pages: CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-03-21 | 13 | been shown at the historic theater for over twenty years; the marketplace has not created an economical reuse of the historic theater; the building is beautiful and should be saved; she would not vote to save the theater at any price; she is concerned with how costs have escalated. ouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated a quantum step has been made in the design; concerns have been expressed regarding the Oak Street traffic elements; stated two incoming lanes should be reviewed; roll-up doors are on the Oak Street side adjacent to the parking structure; he would like to review alternatives; commended the Historical Advisory Board and Architectural Preservation Society for working to make the design better; input has resulted in a majority of the architectural changes but does not mean that the mass and sizing were proper or acceptable; pricing is a concern. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what happens if the bids are too high. The Development Services Director responded all bids could be rejected; precautions have been made to pre-qualify bidders. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated value engineering was performed on the Library project; inquired whether value engineering could be done on the theater project. The Development Services Director responded the historic theater has been value engineered; $1.8 million would be financed by the developer for the Furniture Fixtures and Equipment a larger contingency [15%] was carried because historic renovations tend to have surprises; the contingency could be lowered when construction estimates are complete; value engineering would involve the most historically significant features to be restored; 70% of the hard construction budget is in systems. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the current cost for the historic theater, to which the Development Services Director responded $12.849 million. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the staff recommendation has three elements 1) Review of the Section 106 findings, 2) adoption of a resolution [final design], and 3) adoption of plans and specifications for bidding out the historic theater and parking structure; general consensus was that the current design is much better than before and is a credit to the architect and individuals who provided comments; the bidding Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 5 Community Improvement Commission March 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf |