that the process needs to go as far as a design-bid
 scenario to make a decision.

 Cameron asked CSRSG to determine what information is needed to evaluate
 and make a recommendation of the options. The responses included:

  A more detailed cost estimate
  An evaluation first of the options against the needs and vision
  A conceptual design of each option
 Carmona asked Wennerstrom to confirm that the Westin was not interested
 in paying any additional amounts to accommodate a park on the roof.
 Wennerstron responded that the hotel would not be interested in paying
 anything more than what they had budgeted for the original event center and
 that any additional cost would have to be borne by the city.

 Carmona further asked if there were concerns about safety with an elevated
 park because of limited sightlines. B. LaCasse answered that there were
 concerns about safety. In the current park, the clock location creates a
 hidden space that allows certain activities to happen out of view of people
 passing by, which affects safety. In an elevated park, the entire space would
 be hidden from view of people passing by which would be problematic.
 P. LaCasse added that successful parks require easy physical and visual
 access from multiple points.

 Bass stated that he saw no need for conceptual designs to facilitate cost
 estimates. He felt that analysis could be achieved with existing data.

How to consult with Land Bank Commission, Parks Commission, and other appropriate
organizations?

 Donoghue suggested that the approach here might be that any materials
 submitted to the CSRSG should also be submitted to the Parks Commission
 and Land Bank.

Public Comment

 David LaCasse: Agreed with Bass that the CSRSG does not need a conceptual
 design to evaluate the options at this stage. Advocated for using visioning
 data and examples instead.

 Anne Pringle: Agreed that the CSRSG can use examples rather than design to
 make a decision. She also stated she had trouble locating the Friends of
 Congress Square Park documents on the City website.



Direction to Staff

 The Congress Square Redesign Study Group directs staff to evaluate two
 options based on conformance with public vision and assessment, cost, and
 precedents. Marshall moves, Carmona seconds. Unanimous vote (12-0,
 Lufkin, Tillotson, Hinck, and Hewins not present).
 It was determined the next CSRSG meeting will be held in September (date to
 be determined at a later date), and staff will prepare a report for CSRSG
 consideration. At that time the CSRSG will decide whether one option is
 clearly better than the other. At that point, the CSRSG will give direction on
 whether to proceed with design concepts and for one or both options.



Meeting adjourned 7:55pm