Resolution 13937CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
3937
APPROVING AMENDED FINAL DESIGNS FOR DESIGN REVIEW
DR05 -0041, THE PROPOSED CINEPLEX AT 2305 CENTRAL
AVENUE, AND DR05 -0028, THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE AT
1416 OAK STREET
WHEREAS, an application was made by Alameda Entertainment
Associates L.P. for Final Design Review, including consideration of Section 106
findings, for the proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue, the corner of Oak
Street and Central Avenue; and
WHEREAS, an application was made by the City of Alameda
(Development Services Department) for Final Design Review for construction of a
new parking structure, including consideration of Section 106 findings, at 1416
Oak Street, the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located in a C -C -T (Community
Commercial, Theater Combining) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted
on May 3, 2005 for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project ( "Project ") by the City Council. Since that time there has been no
substantial change in the project or substantial changes in circumstances or
new information of substantial importance involving a new significant effect on
the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects that would warrant subsequent environmental analysis in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2005 the Planning Board held a public hearing
and approved DR05 -0028 and DR05 -0041; and
WHEREAS, Ani Dinusheva and Valerie Ruma appealed the approval of
DR05 -00028 and DR05 -0041 on July 7, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and denied these
appeals on August 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, City Council requested staff to make additional design
modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board reviewed the design
modifications and considered the revised Section 106 findings on January 5,
2006; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2006 the State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with the City's determination that the Project's effects on the historic
properties within the area of potential effect would not be adverse; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2006, City staff provided the City Council with
a staff report dated March 8, 2006 detailing and further explaining the above
steps (A copy of this report and its attachments are attached hereto and
incorporated in full by this reference); and
and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing;
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings relative to Final
Design Acceptance for DR05 -0041:
1. The project will have
vicinity.
no adverse effects on persons or property in the
With implementation of the mitigation measures adopted for the Project,
the impacts of this Project will be reduced to a less than significant level.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use
of surrounding properties.
After review by the Historical Advisory Board and the Section 106
consultant, City staff revised the design of the Cineplex which is
compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties. The design is consistent with state and federal historic
preservation policies and standards (i.e., Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration) and the State Historic
Preservation Office has concurred that the Project's effects on the
historic properties within the area of ` potential effect would not be
adverse.
3. The Project will be consistent with the Final Design Guidelines for the
Proposed Cineplex.
The Project meets the intent of the Design Guidelines adopted
specifically for the project.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings relative to the
Design Review Acceptance for DR05 -0028:
1 The Project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the
vicinity.
With implementation of the mitigation measures adopted for the Project,
the impacts of this Project will be reduced to a less than significant level.
2. The Project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use
of surrounding properties.
After review by the Historical Advisory Board and the Section 106
consultant, City staff revised the design of the garage which is
compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred that the
Project's effects on the historic properties within the area of potential
effect would not be adverse.
3. The Project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
The Project meets the intent of the City's Design Guidelines with building
height, massing, setbacks and finishes which reflect and respect existing
historic and architecturally significant structures in the vicinity.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby approves DR05-0041 and DR05-0028, subject to the following
conditions:
The Cineplex and parking garage shall be constructed in substantial
conformity with plans titled "City of Alameda Cineplex and Parking
Garage" dated March 9, 2006, prepared by Komorous-Towey Architects.
2. The colors of the proposed Cineplex shall be compatible with the Historic
Alameda Theater to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
3. All windows shall be fitted with clear, non-tinted low e glass.
4. The minimum width of the proposed sidewalk along Oak Street shall be
10 feet wide.
5. Textured and colored pavement shall be installed along the mouth of the
parking garage to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
6. The project shall be subject to the City of Alameda Public Art Ordinance.
The Public Art Committee shall approve the designs and dimension of the
proposed temporary mural on the north elevation of the public garage.
7 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Cineplex, the Planning
Board shall approve the final lighting and signage program for the
Cineplex. The final lighting plan shall be prepared by a professional
lighting designer.
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the public garage, the
Planning Board shall approve the final lighting plan, signage program and
landscaping plan for the parking garage. The final lighting plan shall be
prepared by a professional lighting designer.
The interior illumination of the garage shall meet these minimum
standards:
Minimum Horizontal Illumination is 1 foot- candle.
. The Minimum Horizontal Uniformity is 10:1 (Maximum /Minimum).
. The Minimum Vertical Illumination is .5 foot - candles.
9. Vesting. This approval shall terminate one (1) year from the effective date
of its approval, unless actual construction or alteration under valid permits
has commenced within that time or the applicant applies for and is granted
an extension prior to the expiration.
10. Construction Noise. Construction noise impacts shall be minimized by
restricting construction activities to the daytime hours specified by the
Alameda Municipal Code. The current provisions limit construction to
Monday through Friday, between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on Saturday
between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with no Sunday construction.
11. Construction Soil Control. All construction contracts shall contain dust
control clauses. The developer shall require that all contractors control the
dust by watering exposed earth surfaces, covering trucks transporting fill
to the site, and daily removal of earth or mud carried onto City streets from
the project site.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To:
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director /City Manager
Date: March 8, 2006
(1) Consideration of updated Section 106 Report; and adoption of resolution
approving amended designs for the cineplex and 350 -space parking
structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, within the C -C T
(Community Commercial Theater) Zoning District; (2) Recommendation to
adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for the
rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theatre; and (3) Recommendation to
adopt conceptual plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for
design -build of the Civic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90 -19.
BACKGROUND
The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) of the City of Alameda approved a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Alameda Entertainment Associates
(AEA) for the historic Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Garage Project on May 3,
2005. On May 17, 2005, the CIC approved a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the historic
Alameda Theater property by eminent domain, and in October 2005, the CIC obtained
legal possession of the Alameda Theater. The overall project will consist of an eight- screen
movie theater including a 484 -seat single - screen theater in the historic Alameda Theater
and seven screens in the new cineplex, 6,100 square feet of retail, and a 350 -space
parking garage. The restoration of the historic Alameda Theater as a first -run movie house
has been a long- standing goal of the City as memorialized in the Downtown Vision Plan
(2000), and the Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000). The development of a
parking garage has been a goal for the Park Street Commercial District for many years, as
memorialized in the City's General Plan (1991), the Downtown Vision Plan (2000), and the
Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000).
The proposed parking garage will be located on City -owned land at 1416 Oak Street,
generally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the former Video Maniacs
site. The garage will be bound by an existing Longs Drugs surface parking lot to the north,
the existing historic Alameda Theater to the east, the proposed seven - screen cineplex to
Re: Report and Reso #1
3.21.06
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 2 of 12 .
the south, and Oak Street to the west. The proposed parking garage will contain 350
parking spaces and is anticipated to provide:
• Hours of Operation. The garage will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
• Parking Rates. The parking rates will be the same as on- street parking at $0.50
per hour between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday
and free in the evenings and on Sunday.
• Parking Equipment. The garage will have "Pay by Space" multi -bay meters and
accept payments from credit and debit cards, and cell phones. Patrons can pre-
pay for up to five hours. Patrons will not have to walk back to their car once they
have pre -paid for parking.
• Parking Validation. The new cineplex will validate parking for up to three hours.
The City was awarded a Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the construction of this
parking garage component of the project in October 2004 and a Section 108 loan to assist
with its financing in January 2006. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their undertakings
(including federal loans and grants, and permits) on historic properties. Accordingly, the
City prepared a Section 106 Documentation Report included as Attachment D of the City's
Initial Study /Environmental Assessment (IS /EA) developed in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969. The Section 106 Documentation Report was prepared by Carey &
Company Architecture dated December 6, 2004. A detailed outline of the historic review
and Section 106 compliance process for this project was prepared in a February 9, 2006
Off- Agenda Report (Attachment 1).
The complexity of the project has engendered significant discussion and debate about the
design, operations, and impacts of the project. As a result, the City has engaged in an
extensive and expanded community design and Section 106 review process related to all
three components of the project. Additionally, the City created a project website in mid -
August at http: / /www.ci.alameda.ca.us /theater,, developed a project brochure for the public
that was sent to 15,000 households on December 16, 2005, conducted five public tours of
the Alameda Theater on weekends and weeknights in December for approximately 100
local residents, and conducted 10 additional tours in January for approximately 200
additional residents. Lastly, the City will be broadcasting on the local public access channel
a recorded tour of the historic Alameda Theater discussing the history of the Theater, its
existing conditions, and the City's proposed scope of work for rehabilitating and restoring
the theater to its original use as a movie theater.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 3 of 12
Over the last month, the City has also evaluated the feasibility of an alternative project
proposed by the Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda (CMFA). Based on information
provided on their website, CMFA's "Alternative Vision" proposes 1,000 seats in five screens
in the historic Alameda Theater building only; a multi -level commercial building, plaza, and
180 -space public parking structure on the adjacent parcel; and a 350 -space garage on the
Elks Lodge site. The City retained Architectural Resources Group (ARG), the City's historic
preservation architect, and Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), the City's economic
consultant, to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Alternative Vision from historic
preservation and financial perspectives, respectively.
The ARG report (Attachment 3) concluded that from a historic resource perspective, the
Alternative Vision would have a greater impact on the significant historic spaces, features,
and original fabric contained within the Alameda Theater than the City's proposed project,
because the CMFA proposal has the potential to damage historic features and /or limit the
view of historic elements from the public.
Based on the information provided on the website, the KMA memorandum (Attachment 4)
did not find financial evidence of the Alternative Vision's ability to generate sufficient
theater revenue to cover operating expenses, to fund fixture, furniture and equipment
costs, to fund the capital costs not financed by the City, to provide a return to investors, or
to pay rent to the City. By contrast, the City's proposal meets all of these financial feasibility
objectives. Additionally, KMA questions the feasibility of the Alternative Vision's Elks
Lodge parking structure proposal. Unlike that proposed parking garage site, the City does
not own the Elks Lodge property and the Alternative Vision would require the City to
acquire the Elk's Lodge at an unknown cost in addition to financing a parking structure
itself.
DISCUSSION
(1) Section 106 Report and Revised Designs
The City's Section 106 consultant, Mr. Bruce Anderson, prepared a Section 106 Review
and Findings Supplemental Report in December based on the revised cineplex and parking
garage designs accepted by the City Council on November 1, 2005 (Attachment 7). Mr.
Anderson expressed support for the revised cineplex design and made no suggestions for
potential improvements to its facade. He did, however, recommend that Komorous Towey
Architect's (the City's design architect) design services be continued through design
development of the exterior of the cineplex to ensure that the final project results in a
design consistent with the conceptual designs approved by the Council. In response to this
finding, the cineplex developer, AEA, in conjunction with the City, will contract with KTA to
provide transition services to the developer and his Architect of Record regarding design
development of the facade of the cineplex.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Anderson also provided positive feedback in his report regarding the revised exterior
design of the parking garage. One recommendation in the report suggested modification of
the color of the parking structure through the use of a "simplified and toned down color
palette." He also suggested greater differentiation between the colors of the parking
structure and the cineplex. In response, KTA selected new colors for the garage, which will
be more closely related to each other with less contrast. These colors will also be more
differentiated from, and more neutral than, the cineplex. Some variation between the
vertical pilasters and the spandrel panels will be maintained.
Pursuant to the IS /EA's mitigation measures "Mitigation AES -1" and "Mitigation HIST -1,"
City staff requested comments from the HAB at their January 5, 2006 meeting regarding
the issues raised in Mr. Anderson's supplemental Section 106 Report. The HAB did not
provide specific comments regarding these issues, with the exception of one member's
agreement with the report's recommendation to tone down the colors of the garage. HAB
members did, however, express concern with the scale and massing of the project (see
Attachment 9).
State Historic Preservation Officer Review
On behalf of the federal government, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the
California Office of Historic Preservation is also required to conduct Section 106 review of
the project and to assess the proposed project for compliance with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. As part of the final stage of the
Section 106 review process, SHPO reviewed the City's construction drawings for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the revised exterior
designs of the garage and cineplex.
SHPO determined that the rehabilitation plans for the historic Theater are in compliance
with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and do not create an adverse impact on the
historic Alameda Theater, or historic district. (See Attachment 10.) SHPO also
recommended some changes to the cineplex and garage exterior designs before it could
make this same determination for these components of the project. In response to SHPO's
comments, the City 's design architect for the garage and cineplex, KTA revised their
previous designs. The City presented the newly revised designs to SHPO at its offices in
Sacramento on March 1, 2006. At that meeting, SHPO staff was highly complementary of
the revised design for the cineplex building. The following sections outline SHPO's
comments regarding KTA's previous designs as well as the changes made to the designs
and presented to SHPO on March 1, 2006 in response to this feedback:
Cineplex Comments and Revisions
SHPO provided the City with a few more extensive comments regarding the facade of the
cineplex:
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 5 of 12
1) Certain features are oversized for the scale of the project (i.e., columns). ` SHPO
requested the architect make the columns narrower and other features more diminutive.
City Response: KTA reduced the overall width of the columns and split them into two
smaller separate, yet connected, columns to further reduce the appearance of their size.
KTA also minimized the framing around the bay windows, allowing for a sleeker, glazed,
and more vertical second -story look.
2) SHPO requested that the mid -block section of the facade (the section along Central
Avenue where bay windows are proposed) and rounded corner element of the cineplex be
simplified, the fluting on the columns eliminated; and the bay windows simplified.
City Response: KTA eliminated the fluting on the columns, simplified the articulation at the
parapet; simplified the framing around the bay windows; and simplified the rounded corner
element by reducing the number of vertical elements from five to three.
3) SHPO requested that the design avoid the 20 -inch projection.
City Response: The 20 -inch projection on Oak Street was eliminated by working closely
with the developer to alter interior design elements. This did not require changing the
cineplex screen sizes or seating capacity. The 20 -inch projection along Central Avenue at
the corner section of the building was eliminated by moving the face of the building out 20
inches, resulting in a reduction in the width of the sidewalk along this portion of Central
Avenue. The sidewalk is currently 14 feet and will be reduced to approximately 12 feet at
this portion of the building. The City will undertake the appropriate procedure to decrease
the size of the sidewalk and correspondingly increase the parcel footprint along Central
Avenue by 20 inches.
4) It was requested that a monolithic` base at the bottom of the columns be created by
using a more solid material (i.e., stone instead of tile).
City Response: KTA eliminated the use of tile at the base of the columns and changed the
base material to granite.
5) SHPO requested a simpler, transparent connector between the cineplex and historic
theater buildings.
City Response: KTA eliminated the rounded connector element between the historic
theater and the cineplex and created a simplified transparent, glass connector, pushed
back to the tangent point of the historic Theater's rounded corner.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 6 of 12
6) SHPO requested that KTA create a stronger relationship at the Central Avenue mid -
block section between the upper and lower levels.
City Response: KTA extended the pilasters between bay windows down to the ground
creating a stronger relationship between levels. KTA also added a vertical element through
the middle of the bay windows and extended this through the transom windows.
Parking Garage Comments and Revisions
SHPO's comments regarding the garage, were minimal and included requesting: (1) a
reduction to the design articulation of the facade, and (2) use of a color scheme with less
contrast and more differentiation from the cineplex, consistent with Bruce Anderson's
Section 106 report.` The City addressed both of these comments and revised the design
articulation and colors of the garage facade. These changes are reflected in the Design
Review Submittal (see Attachment 11).
Based on the City's March 1, 2006 responses to SHPO's earlier comments, SHPO
determined that the entire project would be in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's
Standards and there would be "no adverse effect" of the project on historic properties
within the surrounding area, and requested no further design changes. Subsequently,
SHPO sent a letter on March 7, 2006 confirming that the project would not have an
"adverse effect" on historic properties within the Area of Potential Impact (APE). (See
Attachment 10.)
(2) Call for Bids for Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater
The City will rehabilitate and restore the Alameda Theater to its original use as a movie
theater in a unified eight- screencineplex, including one screen in the historic Theater and
seven screens in the attached new Cineplex structure. The main auditorium in the Alameda
Theater will once again house a single- screen theater, including 484 seats and a screen
over 45 feet wide, one of the largest movie auditoriums in the Bay Area The main
auditorium will be the signature auditorium for the entire theater complex and will be used
to feature the most popular blockbuster films. All movie patrons will enter the theater
through the restored historic lobby to access both the main auditorium and the new seven
screens in the adjacent cineplex.
Currently, the Alameda Theater sits vacant and is in a state of deterioration. Over the last
30 years, the theater weathered significant changes to its interior, including overpainting of
original leaf finishes, the removal of the original carpeting, and the installation of acoustical
treatments over original painted surfaces. The City of Alameda proposes rehabilitating and
restoring the historic Alameda Theater, including providing disabled access improvements,
structural improvements, new mechanical and electrical systems, and improved acoustical
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 7 of 12
treatments, as well as significant restoration and rehabilitation work on the lobby and main
auditorium.
The exterior of the Alameda Theater building will be rehabilitated, with the marquee and
storefront retail spaces returned to their original configurations. The lobby is the gateway to
the entire complex, and as such, its finishes will be restored, based on extensive research
and, in some cases, microscopic paint analysis. Significant rehabilitation work is planned
for the auditorium including: regrading the floor in the auditorium, preservation and
stabilization of finishes, relamping of the chandelier, light fixtures and light cove, repair and
fire - treatment of the original curtain, repair and repainting of orchestra pit and stage stairs,
and installation of stadium seating, among other work. Project construction is currently
estimated to begin in Summer 2006 and is slated for completion in Summer 2007.
In the early 1970s, the historic floor plan and much of the character of the Alameda
Theater was altered when two small screens were built in the balcony. Code issues, require
that the two theaters currently in place be demolished and removed. While at the current
time, there is no immediate plan to reoccupy the balcony of the Alameda Theater, plans do
not preclude the use of the balcony at a future date. A copy of the plans and specifications
are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
(3) Call for Bids for Design -Build of the Civic Center Parking
As provided by the City of Alameda Municipal Code Section 2 -61,8 et. seq., the City will
use a "design- build" contract to construct the garage. "Design- build" is a procurement
process in which both the design and construction of a project are procured from a single
entity. Design -build is best suited for projects of conventional design and construction, such
as parking garages and office buildings. Parking garages are commonly built using this
method, and there are companies that specialize in designing and constructing these
structures. There are several advantages to a design -build procurement process including:
(1) the owner's exposure to claims and change orders based on design deficiencies is
substantially reduced because the same entity controls design and construction, (2) the
owner requires a lower level of design service so the owner's design-related costs are
lower, and (3) the project may proceed more quickly because the design -build contractor
can begin construction before the detailed design is complete.
As prescribed by the City's design -build ordinance, City staff released a Request for Pre-
Qualifications for design -build teams in March 2005 and was pleased to receive six
Statements of Pre- Qualifications from highly qualified teams. City staff pre - qualified the
three finalists, which included S.J. Amoroso in Redwood Shores, Overaa Construction in
Richmond and West Bay Builders in Novato. Upon City Council approval, these finalists will
receive conceptual plans and performance specifications for the design and construction of
the parking garage and will be asked to provide a firm price bid for design and build
services. Pursuant to the requirements the City's design -build ordinance, the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 8 of 12
would meet to select the "lowest responsible bidder" upon receipt of the bids. Project
construction is currently estimated to begin in Summer 2006 and is slated for completion in
Summer 2007. A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
(1) Section 106 Report and Approval of Revised Designs
The City Council action to consider the updated Section 106 report and approve the
revised designs will not have a financial impact on the City.
(2) Call for Bids for Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater
The most recent update to the budget for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater and
cineplex components of the project was presented in a November 9, 2005 Off - Agenda
Report (Attachment 15). In this budget, the professional cost estimate for the construction
costs associated with rehabilitating and restoring the Theater was estimated to be $7.1
million (Attachment 12). The City's Construction Manager and Architect of Record
recommend escalating these construction costs by four percent due to time delays in
bidding the rehabilitation project, resulting in an additional $280,000 increase in
construction costs.' Time delays in bidding the theater are attributable to the extensive
design review process required for the cineplex and parking garage components of the
project and the strategy to keep the construction schedules of all three components of the
project linked. The Theater budget also maintains a 15 percent construction contingency,
despite completion of 100 percent construction drawings. Typically, construction
contingencies are reduced below 10 percent once construction drawings are completed.
(3) Call for Bids for Design-Build of the Civic' Center Parking Garage
City staff recently updated the November 2004 cost estimate for the parking garage, based
on the latest revised design (see Attachment 13). The November 2004 estimate was
prepared before the Design Review process for the garage commenced and was based on
a generic, simple garage exterior not an articulated facade. Per direction provided by
community members, the Planning Board and City Council throughout the Design Review
process, the garage facade has become more articulated than originally assumed in
November 2004. The updated cost estimate resulted in a $730,000 increase in the parking
garage budget due to both greater design articulation and construction cost inflation (see
Attachment 14, Table 1).
The total cost of all three components of the project is currently estimated at $27.8 million
including construction contingencies. In addition, the project will include a $5.4 million
contribution from the developer for an overall private /public project valued at $33.2 million.
Sufficient funds are available to cover the $730,000 increase in garage costs and allow for
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 9of12
a $1.2 million overall project contingency, above and beyond the $27.8 million (see
Attachment 14, Table 2). Specifically, the cost of the project will be financed by a
combination of 2003 Merged Area Bonds, 2002 BWIP Bonds, and a HUD Section 108
loan /BEDI grant. The expenditure of the project funds continues to be monitored on an
ongoing basis (see Attachment 14, Table 3). As of February 28, 2006, the City had
expended 12 percent of its total available sources of funds for the Alameda Theater
project.
Staff has also summarized the City's total actual and projected expenditure on professional
architectural services for the historic Theater and parking garage and compared them to
projected construction costs (see Attachment 14, Table 4). The City is expecting to expend
a total of $1.8 million in design services, which includes urban design planning and
entitlement expenditures funded early in the pre - development process by annual tax
increment, instead of bond proceeds. These urban planning expenditures are not typically
included in a calculation of construction related architectural fees. Additionally, these
design expenditures include Komorous -Towey Architects costs of re- designing the facade
of the cineplex. These pre- development design expenditures represent 12 percent of the
projected construction costs for the rehabilitation of the theater and the parking garage.
Architectural fees typically range from 10 to 12 percent as a percentage of hard
construction costs, and these fees are within industry standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Implementation of the project requires local (City and CIC), state (State Office of Historic
Preservation) and federal (HUD) actions, and therefore requires environmental under both
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The City of Alameda as the "Lead Agency" under CEQA and the "Responsible
Agency" under NEPA prepared a joint environmental document in the form of a CEQA-
authorized Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) supported by an Initial Study, and a
NEPA- authorized Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (Mitigated FONSI) supported
by an Environmental Assessment.
On November 8, 2004, a public meeting was held to take comments on the proposed
scope of environmental review (Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental
Assessment) in accordance with HUD Environmental Regulations, Part 58. The draft Initial
Study /Environmental Assessment determined that there would be no unavoidable
significant impacts and proposed a limited number of standard mitigations to avoid
potentially significant aesthetic, air quality, cultural /historical, environmental hazard,
geological, noise and transportation impacts identified in the Initial Study /Environmental
Assessment.
On May 3, 2005, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approved the project. Since that time, there have been no substantial changes in the
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 8, 2006
Page 10 of 12
project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information of substantial
importance involving a new significant effect on the environment or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would warrant subsequent
environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or under
NEPA. On September 1, 2005, HUD issued its release of funds to the City for the BEDI
grant and Section 108 loan, completing its NEPA clearance process.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 - Action B1.0 Renovate /restore the Alameda
Theater.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000— Action F4 — Consider building a parking structure
as part of a Downtown parking management program.
RECOMMENDATIONS' FOR ITEMS 1-3
1) Consider the supplemental Section 106 Report prepared by Mr. Bruce Anderson
pertaining to the proposed designs of the parking garage and cineplex, and approve
designs pursuant to mitigation measures "Mitigation AES -1" and "Mitigation HIST -1,"
as outlined the IS /EA adopted by the City on May 3, 2005;
2) Adopt resolution approving amended final designs for design review DR05 -0041,
the proposed cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue, and DR05 -0028, the proposal
parking garage at 1416 Oak Street;
3) Adopt the plans and specifications; authorize call for bids for rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater; and direct the Development Services Department to solicit bids
from the pre - qualified General Contractors; and
4) Adopt the conceptual plans and specifications; authorize call for bids for design -
build of the Civic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90 -19; and direct the
Development Services Department to solicit bids from the pre - qualified design -build
teams.
submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
DK/LAUDES/JO:ry
March 8, 2006
Page 11 of 12
By: Dorene E. Soto
M nag r, Business Development Division
e nife Ott
D elopment Manager
Attachments:
1. February 9, 2006 Off-Agenda Report: Historic Review and Section 106 Compliance
Process for Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
2. Chronology of Section 106 Review Process
3. Memorandum from Architectural Resources Group dated February 7, 2006
4. Memorandum from Keyser Marston Associates dated March 8, 2006
5. Section 106 Review and Findings: Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater and
Construction of New Cineplex and Public Parking Structure prepared by Robert
Bruce Anderson (May 2005)
6. City of Alameda Response to May 2005 Report
7. Section 106 Review and Findings Supplemental Report: Rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater and Construction of New Cineplex and Public Parking Structure
prepared by Robert Bruce Anderson (December 2005)
8. City of Alameda Response to Supplemental December 2005 Report
9. Minutes from January 5, 2006 HAB meeting
10. Letter from California Office of Historic Preservation dated March 7, 2006
11. Design Submittal for Proposed Cineplex and Parking Garage dated March 9, 2006
(on file in the City Clerk's Office)
12. Alameda Theater Budget Update, Webcor Buildings, 6-21-05
13. Alameda Civic Parking Structure Conceptual Estimate
14. Sources and Uses of Funds Information for Downtown Theater Project
15. November 9, 2005 Off-Agenda Report to Council, Update of Executive Director's
Funding Strategy for Historic Theater Rehabilitation, Cineplex, and Parking Garage
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
cc: Kyle Conner, Alameda Entertainment Associates, LP
Planning Board
G: \Soto \combined council report 3- 21- 06.doc
March 8, 2006
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
OFF- AGENDA
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: February 9, 2006
Re: Historic Review and Section 106 Compliance Process for Alameda
Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
BACKGROUND
The City was awarded a Section 108 loan and Brownfield Economic Development
Initiative (BEDI) grant in October 2004 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for the construction of the parking garage component of the
Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the
impacts of their undertakings (including federal loans and grants, and permits) on
historic properties. Accordingly, the City prepared a documentation report required of
Section 106 review included as Attachment D of the City's Initial Study /Environmental
Assessment (IS /EA) developed in conformance with the California ` Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The
documentation report was prepared by Carey & Company Architecture dated December
6, 2004.
The CIC adopted a negative declaration of environmental significance with mitigation
measures supported by an Initial Study under CEQA and a finding of no significant
impact supported by an Environmental Assessment under NEPA at the same time the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the project was approved on May 3,
2005: Mitigation measures "Mitigation AES -1: Project Visual Compatibility Impact" and
"Mitigation HIST -1: Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources" in the
1S /EA adopted by the City both required that the City conduct additional Section 106
review (see attached).
Specifically, ` these mitigation measures require the following: (1) issuance of a
Certificate of Approval (required by City code) for structural alterations to the Alameda
Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board (HAB); (2) review of the final designs of
all three components of the project to ensure compliance with the. U.S. Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration by an independent professional
that meets the Secretary of the Interiors Proposed. Historic Preservation Professional
Qualification Standards; (3) HAB and Planning Board consideration of the review
Honorable Chair and February 9, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Page 2of3
findings and any associated design refinements prior to approval of the architectural
design.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the IS /EA's mitigation measures "Mitigation AES -1" and "Mitigation HIST -1,"
the City retained .Mr. Bruce Anderson, a qualified historic preservation consultant, to
review the original designs of the cineplex and parking garage. The HAB reviewed Mr.
Anderson's findings and design refinement recommendations, prepared in May 2005,
and provided comments regarding the findings on June 2, 2005: As outlined in the
mitigation measures, the Planning Board considered the findings and the HAB's
comments before approving the designs on June 27, 2005. On August 16, 2005, the
City Council considered an appeal of the June 27th decision and upheld the Planning
Board approval of the cineplex and garage designs contingent on revisions to the
facades of both structures. Subsequently, the City requested that Mr. Anderson update
his historic review findings in light of the revisions made to the exterior designs of the
Cineplex and parking garage.
City staff requested comments from the HAB at their January 5, 2006 meeting regarding
the issues raised in Mr. Anderson's supplemental review prepared in December 2005,
related to the revised facades of the cineplex and parking structure. The HAB did not
provide comments regarding these issues, with the exception of one member's
agreement with the Report's recommendation to tone down the colors of the garage.
HAB members did, however, express discontent with the scale and massing of the
project.
On behalf of the federal government, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of
the California Office of Historic Preservation is charged with reviewing the proposed
project for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. With the near
completion of a final design, the SHPO is currently reviewing the City's construction
drawings for the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the
revised designs of the garage and cineplex as well as the historic review and Section
106 compliance process followed by the City to date. The City will be holding a working
session with SHPO within the next two weeks to discuss the proposed designs and to
provide the information and detail necessary to allow the SHPO to determine that the
designs comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. SHPO's comments and any
design refinements to the project, will be provided to the City Council for consideration
as part of its staff report for the final design approval of the cineplex and parking garage
facades. The public hearing for final approval of the revised designs, pursuant to
"Mitigation AES -1" and "Mitigation' HIST -1," is currently scheduled for March 21, 2006.
If staff is able to accelerate the SHPO's schedule, it is possible that this could be done
at the earlier March meeting. Staff will keep the CIC informed as to schedule.
G:\ Comdev \econdev\Jennifer\Parking Structure \Reports \jan23OffAgenda_2.doc
F:CP /Alameda Theater /Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/
Section 106 Findings — 2005
F: CP /Alameda Theater /Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/
Staff Reports (Non - Confidential)
Honorable Chair and February 9, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION
This is for information only,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
Di \ision
Jen ife Ott
De - lopment Manager
DK/LAL/DES /JO:ry
Attachment
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Reference Binder
G:\ Comdev \econdev\Jennifer\Parking Structure \Reports \jan230ffAgenda_2.doc
F:CP /Alameda Theater /Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/
Section 106 Findings — 2005
F: CP /Alameda Theater /Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project
Staff Reports (Non - Confidential)
Attachment A
Mitigation Measures Related to Section 106 Review
Mitigation AES -I: Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Issuance of a Certificate of
Approval by the City's Historic Advisory Board for structural alterations to the Alameda
theater with project review and comments to the Planning Board would be required.
Additionally, design review and approval by the Alameda Planning Board would be
required to finalize the architectural design of the proposed project. To ensure that the
final, more detailed project architectural design remains consistent with pertinent City
visual and urban design policies and with state and federal historic preservation
standards -- i.e., the U.S. Secretary of the interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Restoration, retain an independent historic preservation professional to review the
project plans and specifications for consistency with these policies and standards. The
retained independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed
Historic Preservation' Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic
Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning and /or Architectural History. Final Historical
Advisory Board certification of the structural alterations to the Alameda theater and
review and Planning Board approval of the project design review shall include
consideration of these independent review findings and any associated design
refinement recommendations. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would
ensure that any adverse project visual incompatibility impacts would be reduced to a
less- than - significant level.
Mitigation HIST -I: Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources. To
assure project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal
standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the
interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural
alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the
required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda
Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project
plans and specifications by a professional engaged in historic preservation. The review
professional shall meet the Secretary of the interior's Proposed Historic Preservation
Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic
Preservation Planning, and /or Architectural History. Project commitment to this
mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
G:\ Comdev\ econdevlienni rcr \Thcatcr\SHP(>\attachment a.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
Chronology of
Section 106 Review Process
This chronology outlines the process followed by the City to involve the community in the
design process and in implementing its Section 106 review process.
• February 2005 — In response to IS/EA mitigation measures, City retains Mr.
Robert Bruce Anderson, a qualified independent historic preservation
professional, to evaluate project compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration.
• February 3, 2005 -- HAB holds study session regarding Alameda Theater,
Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
• February 14, 2005 — Planning Board holds study session regarding Alameda
Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project.
• February 28, 2005 — Planning Board study session to review Design Guidelines
for cineplex component of the project.
• March 14, 2005 — Planning Board study session to review revisions to Design
Guidelines for cineplex component of the project.
• March 15, 2005 — City Council approves Design Guidelines for cineplex
component of the project.
• March 28, 2005 — Planning Board considers Design Review for parking garage
component of the project.
• April 7, 2005 — HAB considers proposed designs of cineplex and parking
garage.
• May 9, 2005 — Planning Board approves Preliminary Design Acceptance of
proposed parking garage and cineplex designs.
• May 2005 — Based on the designs preliminarily accepted by the Planning Board,
Mr. Anderson completes his Section 106 review and prepares a Section 106
Review and Findings Report for all three components of the project.
• June 2, 2005 — HAB approves issuance of Certificate of Approval for structural
alterations to the Alameda Theater; requests additional review of proposed
Alameda Theater exterior storefront design; considers Mr. Anderson's Section
106 report; and provides comments to Planning Board regarding proposed
designs of cineplex and parking garage.
• June 13, 2005 — Planning Board hears public comment on final Design Review
of cineplex and parking garage designs. There is significant public participation;
meeting is continued to subsequent June 27, 2005 meeting.
• June 27, 2005 — Planning Board considers Section 106 Report and HAB
comments and approves Design Review of cineplex and parking garage.
• July 7, 2005 — June 27, 2005 Planning Board decision is appealed to the City
Council.
• August 4, 2005 — City presents proposed storefront design of Alameda Theater
including material boards and samples to HAB. HAB provides feedback to City
staff.
• August 16, 2005 City Council considers appeal and upholds Planning Board
Design Review approval of cineplex and garage designs contingent on revisions
to the designs.
• September 2005 - City retains Komorous -Towey Architects (KTA) to develop
revised designs for both cineplex and parking garage in response to City Council
comments at August 16, 2005 meeting.
• September 29, 2005 - Planning Board approves final Use Permit for project for
(1) movie theater use; (2) 58 -foot cineplex height; and (3) extended hours of
operation for theater.
• October 10, 2005 - September 29, 2005 Planning Board Use Permit approval is
appealed to the City Council.
• November 1, 2005 - City Council accepts revised designs of cineplex and
parking garage presented by KTA, and upholds Planning Board Use Permit
approval.
• December 2005 — Mr. Anderson prepares updated Section 106 Review and
Findings Report for revised cineplex and parking garage designs.
• January 5, 2006 - HAB considers Mr. Anderson's report in response to the
revised designs and provide comments to City Council.
• January through March 2006 - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviews project for compliance with Secretary of Interior's Standards and
discusses potential design refinements with City.
ARCHITECT
Architects
EKES GROUP
ators, Inc.
To. Jennifer Ott
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
Project.
Project
Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation
03073.11
Date February 7, 2006
Phone 510.749.5831
Fax 510.749.5808
Via: E -mail jott @ci.alameda.ca.us
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
Pier 9, The Embarcadero
San Francisco
California
94111
415.421.1680
fax 415.421 .0127
www.argsf.com
Remarks.
As requested, I have reviewed the information on the website for the Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda
( "CFMA ") in order to evaluate how the group's proposed "Alternative Vision" would impact the historic
integrity of the Alameda Theatre. The information on the website is very conceptual in nature, and it is
difficult to understand the specific details of their proposal without floor plans to indicate the size and
configuration of the proposed theatres. In the interest of providing feedback to the City of Alameda, I have
made certain assumptions about the proposed five - theatre scheme. In addition to providing feedback on the
potential impacts to the historic theatre, I have also taken the opportunity to address some erroneous
assumptions on the website regarding the City's currently proposed project t( "Project" ).
I. CFMA PROPOSAL
I visited the website on February 7, 2006 and downloaded a copy of the CFMA alternative proposal, a copy
of which is attached to this memorandum for your reference. The website states that CFMA is proposing a
five- screen alternative as follows`
Theatres:
"At this time we believe that the best configuration would be to utilize the balcony for two screens, the area
under the balcony, currently filled with offices and storage, would be configured for two more screens, and
the main house in front of the balcony area would house one screen, resulting in a five theatre venue. The
ARCHITECT
Architects,
E CES ` GROUP
Mors, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
Alternative Vision proposes 1,000 total seats including 150 seats each in the two balcony theaters; 175 seats
each in the two theaters under the balcony; and the remaining 350 seats in the main auditorium.
Concession Stand:
"It maintains the size of the original concession stand — already designed to feed twice the number of people
who will ever be in the theatre at one time."
II. IMPACTS TO THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE ALAMEDA THEATRE
Without floor plans to understand the exact size and configuration of the proposed theatres and concession
stand, it is difficult to evaluate the impact on the historic theatre. I have developed the following comments
based on the seat counts:
Balcony Theatres (150 seats each): These balcony theatres appear to be planned for both the upper and
lower mezzanine balconies. If so, a wall will be necessary at the mezzanine balcony edge to separate the
balcony theatres from the main auditorium. A wall at the edge of the balcony impacts the ceiling of the
historic auditorium, and would bisect the original chandelier and decorative trim. In our view, doing so
would seriously alter the buildings historic character. By contrast, the City's currently proposed Project
maintains the lower mezzanine balcony for additional main auditorium seating (in a future phase), with the
ceiling chandelier and decoration maintained in their original configuration. The future theatres are proposed
in the upper balcony area only, where two small theaters already exist and the theater walls do not impact the
chandelier.
Under Balcony Theatres (175 seats each): Under the first alternative described on the web site, two side
theatres are described for the area under the balcony. According to the website, these side theatres would
cover about one -third of the main floor, although the seat count indicates a much larger floor- area- coverage.
The size of these theatres would have a greater impact on the Main Auditorium than the City's proposed
Concession Area, Storage and Offices, which would consist, of approximately one fourth of the main floor.
Under the second option, the website describes utilizing the two retail outlets on either side of the lobby
entrance as the additional theatres. Closing these retail spaces would create blank facades along the
streetscape of Central Avenue, creating a less pedestrian- friendly environment on an important retail block in
the heart of the City's downtown. Additionally, closing the retail spaces deviates significantly from the
original design and function of this space. By contrast, the City's proposal restores this space to its, original
use as retail. In addition, the retail space on the west side of the main entrance is quite small (744 square
feet) to accommodate a theatre at the size indicated, potentially reducing the number of-total seats to well
below 1,000 seats.
Main Auditorium (350 seats): If the area under the balcony in the existing main auditorium, is used for two
theaters with 175 seats each, as proposed on the website, the size and scale of the main auditorium will have
to be reduced by more than what is currently being proposed by the City, resulting in a greater impact to the
historic structure as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
Concession: The location and size of the concession stand is unclear, since the website references the
"original concession" stand. However, the original drawings we have for the Alameda Theatre do not
indicate an original concession stand. From the description of the location of the five theatres, I assume the
A RCHITECT
Architec
CESGROUP
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
concession stand would be located in the lobby area. This would have a greater impact on the historic lobby
than the proposed Project because it would alter the original configuration of the lobby. By contrast, the
City's proposed Project retains the lobby in its original configuration without a concession stand.
In sum, from a historic resource perspective, implementing CFMA's proposed alternative would have a
greater impact on the significant historic spaces and features of the Alameda Theatre than the City's
proposed project, since many of the City's program elements are included in the new cineplex building.
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
In addition to the description of the five- screen theatre, the CFMA website also included comments on
certain elements of the City's proposed Project. I provide the following clarifications on the elements of the
Project that appear to have been misunderstood:
Live Performances: The website states that an added benefit of their proposal is a fully retractable screen
that would allow occasional use of the main auditorium for live performances. However, the proposed
Project already allows live performances on the existing stage through the use of a moveable screen.
Water Underneath the Floor:
The website states that the water underneath the floor had nothing to do with water tables or tidal action, but
was simply the result of draining the water fountain under the orchestra pit. From a cost and ongoing
maintenance standpoint, this is a complex and important issue that should be understood clearly. Water has
not been evident under the orchestra pit, but has been evident in the basement and in the tunnels adjacent to
the Boiler House. The water appeared during the winter months, and, after extensive analysis, seems related
to a combination of factors that includes site runoff and misrouted roof drainage.
Balcony: The website states that the balcony is not proposed for use in the City's proposed Project because
of the space allegedly displaced by creating a huge wall and connection to the proposed new building.
However, the balcony is not impacted by any huge wall or connection. Development of the balcony (two
theatres in the upper balcony and seating in the lower balcony as part of the Main Auditorium) is proposed as
a future phase of the proposed Project. The connection to the new building will be through existing doors
and will not impact or limit use of the balcony.
Wheelchair Accessibility: The website describes options for accessibility only to the mezzanine and the
restrooms via a wheelchair lift without accounting for access to the balcony area. Disabled access to these
upper levels will be required to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) code requirements. By contrast,
the City's proposed Project addresses accessibility comprehensively and provides an accessible path of travel
throughout the entire theatre including to the stage, main auditorium accessible seating, mezzanine, and
restrooms as well as the lower balcony (which is on a different level then the mezzanine). This accessible
path of travel is accomplished by the multi- stopped elevator, located in the cineplex, and a ramp located on
the west side of the building.
Infrastructure Systems Costs: The website states that "According to one f uiner planner we spoke to, the
bulk of the renovation costs, about $7 million, will go to infrastructure systems (heating, cooling, lighting),
that would have powered not only the old theatre, but the new construction, too." In reality, the
ARCHITECT
Architect
ft
CES GROUP
ators, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Page 4
infrastructure systems for the renovation - -- including electrical, mechanical, fire protection and plumbing in
the City's proposed Project - -- relate only to the historic theatre. None of these systems will be shared with
the new construction.
By Naomi Miroglio
E-mail' naomi @argsf.com
CC.' file
HOME PAGE: ALTERNATIVE VISION
OVERVIEW THE FIVE-SCREEN ALTERNATIVE
DOWNTOWN VISION PHYSICAL AMENITIES
LAND USE SOCIAL AMENITIES
PARKING COSTS
FEASIBILITY OF ONE THEATER REVENUES
������0�M&��7�����
�������������
Our grassroots group is comprised of Alamedans who not only want to be a active citizens in the
realization of the great future that Alameda has | but have of credible experierice
We have people that have held managernent level positionsin the fields of Finance, Risk Analysis,
Theatre Management, Venture Capitalism, Social re-development, Project Management, Audit, as well
as afl fields of the Arts.
This diverse group has devised a clearly superior alternative to the current plan, in which building
mass and height would not be a concern. We believe that this alternative is superior in three
specific ways.
1. Our business model provides for greater streams of diversified streams of revenues that would he
less risky than the proposed plan.
2. We believe that we have an alternative that would reduce the overall costs while still delivering on
the needs of the Park Street Shopping district and the people of Alameda.
3. Finally, we believe that our motlel will maximize the return of this investment, not only
economically, but just as importantly socially.
There are seven major points of this superior plan. Our exciting alternative will:
• Maximize use of the historic theater while preserving the look and feel of the original design.
• Provide— ' number of parking spaces (350) in a configuration that is less obtrusive
than the proposed 6-level garage, is safer for children, and fully responsive to the needs of Park
Street merchants and their customers.
• Provide approximately 1000 theater seats, a number that is consistent with the number of
parking spaces t at have been approved.
• Is based on a realistic business model that includes multiple screens (5), and multiple,
additional streams of revenue for the developer/manager, but also reduces construction and
ongoing maintenance costs.
• Provide a modest "town plaza" consistent with citizens' vision of a civic center/community
gathering space.
• Offer amenities to support children, youth, families and elders as part of the "retail mix".
• Is consistent with the City's General Plan.
This alternative represents but one of several possible'soiuUons. Let's open the door to cooperative
and creative people working together to finally settle on a solution that will provide what everyone has
been saying they want.
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/alt_one.htm
unuuea rage z or to
Let's go to the movies!
back to top
DOWNTOWN VISION
Three points stood out in the lengthy visioning process that began in October 1999. These points are
repeated in the reports of the workshop summaries, the stakeholder interview summary report, the
priority action plan draft, and even in the Alameda downtown vision implementation draft.
Point One - The people agreed during all aspects of the visioning process that increasing
cultural, arts and entertainment opportunities is a priority.
Our clearly superior alternative, which incorporates a filmmaking education center and performing art
capacity, clearly follows the spirit of section 6.4 of the city's General Plan, which states in part: "The
need for an arts center was strongly felt by participants in a community workshop on the General
Plan, who spoke of the richness of Alameda's artistic life and the lack of performance, rehearsal,
exhibit, and classroom facilities,"
Point Two - The people agreed that improving circulation, transportation and parking for
downtown is a priority.
Included in this discussion point was the desire to "create a more pedestrian- oriented and accessible
environment, ... to develop a parking structure downtown, ... to develop bicycle infrastructure, ... and
to avoid negatively impacting nearby residential streets." Our superior traffic and parking alternative,
helps us fulfill that vision. Dispersed parking also enhances business throughout the district.
Point Three - The people agreed that preserving and building upon the historic "Home
Town" character of downtown is a priority.
Included here was an emphasis on "Victorian, Art Deco and arts /craft heritage as a source of civic
pride and marketing." The city's current plan relies on a massive building and a six -level parking
structure that has become a flashpoint for those concerned about the erosion of the city's character.
Instead, we offer a city plaza that welcomes people to sit and meet in a public space. The structures in
our superior alternative are in keeping with the city's codes. Perhaps most importantly, the beauty of
the Alameda Theater is preserved as the historic structure stands out rather than being overshadowed
and playing second fiddle.
We now have a clearly superior alternative that allows us to go forward without contradicting or
compromising the people's vision.
back to top
LAND USE
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .conl/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
rage J Ul lU
How we create and maintain public spaces is one of the main ways we define ourselves as a
community.
In our clearly superior alternative, by fully utilizing the historic structure we make construction of a
large new cineplex unnecessary. That opens up land and frees up a modest budget to create a
welcoming public space that is human - friendly, preserves vistas and is responsive to both the General
Plan and the visioning process.
Our work boiled down to two possible options. This is one of them.
The building- parking and retail -is significantly lower than the theater and set back from the sidewalk,
freeing up approximately 9,000 square feet of space for a modest town plaza.
This plaza will include benches, planters, a fountain, and public art, reinforcing and showcasing the
theme of the historic theater and Alameda's movie history. ,
This proposal makes sense for several reasons
® A lower 3 -story structure will be compatible with the massing of the church across the street
and will provide gradual transition between a commercial and a residential zone. A fountain or a
sculpture at the corner will fulfil aesthetic need and act as a connecting element between the
two architecturally significant buildingsa of the theater and the Twin Towers Church across the
street.
• Setting the new building back will reveal the rounded corner and rosette of the theater from the
west side and create excitement and anticipation for visitors.
® The setback will also be in keeping with the openness of the three other corners: The Historic
High School, the Church, and Paul's Produce.
• The garage will have retail space on two floors on the Central Avenue side, and on the first floor
on the Oak Street side, per Alameda's General Plan. The space will serve the needs of the
theater as outlined in the Amenities section of our proposal to make it one of the most
competitive theaters in the area.
We believe that our clearly superior alternative, which calls for an attractive public space next to the
theater, rather than mere infil construction, will invite people to linger and spend more time
downtown, and will serve both businesses and the needs of the community better.
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com/alt_one.htm
2/7/2006
Untitled Page 4 of 10
back to top
PARKING
A parking solution that would supply theater parking, serve the merchants on Park Street, be
conducive to civic business and would minimize traffic impacts is dispersed parking. The Park Street
Streetscape and Town Center Plan of 2002 went into great detail on how we could accomplish all this
by utilizing shared, dispersed parking.
First, shared parking uses existing spaces. Businesses that are closed on nights and weekends
throughout the length of Park Street could share their lots with the public during closed business
hours. The streetscape study spells out 203 potential spaces. By utilizing these lots we would
encourage foot traffic throughout all of downtown.
Regarding a parking structure, Citizens for Megaplex Free Alameda, agree with results of the parking
study and support the Elks Lodge site as our preferred option, as it would allow a half -acre park to be
built next to the theater, per the General Plan. Parking for those with special needs could be facilitated
at the public lot directly across the street from the theater.
However, because we recognize that a developer may absolutely want a parking garage next to the
theater, and we want to be responsive to this desire, we are proposing that a garage built at the
theater site be no taller than 3 stories so as not to out -mass the surrounding buildings. A three-story
structure properly designed would hold up to 180 cars. It would be set back to minimize
negative aesthetic impact, and help maintain a small town "look and feel." It would include ground
floor retail (as recommended by the General' Plan), theater- related amenities and /or top floor garden,
coffee shops, etc.
Such a structure next to the theater together with identified dispersed parking and the possible
development of the Bank of America and Elks lots would easily accommodate the approved 350
needed parking spaces and more, while at the same time distributing auto and foot traffic rather than
centralizing it. Also, by having a parking structure no taller than three stories, safety issues are
mitigated.
In sum, a dispersed parking model is fully responsive to the needs of the Park Street merchants and
their customers and is line with the plan previously developed on their behalf.
back to top
HISTOBRIC THEATERVAR MOVIES LY THE
1. The Alameda Theatre was designed for public capacity of at least 2200, with a main floor capacity
of 1800 seats.
2. The proposal by Alameda Entertainment Associates, calls for a highly raked small stadium style
theatre of less than 500 seats.
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
V llLlu%,u
rage 3 Ul 1U
3. To date, there has been no public disclosure of the floor plan for this small theatre, but by any
accounting this sounds like fuzzy math.
The floor space in the historic theatre is quite grand, and the slope of the seating area, designed in
1931 is similar to that of the local Paramount, and Grand Lake theatres.
Rather than waste the majority of the beautiful theatre interior with offices and concession services,
we are calling for the reconfiguration of the existing theatre, space, in to actual theatres.
At this time we believe that the best configuration would be to utilize the balcony for two screens, the
area under the balcony, currently filled with offices and storage, would be configured for two more
screens, and the main house in front of the balcony area would house one screen, resulting in a five
theatre venue.
This configuration would serve approximately 1000+ patrons. This would achieve the goal of a
profitable attendance base for the theatre, as well as the, customer traffic hoped for by Park Street
merchants.
This proposal provides a flexible approach to achieving the original goal of what the citizens wanted all
along. Restoration of the Historic Alameda Theatre, for movies, and public events, is the corner stone
of a real civic center.
back to top
THE FIVE SCREEN ALTERNATIVE
The configuration of a multiplex within the historical theater.
Putting 1000 people into a theater that was built for 2000 does not require compromising the integrity
of the original theater or destroying the original architecture. To the contrary, it keeps more of the
theater as theater. It maintains the size of the original concession stand - already designed to feed
twice the number of people who will ever be in the theater at one time. It preserves the fabulous art
that decorates walls and ceilings. It allows for period - matched furnishings that, while not exact
replicas, preserve the original look and feel, and it preserves the existing retail spaces as additional
revenue streams.
We need look no farther than the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, a 4- screen Cineplex with a capacity
for 1550 patrons, for another historic treasure that has maximized its capacity without compromising
original architecture or interior design. In fact, the city's own documents, as part of its campaign to
bring back the theater, identify the Grand Lake as a model for Alameda, noting its hugely impressive
2004 average gross revenue of $400k, per screen. Indeed, with a full restoration to match the Grand
Lake, division of the balcony into two, and the main floor into three, auditoriums, the Alameda Theater
can achieve the same success while retaining more of the original architectural design than planned in
the current proposal.
The sloped floor of the main auditorium would be returned to its original state. This would allow
restoration of the orchestra pit, and would provide more seating space than stadium seating does.
This combination, with a fully retractable main screen, has an added benefit: It' would allow the
occasional use of the main auditorium for live performances. (Our research suggests the reason for
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
unutiea Page 6 of 10
water underneath the floor had nothing to do with water tables or tidal action, but was simply the
result of draining the water fountain under the orchestra pit, so there is no real impediment to
restoring a sloped floor.)
The balcony that is not being used in the current plan (because of the space displaced by creating a
huge wall and connection to the proposed new building) could then be fully utilized once, more- again,
as two theaters, each with about 150 (or more ? ?) seats. Having a digital, rather than traditional film
set up for those theaters, would reduce the cost of creating sound barriers and could provide a great
venue for locally produced digital media, which is included in the public amenities part of our superior
alternative.
That's the easy part. The obvious question is where do the other two theaters come from? Actually,
there are two ways to do it, proposed to us by two different potential developers.
The first would use the areas directly under the balcony (about a third of the main floor; the same size
as what Developer Connor calls the main auditorium) . it would turn that space into two side theaters,
approached through the main entrance. They would each have about 175 seats, about 25 percent
fewer total than the 500 in the first third of the theater.
The second option would restore the main auditorium to its original size, and use the
on either side of the lobby entrance as the additional theaters.
wo retail outlets
How do we deal with wheelchair accessibility issues? By using common sense and following the true
sprit of the law that requires "reasonable accommodation." We would make the existing men's
bathroom wheel chair accessible. Yes, that means we would have to give up the original bathroom
fixtures, and replace tile with a similar style not an exact period match. The women's bathroom has
already been remodeled in this way. We don't think the movie experience of most Alamedan's depend
on men having the exact bathroom fixtures of 70 years ago, especially when women don't have them,
and the price of retaining them is denying access to the disabled. However, if this point is a stopper
we could convert the room outside the women's bathroom to a unisex or men's, wheelchair accessible
bathroom.
As far as access to the second floor. The short answer is think "lift" not elevator. It doesn't fulfill the
desires of everyone who might prefer to ride, instead of walk the stairs. It does meet the needs of
people who have legitimate mobility limitations. With creative, art deco design of the exterior, it
provides universal access, without requiring - or being the justification for - construction of a whole
new building.
The short answer to the most obvious immediate question is "how much will it cost ? ". According to
potential developers we talked, the total renovation would be less than the $9.5 million now allotted
just to be able to use the main floor.
Why the discrepancy?
1) We are willing to go with authentic period pieces of similar, not exactly same design if needed.
2) We believe common sense overrules pure preservation on some issues, like since bigger chairs
have to be purchased anyway to accommodate our collective obesity, we would opt for modern era
chairs that have cupholders built in, to save on maintenance costs.
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
4. a5v 1 va J. v
3) According to one former planner we spoke to, the bulk of the renovation costs, about $7 million,
will go to infrastructure systems (heating, cooling, lighting), that would have powered not only the old
theater, but the new construction too.
4) Another big chunk involves costs of an elevator and completely new big, wheelchair accessible
bathroom that would have been in the new building. We would go with a smaller, less expensive lift
and no new bathroom.
back to top
PHYSICAL AMENITIES
In order to ensure that the theater thrives, we feel it's beneficial to have a diversified array of
businesses on that block which can function as profit centers by themselves, but which can also help
boost attendance for the theater.
One of the key shortcomings of the current plan is that it offers no such businesses - no room. Our
plan proposes them in the space where we are NOT building the Cineplex.
First, our plan involves a child activity center. The center will be open during the day, when it can take
advantage of newly available parking. But it will also be open during primetime evening hours, so
Alameda parents desperate for a night out can drop off their children and see a movie. It's a five -way.
win:
1.1. Parents get relief from the hassle of finding a babysitter, and may save a bit on that cost.
1.2. The child -care provider gets the benefit of theater traffic, making for a robust business plan.
1.3. The theater gets higher attendance from a key Alameda demographic. It also gets a distinctive
edge on the other 93 movie screens within a 10 -mile radius, none of which have an adjacent child
activity center.
1.4. The city gets solid rental income from another healthy business.
1.5. Kids get a fun place to play with other kids (activities, games, movies, snacks) instead of an
isolated experience at home.
Second, we recommend a destination restaurant as a ground -floor anchor. This will be a restaurant
similar to Chow, which has 3 locations in the Bay Area, serves great food that Alamedans would love,
and grosses seven figures from each operation. Such a restaurant's popularity would serve the theater
well, drawing from Oakland as well as from all of Alameda.
Third, we envision what we call period entertainment, in the form of a stylish pinball cafe or parlor,
similar to Webster Street's Juju Pinball. Such a business would attract the key age18 -24 demographic
for the theater, while remaining in keeping with the historic theme.
Fourth, see section on social amenities that includes the benefits of a media production lab for
enriching the city's cultural life and providing our young people with valuable skills and a great
creative outlet.
Together, these businesses will make for a healthy theater operation, will add richness and diversity to
the downtown commercial base, will make life easier for parents, and will help meet our responsibility
to the young people of Alameda.
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
Untitled
SOCIAL AMENITIES
Offering public amenities with public funds
Page 8 of 10
back to top
Exercising the right of eminent domain puts a strong burden on the city to provide public amenities to
justify that action. Because redevelopment funds are being used, there need to be economic returns
as well. We offer a model that meets both standards.
Picture this: a true public center that includes not only multiple choices for movie goers, but an
elegant performing arts space, something requested by citizens and recommended in the General
Plan; a close by quality child activity center; a soundproof baby room right inside the theater; a media
production lab, where youth in our community could be creators, not just consumers of programming.
Picture an open space in front of the theater, just the right size for a safe place to sit, talk, flirt, gossip
and people watch. Young people and old people, rich people and poor people, people of diverse
religious and ethnic backgrounds all go to movies. On our way to different movies, we could pause in
shared space. It would have no other purpose than to invite diverse members of our community to
take a seat on a shared bench. There we would truly encounter each other and strengthen our
community.
Imagine both the child activity center and the media production center being part of service learning
options for the high school. Imagine our students being paid to work at both places. Imagine them
getting school credit for their work, and school attendance being a requirement for participation.
Imagine yourself sitting in the audience and instead of seeing an endless stream of commercial
previews, seeing this week's sports highlights, stories, public service announcements and cartoons -
all created by Alameda youth. Imagine a portion of every ticket sold going back to the nonprofit
production center to sustain the creation of that programming.
This isn't a pie in the sky vision. It CAN happen here. We hold the keys to deciding whether it WILL, or
whether we will settle for something that is so much less. Let's opt for the superior alternative.
back to top
COSTS
Our superior alternative creates a much better financial situation for the city, and taxpayers of
Alameda.
It looks like somewhere along the line all we have missed a business basic that: the best financial plan
is one that offers the least risk to all financial parties - the town, we taxpayers and the operator of the
new theater. The superior alternative presented here means substantially less financial and legal risk
to everyone.
The superior alternative means no construction of a new Cineplex - this is a huge reduction in risk
from a cost standpoint - NO NEW Cineplex construction, no risk of millions in Cineplex cost overruns,
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
.L J1 1
Bay Bridge come to mind?
NO multi - million dollar Cineplex construction loan, no risk of a default on a loan with the taxpayers to
foot the bill.
NO second building with heating and utility bills when energy prices are rising at double- digit rates -
No new Cineplex, no operating costs for it.
Reducing business and financial risk also requires reducing legal exposure. There is the almost certain
risk of increased personal injury and exploitation of children, if an unsupervised six -story parking
garage is placed so close to a school.
From a financial risk perspective, that doesn't make good sense. The City is already facing a lawsuit
for not doing due diligence in looking for negative environmental impact. A much smaller garage near
the school means less risk of personal injury lawsuits.
back to top
REVENUES
Regarding the mufti-million dollar deficit the proposed project incurs: Let's go right to the source of
the lion's share of that deficit, namely the extremely low lease rates that the Council granted the
developer, Kyle Conner.
The following refers to the rents to be collected from the developer, Mr. Conner, in the first seven
years, for the three sections of the project - the Historic Theater, the Cineplex ground lease, and the
parking garage.
Our numbers are taken straight from the Development Document.
Total annual lease revenue is $94,000. If Mr. Conner grosses more than $3.25 million, the City will
also get 15 cents of every dollar over that. But not even Mr. Conner projects much more than a $4
million gross. That would boost lease revenue to the $200,000 range.
The city's own consultant, Keyser Marston, maintains that 15% of gross sales is a fair market lease
rate. But on his first $3.25 million in revenue, Mr. Conner pays just 3% of gross sales. Even at $4
million in revenue, his rent is just 5% of gross.
Why are lease revenues so low in the current plan? Very simply, because the City gave the developer
massive breaks in the first seven years. This includes a mere $10,000 annual payment for unlimited
parking in a $9.7 million garage.
By comparison, our Clearly Superior Alternative, which conforms to the existing height restriction,
roughly triples the lease revenue for the City. These estimates are derived from standard industry
statistics, market -rate leases, and at least one bona fide offer the city has received for the project.
How do we do it?
First, we fully utilize the historic theater space, while the current plan leaves two potential balcony
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
Untitled Page 10 of 10
theaters shuttered. More seats, more revenue, more rent.
Second, in our Plan, the City builds and leases out the retail and office space on the site at market
rates, rather than the deep- discount ground lease of the current plan.
Third, because there's no Cineplex in our plan, there's room for our amenities in the project footprint,
including a child activity center, an anchor restaurant, and a pinball cafe. Unlike the Cineplex, they will
pay rent from Dollar One. As we show tonight, they will support the theater's business, diversify
commerce on that block, and add jobs.
To do all this, we DO NOT violate the district height restrictions, because in the absence of the
Cineplex, we build out as well as up, and because our smaller -scale plan fits a smaller garage.
Our plan is the fiscally responsible one for Alameda. After 26 years, we deserve better, and this is it
back to top
http:// www. stopalamedamegaplex .com/alt_one.htm 2/7/2006
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
REDEVELOPMENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECOr4OMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C KELLY
KATE EARLE FUNK
DEBBIE M. KERN
ROBERT J. WETMOR.E
LOS ANGELES
CALVIN E. HOLLIS.
KATHLEEN H. 11 FAO
JAMES A. RABE
PAUL C. ANDERSON
GRECORY SOO-HOO
SAN DIEGO
GERALD M. TRIMBL E
PAUL C MARRA
To:
From:
Date:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ,
Jennifer Ott
Tim Kelly
March 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Historic Theater - Alternative Vision
Introduction
ATTACHMENT 4
The purpose of this memorandum is to comment on the financial viability of the
proposed Alternative Vision project based on the information available on the Citizens
for a Megaplex Free Alameda ("CFMA") website. The CM FA proposal is presented as an
alternative to the C IC's proposed project that would offer the public the abili ty to see
newly released commercial first run movies in a state of the art viewing experience with
wide screens, sound systems, and seating. Separately, Architectural Resources Group
is offering an assessment of the physical and historical presentation aspects of the
CMFA Alternative Vision proposal.
CIC Project
The CIC-approved theater project (CIC Project) consists of approximately 484 seats in
the main auditorium and a newly constructed building with approximately 1,042 seats in
seven screens. Overall, the CIC Project would have approximately 1,526 seats in eight
screens. Ground floor retail space in the historic theater and in the new building would
front along Central Avenue.
Development of the balcony (two auditoriums in the upper balcony and seating in the
lower balcony as part of the Main Auditorium) is proposed as a future phase of the C IC's
proposed Project. The cost to create the balcony auditoriums including Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements related to each individual auditorium, would solely
be funded by the operator.
55 PACIFIC AVENUE MALL >. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 S PHONE: 415 398 3050 FAX: 415 397 5065
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM
006-004; tk
10004.007
To: Jennifer Ott March 8, 2006
Subject: Historic Theater - Alternative Vision Page 2
The CIC Project also includes a new, multi -level public parking structure with
approximately 350 spaces. The CIC's ability to finance the garage is directly tied to the
income from the Project. CIC annual rental payments from the theater operator and from
the retail space tenants in the historic building are important sources of income to fund
the debt service for the public garage financing and total approximately $154,000 per
year. The theater operator would pay CIC an annual rent of $72,000 per year for use of
the historic building and an annual ground 1 ease rent of $12,000 per year for the parcel
on which the new building is constructed. Additionally, CIC would receive the annual
rental income from tenants in the historic theater retail spaces of approximately $70,000
per year.
CMFA Alternative Vision Project
The CMFA Alternative Vision project (Alternative Project) is proposed to have the movie
auditoriums solely in the historic theater. The proposal is for approximately 1,000 seats
in five screens, including approximately 350 seats in the main auditorium, 175 seats
each in two auditoriums under the balcony, and approximately 150 seats each i n the two
auditoriums in the balcony.
On the parcel adjoining the historic theater, a multi level commercial building and plaza
would be constructed. The prospective tenants are envisioned to be a media production
lab for youth, a child activity center, and a food establishment.
The proposed public parking structure on the adjacent site (former Video Maniacs
property) would hold up to 180 spaces. T he Elks Lodge site is identified as a potential
alternative location for the public garage.
Issues
Alternative Project Theater Viability-- Ability to Finance and Payment to CIC
The information provided on the CM FA website does not provide financial evidence of
the ability of the theater operations to generate sufficient revenue to cover operating
expenses, to fund FF &E costs (fixture, furniture and equipment such as a concession
area and ticketing system, plus new state -of- the -art seats, screens and sound systems
in each auditorium), to fund the capital costs not financed by CIC (such as cost to build
the auditoriums in the balcony), to provide a return to investors, and to pay rent to CIC.
006-004; tk
10004.007
To: Jennifer Ott March 8, 2006
Subject: Historic Theater - Alternative Vision Page 3
The ability of the theater operator to finance its operati ons and to pay rent is a function of
gross revenues. The Renaissance Grand Lake Theater in Oakland with its four screens
and over 1,600 seats is reportedly achieving estimated gross box - office sales of
approximately $1.4 million. The Grand Lake is 50% greater in the number of seats than
the Alternative Project (1,600 seats to 1,042 seats). If the Alternative Project gross box -
office sales are proportional to Grand Lake, then the potential gross box -office sales
would be approximately $900,000. Based on our experience in evaluating theaters, a
cinema with this level of gross box -office sales may generate a sufficient level of
revenue to cover operating expenses and to fun d equipment costs but not generate
sufficient revenue to fund significant capital costs and, pay rent to CIC.
Alternative Project New Commercial Building - Ability to Finance and Payment to CIC
The ability to finance a new building is an issue that should be addressed., The multi-
level building with its high architectural design will be expensive to construct. The
developer must provide a construction lender with the necessary financial guarantees
and equity commitment in order to obtain financing. At this time there is no evidence of
who the developer of the building might be their development experience, and their
willingness to invest private capital into the building.
The ability of the developer of the new commercial building to pay CIC is not addressed.
There is no evidence that the prospective tenants would pay a rent necessary to cover
operating expenses, pay the m ortgage, provide the developer /investor with a reasonable
return, and also pay CIC.
Parking Garage
CIC has already secured a commitment for a $7- million HUD Section 8 loan for the
public garage. The CIC financing is tied to one garage on the proposed site
Furthermore, rental income from the historic building (theater operator and retail tenants)
and the CIC annual ground lease rent for the adjoining parcel are critical sources of
funding for the garage financing. Under the Alternative Vision, the loss of CIC rental
income needed to finance the gar age is a serious concern and would negativ ely affect
the ability to obtain the loan now being used to finance the g arage.
The timing of opening the garage with sufficient parking is critical since a theater cannot
generate the necessary box- office sales if there is insufficient parking. Generating strong
box - office sales is important for reasons stated above.
006-004; tk
10004.007
To: Jennifer Ott March 8, 2006
Subject: Historic Theater - Alternative Vision ' ^ Page 4
E!ks Lodge Site Parking Garage
Under the Alternative Vision, itis` clear h the Elks Lodge site be
financed. The lack of site control and the uncertainty of how to fund the garage represent
�' delay
. . hb^ ^' ' ' parking.
Additional Comments
The CFMA website also included comments on certain elements o he CIC Project. We
would like to clarify and correct certain statements.
Sizeof Main Auditorium: CMFA characterizes the main auditorium in the CIC P ject as
a "highly-raked small stadium-style theate of less than 500 seats." #2 under "Feasibility
of Developing Only the Historic Theater for Movies."
Response: Compared to the average-sized' auditorium in newly constructed theaters, a
480-seat auditorium would be cons idered a large auditorium. Most auditoriums in newly
constructed theaters range from 150 to 250 seats. The main auditorium in the CIC
Project would be one of the largest and most architecturally interesting in the East Bay.
Retail S in Historic Theater Converted to Auditoriums: As an alternative to
"="°". 175-seat auditoriums unde the balcony, the CMFAwebsite describes utilizing
the two retail outlets on either side of the lobby entrance as additional auditoriums.
Response: If the intent is to create a modern auditorium, which is the
intent of the CIC Project, it is not physically possible to construct such anad~ ium
within the historical building retail space. For example, a modern auditorium has a ceiling
height of approxi mately 30 feet to accommodate the screen which cannot be achieved
in the existing retail space.
Prolect Runs a Deficit: CMFA asserts that the 010 Project ject runs a deficit under the
"Revenues" section.
: The CIC Project does not run a deficit. There are sufficient fund'
sources to pay for the upfront rehabilitation of the theater and the constr uction of the
garage, including al ready-issued redevelopment bond proceeds and an al nded
HUD Section 108 loan.
006-004; tk
To: Jennifer Ott March 8, 2006
Subject: HistohcTheater - AltemotivaV|uion Page 5
There are also sufficient ongoi funding sources to repay the debt on the proj ect The
CIC will repay the debt service on the redevelopment bonds through existing annual tax
increment. The HUD Section 108 loan will be paid with the CIC Project revenume(i.e,
retail income from the theater storefront .buUding|aaooandgoound|eooepaymnenta
from theater operator, repayment of CIC loan by theater operator, and percentage
rents), �p�rkinqgoragohmoo, me and nnet�rnaven��fu�d
fund.
Extremely Low Lease Rates P aid by Theater Operator to CIC: CMFA claims the lease
rates are extremely low and Conner receives financial breaks in the first seven years.
Response: The theater operator does not receive financial breaks. The lease rental rates
paid to CIC for the historic building and for the parcel were determined based on gross
revenues from all sources. In our experience, 15% of gross revenue is a reasonable
amount to pay for payments to C IC plus pay the collective annual payments for new
building loan and the FFE loan. In fact, the theater operator would be paying col lectively
about 17.8%, as shown in the table below. Once the theater oper ator's gross revenues
exceed $3,250,000, the operator would pay CIC 15% of all revenues above that
revenue. We know of no other theater lease in which percentage rent for a theater is at
15% of gross revenues. Most percentage leases are less than 10% of gross revenues.
Historic Building ` Lease
CIC Parcel Ground Lease
New Bui!ding Loan: annua debt service
FFE Financing: annual debt service
Gross Revenues, all sources
$72,000
12,000
84,000
305,433
181,340
$570,773
$3,208,800
17.8%
The theater operator pays Iess in lease revenue ondloonr*paynnonttoC|Cduhngthe
ftrst six years because he is repaying the FF&E loan during that tirne period. Once the
FF&E loan is paid off, the theater oper ator payments to CIC increase.
006-004; tk
ATTACHMENT 5
SECTION 106
REVIEW AND FINDINGS
Rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater
and
Construction of a New
Cineplex and
Public Parking Structure
City of Alameda, California
May 2005
SECTION 106
REVIEW AND FINDINGS
Rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater
and
Construction of a New
Cineplex and
Public Parking Structure
Prepared for:
Community Improvement Commission
City of Alameda, California
Prepared by:
Robert Bruce Anderson
Urban Conservation & Urban Design
May 2005
CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT 1
REHABILITATION OP THE 4
ALAMEDA THEATER
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 8
CINEPLEX
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE
SOURCES 14
APPENDIX
12
ALAMEDA. THEATER REHABILITATION:
PROPOSED TREATMENTS
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT
The purpose of this report is to present certain findings following a review
of plans and drawings regarding a City of Alameda project that consists of three
related undertakings: rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater, construction of a new
cineplex with storefront retail spaces, and construction of a new public parking
structure. Independent review findings and associated design refinements are
specifically called for per Mitigation AES -1 and Mitigation HIST -1 in the Initial
Study /Environmental Assessment document for the proposed project. Further,
such findings and associated design refinements are to be considered by the City's
Historical Advisory Board and Planning Board prior to their respective final actions
to approve plans and specifications for the proposed project.
Section 106. References are made to Section 106 throughout the above -
referenced Initial Study /Environmental Assessment document. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, essentially
provides that Federal agencies must take into account the effects of their
undertakings on properties that either are listed or are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Section 301 (7) of NHPA defines undertaking
as any project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or
indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on
behalf of the agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those
requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval; and those subject to State or local
regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.
The legislative intent of Section 106 is implemented by a process that is
detailed in 36 CFR § 800. [CFR = Code of Federal Regulations]. For purposes of
this review and presentation of findings, and as indicated in the above- referenced
Initial Study /Environmental Assessment document, a portion of 36 CFR § 800.9(c)
is of specific relevance to the purpose of this report: `Effects of an undertaking
that would otherwise be found to be adverse may be considered as being not
adverse for the purpose of these regulations: (2) When the undertaking is limited
to the rehabilitation of buildings and structures and is conducted in a manner that
preserves the historical and architectural value of affected history property through
conformance with the Secretary's `Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings;'... ".
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings (hereinafter referred to as The Secretary's Standards) consists of ten
Standards and numerous Guidelines to determine the appropriateness of proposed
project work subject to Section 106.
With respect to rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater and new construction
of the cineplex and public parking structure, the following four Standards in
particular appear to be directly applicable to making a determination of the
appro priateness of proposed project work:
'2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize .a
property shall be avoided.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,
where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated
by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale
and architectural features-to protect-the historic integrity of the property and its
environment."
2
The Secretary's Standards document referenced above includes numerous
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The Guidelines pertain to historic
buildings of all sizes, materials, occupancy, and construction types; and apply to
interior and exterior work as well as to new exterior additions and related new
construction. Subject by subject, the Guidelines list and briefly describe, under the
heading "Recommended ", those approaches, treatments and techniques that are
consistent with the Standards; and, under the heading "Not Recommended ", those
approaches, treatments and techniques that are not consistent with the Standards.
Of particular interest and potential applicability to the proposed project
work are those Guidelines that address Building Interior: Spaces, Features and
Finishes, and those that address Setting: District /Neighborhood.
REHABILITATION OF THE
ALAMEDA. THEATER
The historic Alameda Theater, which is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places as a contributor to the Park Street Historic Commercial District, is
scheduled for rehabilitation and adaptive use as a modern cinema theater, with
proposed alterations to accommodate a new ticket booth, concession area,
stadium seating and ADA access. Additionally, connections to an adjoining new
cineplex are planned at several locations on its west exterior wall. The budget for
rehabilitation of the historic theater is approximately $5.5 million, a large share of
which is needed to make required seismic improvements as well as installation of
new mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems. Remaining
budget will be used to reestablish interior and exterior historic features and
finishes.
Architectural Resources Group, or ARG, of San Francisco is the architect of
record for rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theater. For several years, and in
various capacities, ARG has conducted feasibility studies and prepared documents
regarding rehabilitation and adaptive use of the subject structure. At this juncture,
ARG is seeking cost estimates on a draft set of 50% construction documents, and
on May 25, intends to submit to the City of Alameda a final set of 50% construction
documents with cost estimates.
For purposes of this report, ARG has prepared a 16 -page matrix that lists
each character - defining feature of the historic structure that is scheduled for some
kind of work. For each character- defining feature, the original status, existing
condition(s), scope of work and type of treatment are briefly described. At the
end of the matrix, under the heading "Developer Scope of Work ", several items
are listed as new design elements that are to be included in rehabilitation of the
historic theater. A copy of ARG's matrix is attached to this report.
A close reading of ARG's matrix as well as a recent walk- through of the
Alameda Theater lead one to an understanding of this rehabilitation work well
worth noting, namely, not all major features and elements of this historic building
4
will be treated as part of this project. For example, the building's exterior will not
be repainted; the auditorium's main ceiling will not be restored; the mezzanine
mural, whose original design was overpainted with a new mural design, will be
left untouched; and the balcony will be inaccessible to the public.
Findings
1.. In general, the proposed treatments for each work item identified in the
rehabilitation scope of work appear to be appropriate, and therefore, in
conformance with The Secretary's Standards. With the exception of certain
items as noted below, ARG has attempted to retain and preserve original
features, materials and finishes whenever and wherever possible, consistent
with available budget.
2. Certain work items lack specificity at this time, due to lack of information
and /or inability to conduct necessary investigation and testing. For example,
existing neon on the marquee is to be repaired and /or replaced, and the
vertical fin sign is to be painted to match the original color scheme. However,
until qualified specialists can obtain access to both the marquee's neon tubing
and the vertical Fin sign, it is not possible to determine actual conditions and,
accordingly, prepare detailed work orders. This present inability to conduct
investigation and testing of the historic building fabric also prevents making a
desired determination of the theater's original exterior paint color and "sparkle"
additive.
3. The original ticket booth, which no longer exists, was a freestanding structure
with metal storefront system and structural glass base, located on the terrazzo
apron. Present plans call for construction of a new ticket booth, to be installed
in the vestibule. This installation would require removal of the center two
pairs of original vestibule exterior doors; frosted glazing of the center two pairs
of original vestibule interior doors; and removal of two original vestibule
ceiling fixtures. This new ticket booth, as presently designed and configured,
would adversely impact distinctive features, finishes and craftsmanship that
characterize this historic property. Further, it would remove character-defining
materials and alter significant features and spaces that characterize this historic
property. Accordingly, redesign of this new element is required. At the very
least, the vestibule ceiling fixtures are not to be removed or obscured.
5
4. An existing door opening on the west wall of the lobby, and an existing
window opening on the west wall of the mezzanine are to be enlarged to
provide access to and from the proposed new cineplex.' A new opening is to
be created on the west wall of the balcony, to provide additional access to and
from the cineplex. The precise manner in which these three points of access
will connect the historic theater with the new cineplex presently is unknown.
(NB. While ARG's plans show three access points, the floor plans for the new
cineplex only show two access points, "each back 56' from face of historic
theater. ") This matter clearly warrants clarification, including the visibility of
the exteriors of these connections from publicly- accessible vantage points.
5. The existing carpet in the lobby is not original, and, due to its poor condition,
is to be replaced with new carpet. However, the carpet in the mezzanine foyer
and lounge is original. Visual inspection apparently concluded that the carpet
in this space is in poor condition, and therefore plans call for installation of
new carpet. However, a qualified professional was not consulted to determine
if cleaning and repairs of this historic material would allow for its retention and
a reasonable remaining life. In addition to using preservation as the preferred
treatment, cleaning and repair might achieve significant cost savings over the
cost of custom fabrication and installation of new carpet.
6. The major change to the theater's auditorium is the installation of new stadium
seating. It will involve construction of a new structure over the existing floor
at the rear of the auditorium. The new structure's visual impact will be greatest
when entering the auditorium from the rear side doors; access to auditorium
seating will require use of narrow passageways resulting from construction of
the new structure. The project developer maintains that use of stadium seating
in this character - defining space is necessary in order to make his part of the
project economically feasible.
7. Numerous items are included in plans for the theater's rehabilitation that are
not included in ARG's scope of work. These significant elements and features
are identified at the end of ARG's matrix of proposed treatments. Each one of
these items will introduce new materials, finishes and visual qualities to the
theater's historic building fabric. To insure their compatibility with character -
defining features and visual qualities of the historic theater, the design, use of
6
materials, colors, placement and associated signage should be subject to review
per The Secretary's Standards.
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
CINEPLEX
The proposed new cineplex structure, to be located adjacent to the historic
Alameda Theater and fronting on both Central Avenue and Oak Street, calls for
(c- enstruction of seven auditoriums, on two levels, with a total seating capacity of
t 1,042;)retail space with storefronts and outdoor dining areas that occupies a
portion of the ground -level floor area and that extends the entire length of its
Central Avenue frontage; a rounded tower element at the corner of Central and
Oak and a convex- shaped, transparent lobby space on the second level; and an
open, two -level vestibule with escalators at the east end of the structure. Access
to the cineplex auditoriums for theatergoers will be via the adjacent Alameda
Theater. The architect of record for the cineplex is Rob Henry of The Henry
Architects, Seattle, Washington.
The new cineplex is planned to occupy a prominent street corner site
within a historic urban setting, in contrast, say, to a suburban location or a
shopping center. In addition to the Alameda Theater, several other properties in
the immediate vicinity also are listed or are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places: the Twin Towers United Methodist Church, Park Street
Historic Commercial District, Alameda High School, Alameda Free Library, and
Alameda City Hall. The Park Street Historic Commercial District consists of some
14 contributing properties, nearly all of which include storefronts whose
architectural components routinely are recognized as a major character - defining
feature of Main Street America.
Findings
1. The proposed cineplex is a single structure that is designed to accommodate
two types of uses and occupancies. The primary use is the seven - screen
cineplex, with its support functions and requirements. The cineplex, for the
most part, enjoys an "internal" life. The other use of the cineplex structure, a
secondary use, is the ground -level space fronting Central Avenue, identified as
retail space with storefronts, By its very nature, this use, in contrast to the
cineplex, enjoys an "external" life. Successful storefront retail uses are both
contributors to life on the street and dependent upon life on the street.
The Central Avenue retail space storefronts, as well as treatment of the
corner entry at Oak and Central, consist of non-dimensional, aluminum-frame
glazing for window areas and doors. In design and use of materials, this
solution lacks "sidewalk character" customarily exhibited by storefronts in
nj historic downtown commercial districts. Specifically, the present solution is
;4. incompatible with the character-defining features to be found in almost all of
the retail storefronts located within the Park Street Historic Commercial
District [The Park Street storefronts consist of recessed entries, bulkheads or
some kind of base eliment, display windows and transom windows. Most of
these storefronts also tend to be recessed and framed within the building's
fagaclejln a word, the quality or feeling engendered by the architectural
character of these storefronts is inviting. Accordingly, redesign of the Central
Avenue storefronts should be a high priority item.
2. The cineplex structure's Central Avenue and Oak Street fagades have been the
subject of considerable public testimony. In essence, such comments and the
present review share several similar kinds of observations and suggestions.
I. Overall, the design and use of materials lack clarity and consistency.
sn Vertical elements are inconclusive. Columns expose the structure, then
they don't. It's either a pilaster or it isn't. Sheathing is employed, then its
peeled away. 1.,/
2. The building lacks a base, in part because the retail space storefronts lack
a base element or treatment. 1/
3. The fagade's large precast concrete panels are flat, thereby adding to the
-\‘ building's box-like, massive feeling. V
4. The corner tower element includes horizontal bands designed to be
evocative of Art Deco stylistic features of the Alameda Theater and the
t,
Park Central Apartments building. This evocation could exhibit a greater
response, e.g., ribbed or scalloped pilasters, chevron-shaped precast
concrete panels, cylindrical-shaped cap of the corner tower element
truncated with a 20-degree plane.
9
Refinements in design of the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades should
be given major consideration. Formality and resolution of basic elements can
be improved and enhanced to a much greater degree, consistent with the
achievement of such qualities in nearby National Register properties.
3. Drawings show the presence of a sign on the rounded corner tower element,
in this case indicating Alameda Theater. This sign with this content effectively
competes with the historic Alameda Theater sign. ' Probably any sign located
on the corner tower element would serve to diminish, in some manner, the
value of the Alameda Theater historic sign. As such, the use of any sign or
signs with text on the corner tower element probably should be avoided.
4. Installation of bronze tinted glass is indicated for glazing of the second level,
✓ convex- shaped projecting element and for glazing of the mezzanine level
. cineplex offices. The use of tinted glass is incompatible with transparent
glazing used throughout most. of Downtown Alameda, let alone all of the
properties that contribute to the Park Street Historic Commercial District. The
use of Low- Emissivity (Low -E) glazing increasingly is used in commercial
applications to meet code requirements and to lower energy costs, with no
greater degree or amount of reflection than that of tinted glass.
5. Exit doors for the cineplex at grade on Oak Street and at the east encl of the
Central Avenue facade should be glazed with some kind of frosted glass, in
)`� order to minimize the appearance of dead spaces or voids in the sidewalk
environment. When backlit or downlit after dark, such treatment can add a
certain degree of warmth to the sidewalk environment, and at the same time,
may also discourage certain kinds of inappropriate behavior.
6. Two items that involve interfacing the cineplex structure with the Alameda
Theater warrant attention at an early date. Floor plans for the cineplex show
j connections with the Alameda Theater at two locations, whereas ARG's plans
for the Alameda` Theater show connections at three locations. The second
item involves the marquee of the Alameda Theater. ARG's plans indicate
restoration and rehabilitation treatments for the entire length of the existing
original marquee, whereas plans for the cineplex indicate truncation of the
marquee's west end flush with the west exterior wall of the Alameda Theater.
Truncation of the marquee would result in an adverse impact.
10
7. The elevation for Central Avenue and the roof .plan are inconsistent with one
another in showing locations for corrugated metal screening of rooftop
mechanical units.
8. Locations and types of external illumination for the cineplex structure are not
4ndicated on plan drawings. Development of plans and specifications for
external illumination of the Oak Street and Central Avenue facades, as well as
the corner tower unit, should study and then reference character- defining
features of external illumination at the Alameda Theater and Twin Towers
United Methodist Church. Plans and specifications for external illumination of
the cineplex warrant detailed review and analysis prior to approval.
The plans indicate use of a clear anodized aluminum system for uniform
glazing of all window and door areas, as well as use of a clear anodized
aluminum for the large mechanical grilles on the Central Avenue facade.
however, at the May 9 meeting of the Planning Board, mernbers of the
Planning Board indicated their preference for use of dark anodized aluminum
for the storefront windows and doors. Strict adherence to this decision would
result in the use of two colors or types of anodized aluminum systems on the
Oak Street and Central Avenue facades. In addition, plans for rehabilitation of
the storefronts at the Alameda Theater call for use of clear anodized
aluminum.
11
CONSTRUCT1ON OF A NEW
PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE
The proposed new public parking structure, to be -located on Oak Street
between the proposed new cineplex structure to the south and Long's parking lot
to the north, is designed to provide 352 independently - accessible parking spaces
on six levels. The structure's prominent front facade, 127 in width, will rise to 61
feet at its highest point on Oak Street. The structure's north facade, 150 feet in
length, will be only partially visible. The structure's east and south vralls, adjacent
to the Alameda Theater and the new cineplex respectively, will not be visible.
This public parking structure is scheduled to be accessible 24/7. Current
plans do not call for the presence of on -site attendants. As patrons will pay for
parking at freestanding pay stations to be located throughout the garage, there will
be no need for installation of attendant booths and gates to control ingress /egress
on Oak Street.
The architect of record is Michael Stanton of Michael Stanton Architecture,
San Francisco. As this parking structure has been treated from the outset as a
design -build process, many actual details and specifications regarding design, use
of materials, finishes and hardware will be addressed and decided by the design -
build contractor.
Findings
One unknown at this point, and of particular interest, is the manner in which
this structure will be illuminated. As indicated at the May 9 meeting of the
Planning Board, specifications for illumination have not yet been prepared.
With respect to location, this parking structure straddles the line between
major civic properties located to the southwest, west and northwest, and the
Park Street Historic Commercial District to the north, east and south. Existing
illumination in this historic setting tends to be subdued and understated, soft
and inviting. By contrast, parking facilities at shopping centers, airports, auto
12
dealerships and other stand -alone uses tend to be purposely illuminated as a
means of announcing their presence and attracting patrons. In such cases, the
resulting illumination very often tends to be on the bright side, to the point of
being somewhat harsh and unfriendly.
There are many areas of this parking structure for which some means of
illumination is being considered: poster boxes, projecting sign, downlighting
of entries, and uplighting of the exterior wall on Oak Street; interior parking
areas; Oak Street stairway and underside of stairway's metal canopy; exterior
parking area on top level; and other areas and facilities of the structure's
interior, such as elevators, pre -cast concrete bollards, mechanical rooms and
the enclosed rear stairway. At the May 9 meeting of the Planning. Board,
particular concern was expressed regarding the height and type of fixture
used to illuminate exterior parking on the top level
The design -build contractor selected for this project should be required
to retain a qualified lighting consultant, who in turn should prepare a detailed
program that specifies all sources and types of illumination to be used in this
parking structure. This package should then be presented to the Planning
Board for its review and approval.
2. Drawings for the parking structure also show the presence of three exterior
signs: the internally - illuminated projecting sign at the south end of the Oak
Street facade; non - illuminated individual stainless steel letters mounted on the
metal panel located above the Oak Street vehicular ingress /egress; and non-
illuminated individual stainless steel letters mounted on the north wall's brick
veneer. Additional signing will be needed in the structure's interior spaces,
e.g., wayfinding signs to elevators and stairways, payment instructions at the
pay stations.
Similar to the recommendation above regarding illumination, the design -
build contractor selected for this project should be required to retain the
services of a qualified environmental graphics consultant, who in turn should
prepare a comprehensive, detailed sign program for review and approval by
the Planning Board.
13
SOURCES
Architectural Resources Group, "Alameda Theater Rehabilitation, Alameda,
California," Design Development Cost Estimating Package, October 6, 2004
Architectural Resources Group, "Alameda Theater Rehabilitation: Proposed
Treatments," 16 pp. matrix, May j6, 2005
City of Alameda, Wagstaff and Associates et al, "Draft Initial Study /Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking
Structure Project," December 2004
King, Thomas F., Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide,
Second Edition, AltaMira Press (Walnut Creek, California), 2004
Michael Stanton Architecture, "Final Design Guidelines for the Proposed New
Cineplex, Alameda, California," Community Improvement Commission of
the City of Alameda, 16 March 2005
Michael Stanton Architecture, "Proposed Oak Street Public Parking Garage, City of
Alameda, California," Sheets A0.1 -A3.7, May 3, 2005
Morton III, W. Brown et al, "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,"
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1992
The Henry Architects, Inc., "New Alameda Multiplex Cinema, Central Avenue and
Oak Street, City of Alameda, California," Sheets A.1 -A.13, April 25, 2005
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer, "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings," National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1995
14
APPENDIX
ALAMEDA THEATER REHABILITATION
PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Prepared by:
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP
•
• -
a)
> .u)
ca u) a'
.• 2-.‘ c c
• E a) .2
'5 0 8 u)
'2
_
ca
-o
L" a) :E
a
0) 2 2) a) 2
c a .c Q.
= 0.)
.c ■-•
x c as
a) a) Ca > E
- 0
re o _c
.c .=
E .1.1" 0
(1) o
• c E
ct) E)
2 t .3 ea
43)
• ca
ra (1)
O a -0 1-E 0
c
a) 0 _
o
o
CD tn th
c E m
= 0 .0
u) a)
• as
igEE'D.D
c
a) a., .2 m
E 5 c
E
._• E
0. "E) 0 0 >"
0- a C
a) 0)
eL
o C CO
cn E
u) 2.0 C
C 0 -
T -0 0
0. „Z 0 C
C m co
o0 co
c o - 0-
a.)
C9
o
• -c
a) 0 0
E > a
' • 2o _
c Z -C-13 taa)
0o_ 0
cbc CO 0
, • -5 o o _c
o c
"0 a- 0 0 a)
„
z , tc„ , E • -
O o 0 "5 0,
• a. o)
g)) ct) ).5,c
• c
a) 76 73 ct-
c 0_
0. E2 co a ra
at (Do
..0
.0 CU 1-
>
-o E .2 s
_>,cv E iLow
a.) ...L=
E
E 46 .2
s_.
0
0) 0 a)
= -0
0
t
rem E ;
>,
0 -0
20E°
a. E 2 -0
8 IP g
0 m
03 -0 E
a) .2 ra
0)
in- 0
113 8 .0
1:7 - FT) C
a) 2 .0
E E
a) 0 4.-
-o a a)
(T, g.2
c
T'S 78- m c
-C-) 17
11 `" 1
L. pi 0
);
° cati 0
0 0
Cr 2- P.2 2
r
a
.00
c c
co 2
u,
a) 0_
-
E c
4c75
.0 Q.
C.
O 0
46 0)
o
.5 a
c
o •
O 13)
=
c
u)
C
o
O • 0
fi 2
-0 0).
4-
O LE,
o
a) • .0
O CO
.,. 0
O u)
p
0 u)
Ca ca
-"--
= re- ..u)
cn c
• 0).0-
-o
a) .5
cp
(i) E
1:3
U)
00
o c
0
.0
• 4,T;
• 0
CL
u, se
O 5
• - 0.)
Q) a) a
Ct -0 cn
a) o
a) a) -0
• 4:1
0.
a) = (1)
<
• -§
• E .
2 .5 0
o 0
• E F
:ta •>a 2) =32 0 -1130
eL
.2 "E
H .c.)
-°-
o • a) 0 c
.0)
= o • 15
2)-
• 0
° (1) E
4-0 -6 7:3 ,)•*
:rz -6
- CL
1• 8 a) 2 (a
• E CL
E o r)
ca
0) CII
s §
C
> C Z:).
O 0 (I)
= (1) TO
▪ -C C
._ .2
r.,
2 I)
o_
.c n)
U. p 0
7'9 c
a)cacm0
-c E
1- a) 0 (I)
C " W
p - E
a) ui "E' 1)-
E E ,tu ma)
<1.
E1) - OC) • 10• C 1EC Zia)
• E
• U)
tn as 13 ) -
..0 t..) -c
o
a as o
2 -o 0 *-
•--,
0_ a) '0 a) 61 -o
N *L-
03.1
C -
-c,-
Preservation
Rehabilitation
Restoration
Reconstruction
Treatment for the entire
project
Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation
U)
a)
E
a) (NJ
117 (o
-o T-
CI)
U)
0 2
o_
2
0.
to
r, • C 03
c C.) 5 . >
a3 C (0 173
.r.-c _ a)
w 70a ow 0 .co w°
n (I) 0. a co CET .0 CU "
...--.,E1)2">Er=coa
...,,,-(0025E2
a) a)
-o - 0).0
.0 E • a)
co -ca.) . E -0
• . cts CL CD c >
o - a r -a-, 6
> c — ci 0. C c
M 0 "a3 Ify, .0 0) EII .—
2 E -c) (7). `-a)
"6- '22 ° ° c o
0
0_
0
4.
w
-2 -o
co
E
_c c
E as
• > co c-
0
c
(0 1--
v3 UT E "
„c
-o
c „, a)
c• oL
IT) 2 U)- °
• 0 M IR m 15
Oi7i E E m
Storefronts
a)
0.
tn
E
(75 o
c
g
Oo
0)
(II
0.
0
0)
F-
0
0
Cf
a)
c
0.
O a
• c
0 —
> o
g
o
ta(l)
o
2
Li..) .c
3 0 _.
.F€ r E 6 9- 41 a) ..-, (I)
C C U > C (' >
0.
4)0
T3
- - E o . - E o
Lo
a) V 4-.. .g2 .... .-• CD
.0 0
T
_ 5 cu 2 E c34, : a" 0; 6fC U)
CU
n,
a) c JE a) "5 C a) "5
z) = •- JD i .0 .—
0-
,- ra ,-, .s12. • — 0) ..- -42 ---- 0)
.1r) u) ..C_ TA .7, .= 4-.. 2,„
cu • .1°)
cl. 3 8 it E 8 al 07 E
a)
.0
a)
0
a)
E
7
c
0
1.1
0
rill be removed
0
a) _c
C :t4
CU
0)0 o
0)9 o -c
• to
0•
— 0 0
CD EL 1:1
E
-0 a)
° 'T co
.- a) -
>
9 0 id a)
c E
W ° ° a)
c ..co
0
(1)
0
U)
0)
-o
co
—
co a)
a) in
oster cases
._ •
c
=
c 0 =
0
70 0 III
ft; =
CD .9(0
= 0 .=
a) a) a)
Ce tx Ce
C c0 a;tal0CcE ('3 0
.c i.D o o cD )
)
)
1'iEc o 0 3 r3
11111111 .t 8 E 'c o cCm cc co O . ) .
03
.
0
'II 7, .ua (.10 .:m 2:0 ,s-E_17c —c," 0E.cd oIi) .)r- • ) ,)
0ec,0 , D o ii
8 . i(.m. 3 ) -,.
r0 C0 ,0 .w C cot -3 _ _
-:
CI) o 11 -0 5 : „c : :
7 5T C- 0 c 0 ._ j 4.. CO 0 i o 0.X 8ac u0 0 o ,n•%--- ) 0.) 2 ' . IT
o 0 aa
0) 0
EL E 2 o . . '0 17CU 0
a C 0 . 0) 0. a) 0
„_ _
0 CD : =0
• 01) C) = 0
2 g a ti > 0.o . > < u 0 z a. o_ I0.E o o 0.a) (0
o A
c . a
o o L) a)
c _. (‚3 n(0a)
a)
(I) •C
E E-
) ) ) •
T.0
.o cu
5)
o
02
cu
Q)0
E 11
E • C I -
- co in
E TO 1:2
o
0 k_
o = a) To
o (7)
co c
_c -0
"Ii E LD 0 'CI
CO • ta CO CO 0
O 0. 3_9
0)
E
cu
Lobby, Rooms 102 and 103
Er.
Restoration
Restoration
(0
N .c
• c
0.) c
E °
E
-o
• za
c ns c
Ft3 -0 RS tr.,
0 c
a) -0
-C co
.-u2 '5 a)
0.LLLE
Ceiling (below mezza
.0
a.)
cr)
_c
•
0
E
4=
To Fa-
.c 0.
o
(/)
c
E
C.)
,)
• Tu
4= t
• C
To `a5
0)1;; 2
E E
Ct. (0
• L. .> .2 c
ra a) a)
.21 E
0=
O 0 as 10
Er. -C)) 19 (71
-o
=0
0) 2
c
=
°
Ol
0)
-o
73
a) 12
0
0
co
c P_
c
'Es)
.c 0.
o
> a)
o 0 >
o c co
-0 a) .c
0) a) >,
c
Y2
• a) 8 •w E
0)
.0
(0
0
(i)
T. -0
o
00
4-1
0
0
U)
.23(0
8
@ 0
• 1:3
Restoration
u) 0
itc c
a -c
CO a —
-63
• E c.)
-o
a) "Cu mc
tr)
0)OE
O E ._c
-0 _C -0
E c ;),
w §
0)
Til -5
0 —
m *a's 0 in C
O m •..., ..
6 0 5 u) E
2 C 0 -. 1:.: 0 Rs
41 0
C 0) .0 . .0
a) co
V E al
c
x -- .0 .- x
cu
0 RS (0 > 0 C
a _0 0. 0 0. if; .0 o)
.._. 3 ELI E
• 0 C CU c c 0 .....
co c :o 76 .0 -0 CO
E 73 ..- .5 in ..., 0 X a)
a) .c ca .r.-- (1) c _ o -c
CL in sw o a) .g u) .0 i---
CD
• CC)
0.)
a) c
ID cc c
(1) CU a)
E
as
co
x cc
o .c
Jo 76
CD 0
c
o E
-o to 2
c
al
to ▪ § L... ",
-tc
o
-• 0-
.o 1r)
• E a)u)
th
• § .c
Cn "0
-0
'Cr)
TA 2 'E
(0 is cu
Q. U)0
a)
a)
.o
03
X
0
_0
0
-cc IL)
CO 0
.0 0
W
Restoration
0)
0)
C
0
C CC)
0-*th -Fa
c
c —
o .u)
o 0, ,c
—
0 cu c E c (0
c 0 o E
a) .-E 2
E
0-) a)
cu
c c 03E IS))
Jr) 0
0 TI) .5.12 M E 2
0)
0)
.0 —
=
•§ *2 :5)
0 0 =
°
E
=
"S?
o
c
m
•- - 0
Restoration
Drinking Fountain
"a
0
trtt
Lit
E
0
0
E
0
0
0
Restoration
0
0
0
IL
Restoration
Repair plaster and repaint
Ceiling has been repainted
Restoration
Door has been painted
0
13 _ "0
›.... p 4---- 1:3 CU
C C 0 -
.0 15 C ''''' 0 ar 0 a)
tll c
"C3 .0a) 1-6 a) =
a) .2 /0
,.- >,
0) 0- >a) 0 ..,2 '5 .c o
0 Cll E
•o
:=-- • "a 0
3 (5)) a) a) I)) ,Q2= 'al
0 0 o 0) "' .!...-.
ca L=
-oc a. 17 > ..c 0 0
0 0 -g
C
c
(0
E
E)
o c
-0 0
C
0) 0
c0
co 0
X0
11-1
c
0
0
0
0
0)
.c
E
0
C
Oo
Plumbing fixtures
0
Ca
EcD
a)
1.12
CO
a) a) >.
_c (13
I--
Cl
co 2
G) a.
E
(0
-•cT
-tb a)
0)
o
_
c
a) '5
tn >
_c • -0
a)
0)0
DEL co
CU 17'-
0 2
0
a)
0)
E
-5 0
0 2
8
0
LL
0
0
0
tr)
E
0)
Ca a)
0• -
.0) c
•
Jo 0 -0
a) to a)
> T.-0
.c
• E
-6- •
To" o
_o 0
E
m >
- > a)
0 -c
0)
0
0
C '
— 0.)
CC)
(13
"3• O
co —
0- E
.._ 0
0
• a)
c N
C ial
11.
o.
0)
.0
0-0
0)
-
0)0
CO 0, a)
ET, 2z
co
0.
5
8
0
0-
EL Li)
ra
a)
a L.:- tn
(03:0..
E0 10
r,---
cj >
E -0
E 0
" -mu ) a).5 0>a )
*- 0 c E
0 " E
a) a a) 112
03.0
c
c tn
o 5 c cu
c.) 0 = .c.0
E
0
E
0
0
LL
Preservation /
Wood buffer wall to be
Rehabilitation at
tn
0
0
0
0
..,.,-
"E- . x
r0 .—_, m i
.0 0 o a)
u) — e as > a
,. ._ ›... o
U.)
.0 D
a)
L.= ..0
W (Y) :C
0) —a) E ii)- To as
0 m ,.., 13.) M .0 •-•
E a) 2
Z- E u) .E as .0 a)
-
7 o
a' a) 0 1:3 a) u) E-
2
ca TD- .c _0)
— as c „u) ...,:.•
22E 2a. -iii _60 .._, us x .ra
as a a) ,._
been installed over the
w
DC).
E *)• ) rt
ip- =
• C
CO CD ""
.4—
2 2 -12
o Ta
o
••••• 0 L.
U) _
L._
• c
a)
E
a7. =
0
a)
0)
.c E
(0)0
E
u) eu
a)
• _c
o
(D CO
a) ▪ a'
2 „c
.0
0
z
at upper corners
4.•-•
.0 >
._> 0
(Da Ea )
0 0
• 0
_c a>
o 0
0
2 °
o
_
>
- 0 0
Preservation at niches 1
Rehabilitation
'Cu
CD • 73
4.4 C
E 6-
.0 0 s--5
s•-• 0 c
o 2 E —
a) CI 12)
„, .1:1
cu u
-- 0 .0 wc :I -ow i)) (nu)
c N cr) *CI -0
uu a)
x
.aco) cEau .qa 13) 0 1:3C-LmC TIYL)(1) .29
4= -,a2 •-5
.c 11) .U)
CD CD • 0 'E. as E
o u-- um. E
CeiIing under balcony
0
0)
(r)
0
U)
0
N
CCS
ca
a)
0
0
a)
a)
E
Z E �
.0
4
4 E, ■' CD) 0
c= .--.
o o _ a) c >.., a.) 0 (2 0)
a) a)
..... c _
li E 0 E ..c
wu . ) =- - - ma ) .0.0 ) • . ' • E ...1G C r c cc ai
.= cu ti) 115 a) --- iii -.-' Tti -0 8
39.
ro u) 8 --c 8 .21 0 2
E 0
— a ..c
D).0(0)(0 -c .5° m u,c
=
X ti) • 0 "a' .0 .5-: "0 CD .t..- CU 0 > C co
a) X .Ca9 12 Q)0 _
.'.' T) .
T) ii
a) . c E g t, w
(0) (1) a) a ca. co
1... • - 03 N (f) ....., U., CD
. ED_ E 0 = .,... =
a) o )... ra
o E a) a) Vo) - 8 c) .? 12 -6 o o _ 0 c,_ E
z 22 .in -c co u) 0 --
▪ U)
M C E
r Mc a
_c
a) -5
0-
Iti u),) (0)
E 1r) co • 73
•c
a) _
E a)
c
0 L.- 2
a3 0 0 :E 0
C
_c
'En' WI (7) 2)
c
-o
0
2
Chandelier to be relamped
Original remains intact
• P.,
.0
c
"i"6 .
E
)1)
0
0
C
0
O 0
"0 E
o
c
-- co
5 8
Metal chandelie
a)
Alameda Theatre Rehabiijtation
Restoration
N V >
�.a) @ c c
0 @ C N o ,N
Li-- • c a) c c @ .n
c @ m @ a) a)
0.0 c!E >
O @D 0 >
0. E _o c N E a)
0) a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 C
C a 0
0) ..L., co co 0 C .
0 .0 •C C 0) .o c a)
a) . - 0.c @ >
a) a) ) @ N a) -o ' o
-: (0 0 E N > C E
H - 0) 2 -§ E r o.
• ai
M a) 0 N a)
C? C C 0. 0- >.
•C N L C • N LI= C U) O
• c= N`D
C 0 0 _c @ .0
N
• U 0 U
- a ) V -ED a@)
9) C c
- ! . 'D @ t0
'D N N ,_.z
- a2 @ a)
.` 0 U 0
O E o a) o x
N 0 N .0
a
Ft 3 N@ a o c o
e. a) c c° m a) . @ m
0) 0o @'nc�E
o ;": 0 C N c ?• '6 > 'lN m
c c c `o @ o� c >
ra .2 E 0 ac) c m m .0) 0
c m @ 0 E a) -c o"
o"'o�a E'so o c
C 0 m..-.. o@ c C �.c E
-o 0 o C a . 'm -@C m
N
o (a 0 .0 !. 'C0 0 •00 0
E
a)
to
N
(0
t
0
•0
a)
CD
a
@
Z
0
0
N
a)
N
a Pit and Stage
Restoration
Restoration
C
0
LrZ 0
('3 =
o .0
a)
(I) .0
33)0.)
CL CC •
Rehabilitation
ct
0E .6-
T3
(fl (1)0)
co (7
.0 c
-• C .—
• 2 a)
2- E °
co
EE
c.)
0.) CI)
a)
Z
a) • a)
c
c a_
tc--
.n
a)
5
0- 0
- -
0) c,•!-3 0)
E c
0 -0 .0
• 0
013 C13
n • ('3 E3-_ a_ E o
0
(D a)
a.) -c =
=
03 11) c
0- 0
0.
a) a)
E ••es)- .c
O -o
0 o
0) cu .0 a.)
to
(2'- >
a.a.Eo
0)0
..c o
• a_
c
cn
c
-51
E _o
>,
o_
o roc
• „.„
0
O 2
E2
0
E
0
0
a. 5
ra
O a
c
cu
.0
co
..0
.0 •
c
01 .(1-3
• p_
Oo
.1:5)
0)
ct)
0
-o
a.)
0
>,
ID
ID
0
a)
a)
0
0 0
0
0)1)3
a)
• 'E
ID a)
a) a.
> o
ca u)
.0
(I) a)
a) .0 8
ct, -0 a,
0) a)
•E'
(1)
2 .0 0
eq.
csa
at • c)
W u)
• p
0
LL000
m 0
C c
CI to to
N
N
cu 0 0
45
Bas-relief ornament at
mirrors and lounge wall
0)
0
.0
0
a)
Restoration
c
.c
a)
Jo 2
o -o
• -c3
La),
0 .—
c
ca
m 22
0
(1) c
o
0)
= -0
• c
• 0
go
0
C
ED co
.0
0)
0
0)
a)
• >,
• o
...
c
e
T N
N
v
m E
Rehabilitation
0
2
0 0)
C
E
> •E
°
a) ID
c• re
• •g- E
a) a) co
Z
.0 -0
0.
(0
0
2.
0
0
0
(0
a)
a)
L--
0 u)
c —
o (la
o
0.)
c
a)
Fa' as
0.0
O .c
a)
0)
0
0
0
0
_c
(0
a)
a)
o —
O as
a) 0)
(C)
0. 0 I'll
>,
x
w
Painted plaster ceiling
0)
(0
00
0
LL
0)
0
O
N
c
m a)
L E O
O N
O
t1 D T-
O O >
L (1) m
~ a2
O`
E
0
Z
4)
Cr
.o
C N -c
-r,
O .L- 0) n U d
> C .O 0 f6 Q
E • a)`ov c
c • o U
0 0_ C a)
n
Dr- 0 tIIO 0
13
o m ° O
yC > � co" m °
n . N c
O
O
o
(p
m
0
0
c
'D p
O 0
O 7-xs
: : I
1104-.
13) L• i)
C O
O 3 ti : .7.;
ft-
.:0-
..c
CC
co
a) .: v.e..
CC Ct CC IX
CO OS
CO M M Mt
0) 0) :-.----- C÷:
fa P,
e e
C1) CD
0. c
O ii"
O ... 0
ta 8 1-5
2 0 4-,
ai 0 in c C
0 .0=000
11
111111
i> i0 :E ,0 1=Z-c- „12 v: .c 0 c2 : , c - D3s _ i
111111 E ' l0 I c ,
:
Rehabilitation
No wort: I R_�toratio❑
ireir 77-77—
SCOPEOFWORK 1.
Jew exit doors to be installed
Replace missing sections of
pipe railing for life- safety; no
work elsewhere
0
0
0
E
U)
0
ii c
.0
.5)
. c
o
0 c)
w
4
0
0)
0
0
1
0
0
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY RESPONSE TO
SECTION 106 REVIEW AND FINDINGS: REHABILITATION OF THE ALAMEDA
THEATER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CINEPLEX AND PUBLIC PARKING
STRUCTURE (MAY2005)
PREPARED BY BRUCE ANDERSON
OF URBAN CONSERVATION &URBAN DESIGN
In conjunction with its consultants and partners, City staff has reviewed Mr. Bruce
Anderson's Section 106 Findings and has developed the following response for
consideration by the Planning Board at its June 13, 2005 meeting.
The architects for each component of the project include Architectural Resources Group
(ARG) for the rehabilitation of the theater, The Henry Architects for the Cineplex, and
Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) for the parking garage.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: REHABILITATION OF THE ALAMEDA THEATER
1) Infoiniation only. No response to the comment is necessary.
2) A number of fieldwork and testing tasks have been postponed until the City
attains ownership of the theatre. At the current time, ARG's design
documents make assumptions about these areas, and the project budge
provides an allowance for the work. Per the current schedule, these
outstanding tasks will be completed and the appropriate solution will be
developed prior to the issuance of bid documents. The solutions will be
designed to comply with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
As currently envisioned, the ticket booth will be redesigned so that the
vestibule ceiling fixtures are not removed or obscured. The glazed side walls
of the ticket booth will terminate at the bottom of the lowest, existing soffit in
the vestibule, leaving a l' -8" clear opening between the top of the glazed wall
and the main ceiling. This will peauit the retention of the existing ceiling
light fixtures, which are approximately 5" deep. In order to meet the theatre
developers' security needs in the ticket booth, small motion detectors will be
mounted on the side of the soffit to monitor the clear opening.
4) ARG will coordinate the number of openings and treatment of the access
points with The Henry Architects. The revised Cineplex designs presented to
the Planning Board in June will be consistent with ARG's drawings.
3/9/2006
5) In the past two years, ARG has asked two professionals from the carpet
industry, to examine the carpet in the theatre. We opted for an approach that
provides new carpeting throughout, in order to maintain a uniform floor
appearance. However, ARG will modify its approach to the carpet in the
mezzanine per the Section 106 Findings. The existing carpet in the mezzanine
foyer and lounge will be cleaned, repaired, and retained. New compatible
carpeting will be installed elsewhere. It should be noted that the existing,
historic carpet is heavily stained in some areas. In a few locations, there are
small holes and zippering.
6) Information only. No response to the comment is necessary.
7) The theatre developer's contract with the City stipulates that these elements
are designed to be compatible with the historic theatre. As construction
administrator for the project, ARG will review developer's design for
compatibility.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: CINEPLEX
1. The retail storefronts were designed, as presented to the Planning Board on May
96, for a number of reasons:
. There are a number of examples of new and historic buildings in the Park
Street Historic District that use metal -frame glazing for window areas and
doors including the storefronts of the Alameda Theater.
2. The aluminum - frame door and window system provides maximum
flexibility for locating tenants and placing doors according to each tenant's
individual needs. At this point in time, the developer is uncertain about
the number and type of tenants and their specific space requirements. The
greater flexibility that the configuration provides, the greater the leasing
opportunities are likely to be.
3. The retail storefronts face south and, as a result, are likely to receive
significant sunlight throughout the year. The use of materials for the
doors and windows other than aluminum such as, wood will require
additional maintenance and are less practical given the southern exposure.
4. While the Cineplex doors along Central Avenue are designed to meet the
City's code requirements, they are not recessed given the size constraints
of the lot. The current 20 -foot depth of the proposed retail space is well
below retail industry standards of 60 feet due to the space required for the
three movie theaters on the first floor. If all the Cineplex's Central
Avenue doors were recessed, an additional three to four feet could be lost,
which would undermine the leasing potential of the space. If a single
3/9/2006 2
tenant is found for the entire retail space, the fourth door closest to the
Alameda Theater will be recessed to meet the City's exiting requirements.
5. There are no bulkheads currently proposed for the Cineplex to allow for
flexibility in locating the doors according to each tenant's individual
needs. In addition, the transparent base allows additional daylight to
illuminate the interior of the space. If desired, spandrel glass could be
placed at the base to create a base element for the storefronts.
Additionally, the brick columns on either side of the storefronts are
designed with a different color brick at the base to create a base element.
6. A heavier 6 -inch aluminum -clad element could be added to further
differentiate the transom window from the display windows along the
Cineplex storefront. However, the reason for employing a heavier transom
line to provide structural support for recessed openings does not exist for
the Cineplex since there are no proposed recessed openings.
2. The following provides a response to the bullet points under finding #2:
1. City staff believes The Henry Architects has presented a clear design
and use of materials consistent with the City's Final Design
Guidelines for the Proposed New Cineplex, approved by the
Community Improvement Commission on March 15, 2005. In
addition, the design is highly responsive to comments made by the
HAB, Planning Board, and general public regarding preliminary
designs. The design review submittal presented to the Planning Board
on May 9th provided significant detail regarding the design of the
building. Additionally, a sample board was provided to the Planning
Board and is currently on display in the Planning and Building
Depaituient for review by the general public and the Planning Board.
Per comments made by the HAB at their June 2, 2005 meeting, The
Henry Architects has also revised their design to include uninterrupted
brick along the columns at the ground floor for Planning Board review.
2. See response #1.5.
3. The precast concrete panels vary in color and are recessed in a number
places creating an interesting design pattern for the second -story
facade, which helps to diminish the box -like, massive feeling of the
second -story corner, not add to it. In addition, the box -like feeling is
diminished by the lowering of the vertical, tower element at the corner
to the top of the mezzanine windows and by extending the two
horizontal elements from the corner of the Central Avenue facade east
towards the Alameda Theater.
3/9/2006 3
4. The horizontal bands along the tower element at the corner were
designed to be a simple, evocation of Art Deco stylistic features
without competing with the Art Deco style of the theater. Other
options were not used, such as ribbed or scalloped pilasters, in order to
maintain the simplicity of the design and not compete with the
detailing of the historic theater.
3. The sign on the corner will be eliminated. Any signage for the retail storefronts
and second -story Cineplex will be brought to the Planning Board for approval at a
later time as part of a comprehensive signage plan.
4. Low - Emissivity (Low -E) glazing will be employed instead of bronze - tinted glass
for the second -level lobby and mezzanine level offices.
5. Exit doors along Oak Street will be glazed with frosted glass. All doors on
Central Avenue will consist of clear glass.
6. The Cineplex designs will be made to be consistent with ARG's drawings with
connections at three locations. In addition, the Cineplex designs will be revised to
accommodate the western extension of the marquee. The marquee will not be
truncated.
7. The Cineplex elevations and plans will be revised to show a consistent location
for the metal screening of rooftop mechanical units.
8. The revised Cineplex submittal will include a more specific lighting diagram,
illustrating placement of external illumination.
9. At the May 9th meeting, the Planning Board recommended a darker anodized
aluminum for the retail storefronts without knowing that the rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater calls for the use of clear anodized aluminum. It will be staff's
recommendation to the Planning Board that the aluminum remain clear to be
consistent with the adjacent theater. At their June 2, 2005 meeting, the HAB also
recommended using clear anodized aluminum to be consistent with the Alameda
Theater storefronts.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE
As part of the design -build process, a more detailed lighting plan will be brought
back to the Planning Board for final approval. The design -build team will use
their expertise to deteimine whether it is necessary to contract with a specialized
lighting consultant.
2. As part of the design -build process, a more detailed signage plan will be brought
back to the Planning Board for final approval. The design -build team will use
3/9/2006 4
their expertise to determine whether it is necessary to contract with a specialized
sign consultant.
3/9/2006
ATTACHMENT 7
SECTION 106
REVIEW AND FINDINGS
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater
and
Construction of a New
Cineplex and
Public Parking Structure
Prepared for:
Community Improvement Commission
City of Alameda, California
Prepared by:
Robert Bruce Anderson
Urban Conservation & Urban Design
December 2005
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT
The purpose of this supplemental report is to present findings following an
independent review of a new set of plans and drawings expressly prepared for exterior
design of a new, seven - screen cineplex structure with storefronts, and design and
construction of a new public parking structure in Alameda's downtown commercial district.
These proposed new structures, as well as rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theater, are
interrelated components of a major development project of the City of Alameda. The
charge to conduct an independent review and make associated design refinements for each
of these three components emanates from Mitigation AES -1 and Mitigation HIST -1 in the
Initial Study /Environmental Assessment document for the proposed development project.
The review and findings of this supplemental report are to be considered for review
and comment by the City's Historical Advisory Board. Minutes of the Historical Advisory
Board's review and comments, as well as a copy of this report, will then be forwarded to City
Council for its consideration and appropriate action.
BACKGROUND. At its meeting of June 27, 2005, the City of Alameda's Planning
Board approved final design of a new, seven- screen cineplex and a design and use permit for
a new six - level, 352 -space parking structure as two contributing components of the
proposed development project. The designs for each of these structures were those
specifically referenced and addressed in a report document entitled, "Section 106 Review and
Findings: Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater and Construction of a New Cineplex and
Public Parking Structure" (May 2005). The Planning Board's approval attached certain
conditions, some of which reflected a direct response to specific issues indicated in the May
2005 Section 106 report just cited. Nevertheless, the Planning Board's approval of both
project components was appealed to, and subsequently heard by, Alameda's City Council.
At its meeting of August 16, 2005, Alameda's City Council voted to uphold the
Planning Board's approvals of June 27, 2005, regarding the proposed cineplex and parking
1
structures. However, the City Council's action to uphold the Planning Board's approvals
included two additional conditions: first, the large, prominent window, located on the
second level of the cineplex and facing Central Avenue, was to be made "less modern
looking"; and second, the parking structure was to be made to look more like the parking
structure located on South Locust Street in Walnut Creek, as designed by Komorous -Towey
Architects.
In response to City Council's actions of August 16, Komorous - Towey Architects of
Oakland was retained to prepare a new design for the development project's proposed
parking structure. Soon thereafter, Komorous -Towey Architects also was asked to prepare
schematic designs in response to the City Council's expressed desire to make the large,
prominent window on the second level of the cineplex's Central Avenue facade "less
modern looking ".
At its meeting of November 1, 2005, Alameda's City Council voted to accept new,
revised preliminary designs for the development project's proposed cineplex and 354 -space
parking structure. The preliminary designs accepted by the City Council on this date
consisted of elevations and plan drawings as prepared and presented by Komorous -Towey
Architects.
To reiterate the purpose, and therefore purview, of this supplemental report, it is to
present findings following an independent review of a new set of plans and drawings for
exterior design of a new, seven - screen cineplex structure with storefronts, and design and
construction of a new public parking structure in Alameda's downtown commercial district,
per acceptance by the City Council on November 1, 2005.
A Section 106 independent review with findings regarding rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater, the third component of the proposed development project, is contained in
the May 2005 report document cited earlier. Copies of the May 2005 report were distributed
to members of the City's Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board and City Council for
review and the opportunity to comment. A complete set of the architect's working drawings
for rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater was submitted to the City's Building Department
2
in November, 2005, for review and comment. Accordingly, this supplemental report neither
includes any additional review nor presents any new findings regarding rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater.
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND
GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS. The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
(hereinafter referred to as The Secretary's Standards) consists of ten Standards and
numerous Guidelines to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work subject to
Section 106.
With respect to design and construction of the new cineplex and new public parking
structure, Standard No. 9 in particular appears to be directly applicable to making a
determination of the appropriateness of proposed project work:
"9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment."
The Secretary's Standards document referenced above also includes numerous
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The Guidelines pertain to historic buildings
of all sizes, materials, occupancy, and construction types; and apply to interior and exterior
work as well as to new exterior additions and related new construction. Subject by subject, the
Guidelines list and briefly describe, under the heading "Recommended ", those approaches,
treatments and techniques that are consistent with the Standards; and, under the heading "Not
Recommended ", those approaches, treatments and techniques that are not consistent with the
Standards.
Of particular interest and potential applicability to the proposed project work that is
subject to this supplemental review and report are those Guidelines that address "Setting:
District /Neighborhood ".
3
CONSTRUCTION OF ANEW
CINEPLEX
This supplemental report addresses the development project's proposed new
cineplex structure solely with respect to a new, or second, set of plans and drawings
expressly prepared for exterior design of the cineplex and storefronts. Accordingly, this
report does not alter or supercede contents of the first review and findings regarding design
and construction of a new cineplex structure, as presented in the May 2005 Section 106
report. The plans and drawings subject to review and findings in this supplemental report
are those prepared by Komorous -Towey Architects, Oakland, and formally accepted by
Alameda's City Council on November 1, 2005.
The present review and findings regarding the development project's proposed new
cineplex structure consists of two parts. The first part recapitulates issues and concerns
identified in the May 2005 Section 106 report as specifically related to exterior design and
use of materials of the cineplex and storefronts. The second part describes character -
defining features of the cineplex exterior and storefronts as proposed by Komorous -Towey
Architects, including elements of their proposal that respond to issues and concerns raised in
the May 2005 report.
MAY 2005 SECTION 106 REPORT. In the May 2005 report, issues and concerns
regarding the proposed new cineplex structure dealt primarily with design and use of
materials for the Central Avenue storefronts and the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades.
These issues and concerns are recapitulated below.
® Re Central Avenue Storefronts. "In design and use of materials, this solution lacks
`sidewalk character' customarily exhibited by storefronts in historic downtown
commercial districts. Specifically, the present solution is incompatible with the
character - defining features to be found in almost all of the retail storefronts located
within the Park Street Historic Commercial District. .. . Accordingly, redesign of the
Central Avenue storefronts should be a high priority item." (p. 9)
4
f Re Central Avenue and Oak Street Facrades. "1. Overall, the design and use of materials
lack clarity and consistency. Vertical elements are inconclusive. Columns expose the
structure, then they don't. ... 2. The building lacks a base, in part because the retail
space storefronts lack a base element or treatment. 3. The facade's large, precast
concrete panels are flat, thereby adding to the building's box -like, massive feeling. 4.
The corner tower element includes horizontal bands designed to be evocative of Art
Deco stylistic features of the Alameda Theater and the Park Central Apartments
building. This evocation could exhibit a greater response, .... Refinements in design of
the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades should be given major consideration.
Formality and resolution of basic elements can be improved and enhanced to a much
greater degree, consistent with the achievement of such qualities in nearby National
Register properties." (pp. 9 -10)
Other items and concerns addressed a proposed sign on the rounded corner element,
use of bronze tinted glass for openings on the mezzanine and second levels, glazing of
exit doors on Central Avenue and Oak Street, lack of information regarding external
illumination, and use of clear anodized aluminum for glazing of all windows, doors and
large mechanical grilles.
PLANS AND DRAWINGS OF KOMOROUS -TOWEY ARCHITECTS. As stated at the
outset to this report, the firm of Komorous -Towey Architects was retained to prepare and
publicly present a new or second set of plans and drawings for the exterior of the
development project's proposed cineplex structure and storefronts. As such, the plans and
drawings of Komorous -Towey Architects address only the design and use of materials on
the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades and storefronts of the proposed cineplex. The
development project's program, and the cineplex structure's main frame, dimensions, and
configuration and use of interior spaces all remain unchanged.
Findings
Komorous -Towey Architects' plans and drawings for the cineplex exterior are
unmistakably evocative, in design and use of materials, of the Art Deco period in
5
American architecture. As with architecture of the Alameda Theater and other Art Deco
buildings, Komorous - Towey's architecture is characterized by its resolute linear
composition, emphatic application of vertical elements, and use of stylized decoration.
The fluted pilasters serve as major contributors to the vertical feeling projected by the
cineplex's Central Avenue and Oak Street facades; at the same time, these major vertical
elements serve to de- emphasize and partially offset the relatively large size and box -like
shape of the cineplex structure. This vertical feeling is further enhanced by the
application of additional fluted and ribbed elements.
2. Komorous -Towey Architects' composition of the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades
possesses clarity and consistency in their treatment of elements on each of three levels- -
storefront,. mezzanine and second level. Both the base of each pilaster and the bulkhead
or pony wall of each framed storefront module are sheathed with glazed ceramic tile. The
framing of each storefront module is further defined by the presence of vertical piers and
metal awnings. One of the Central Avenue storefront modules calls for installation of
recessed double doors. Storefront openings would allow for installation of operable
storefront window and/or door systems, and thereby increase opportunities for
interaction between interior spaces, outdoor seating and life on the sidewalk.
The mezzanine multi-light transom windows are glazed with reeded or textured Low -E
glass, untinted. Their straight- headed, geometric configuration, spanning the Central
Avenue and Oak Street facades, reads as a major character - defining feature of this design.
This band of transom windows provides a neutral, middle layer to the cineplex exterior,
thereby allowing the passerby to better appreciate, respectively, the character - defining
features of the storefront and second levels.
The second level is characterized by the conspicuous presence of six multi-light, V-
shaped projecting bay windows and a cylindrical- shaped multi-paned element adjacent to
the west wall of the Alameda Theater. These major glazed elements, decidedly vertical in
orientation, are complemented with an array of protruding vertical ribs and strips and a
parapet that appears to exhibit a fine- grained zig -zag trim.
6
3. Does Kormorous -Towey Architects proposed design for the Central Avenue and Oak
Street facades and storefronts observe, to a discernable degree, the normative test of
Standard No. 9, namely, does their design work sufficiently "differentiate itself from the
old and is it compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect
the historic integrity of the property and its environment"?'
The Kormorous -Towey Architects design and use of building materials for the exterior
and storefronts of the proposed new cineplex structure clearly would differentiate it from
the Alameda Theater, while at the same time achieving compatibility with architectural
features of the historic Art Deco -period movie theater. It is compatible in terms of
architectural style and association, but also unmistakably different from the Alameda
Theater in terms of its three distinctive levels, its major projecting glazed elements, and its
use of building materials, as described above. Additionally, its storefront design
incorporates several features customarily found in historic Main Street storefronts, such
as those that continue to exist within the adjacent Park Street Historic Commercial
District.
4. If the City of Alameda desires to implement the conceptual plans and drawings for the
cineplex exterior and storefronts as prepared by Komorous - Towey Architects, as publicly
presented and accepted by the City Council on November 1, 2005, and as referenced in
this report's review and comment, then it is incumbent upon the City of Alameda to
ensure continuation of their services into this project's next phase, i.e., design
development. Securing understanding and agreement on this matter will absolutely serve
the best interests of all principal parties at this critical juncture in further development of
the cineplex project - -the project developer, the architect of record for the cineplex, the
architect of the Central Avenue and Oak Street facades and storefronts, and the City of
Alameda.
1 It is important to recall that the question or issue of compatibility regarding the massing,
size, scale and architectural features of the proposed cineplex structure was first addressed in
the Draft Initial Study /Environmental Assessment document for the proposed development
project. As stated on page C -7, "the adjacent new cineplex structure would be visually
differentiated from the original historic theater by lower building height and an exterior wall
recess where the two buildings meet, and would feature compatible massing, scale and
architectural features."
7
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE
The proposed new public parking structure, to be located on Oak Street between the
proposed new cineplex structure to the south and Long's parking lot to the north, is
designed to provide 354 independently- accessible parking spaces on six floors and the roof.
The structure's prominent front facade, 127 in width, includes two stair towers that rise to
67 feet. The elevator tower, located directly behind the south stair tower, is the highest
point of the structure at 71.5 feet. The structure's north facade, 150 feet in length, will
feature a large mural that is center - mounted on the structure's north wall, which is 45 feet in
width and set back from the Oak Street property line 59 feet. The structure's east and south
walls, which are adjacent to the Alameda Theater and the new cineplex respectively, will not
be visible.
The designer of record is Komorous -Towey Architects, Oakland. As this parking
structure has been treated from the outset as a design -build project, many actual details and
specifications regarding design, use of materials, finishes and hardware will fall within the
domain and be addressed by the design -build firm's architect and contractor of record, yet to
be selected. At the same time, Komorous-Towey Architects has been retained by the City of
Alameda to serve as construction administrator for this project, to ensure that build out of
the parking structure's Oak Street and north facades conforms m principle to the plans and
drawings accepted by Alameda's City Council on November 1, 2005. Komorous -Towey
Architects also has been retained to further develop and refine plans and specifications for
the parking structure's exterior signage, exterior landscaping, and illumination, the last item
with the assistance of a qualified lighting consultant.
Komorous -Towey Architects design of the proposed public parking structure differs
significantly from the previous one approved by the City's Planning Board on June 27, 2005.
Whereas the previous design used exterior walls to comply with structural safety
requirements of the building code, the present design uses a combination of interior and
8
exterior columns and shear walls. Consequently, the present structural design allows for
considerably more natural light to penetrate the garage's interior spaces. Additionally, the
present design of the parking structure's north elevation, with its open bays, replaces the
massive blank wall of the previous design.
• The present design of the Oak Street facade is more elaborate in composition, richer in
detail, and more accessible to pedestrians than the previous design. In several respects, its
design almost suggests or intimates a use or purpose other than parking of motor
vehicles.
• The present design also differs from the previous design by relocating the second
stairwell from the rear, northeast corner of the structure to the front, northwest corner of
the structure.. The relocation of this element addresses potential issues with public safety,
and it also provides the Oak Street facade with balance and symmetry lacking in the
previous design.
Findings
1.
The architecture of the Oak Street facade is very orderly and balanced in its composition.
Similar to the proposed design for the cineplex exterior and storefronts, design of the
Oak Street facade consists of elements and detail that characterize buildings of the Art
Deco period. The structure's two stair towers "bookend" the facade's lower middle
section, which rises only to 48 feet at the sidewalk. The facade's columns are finished
with projecting V- shaped forms, and capped with relatively fine- grained fluting.
Sidewalk entries to the stair towers feature overhead panels cast in bas - relief, which,
together with the "storefront -like" treatment of sidewalk entries to the structure's
interior, are intentionally supportive of a pedestrian - friendly environment. Vehicular
entry and egress to the structure is announced with use of a tall, vertical neon sign,
perpendicular to the facade and integrated with a multi- layered, marquee -like base.
2. The facade materials consist of a combination of painted precast and cast -in- place
concrete, and cement plaster finish, very similar to exterior materials of the cineplex.
The drawings also indicate that all colors of the parking structure exterior are sandy
9
beige, and are to be related to the field and accent colors as called out for the exterior of
the cineplex.
3. With all of the articulation of elements and attention to detail one finds in the design,
materials and color scheme of the parking structure's Oak Street facade, a question, and
potentially an issue, arises of whether the parking structure and the cineplex are intended
to be partners of equal standing. It is assumed that the cineplex is to be the dominant
structure and more important architectural statement of these two project components,
and yet a review of the Komorous -Towey plans and drawings, e.g., Sheet A3, labeled as
Corner View with Parking Structure, suggests some ambiguity on this point.
Is this public parking structure intended to serve as an adjunct or extension of the
cineplex, or is the intent to design and build a public parking structure that serves many
uses and users of Downtown Alameda, and not just patrons of the cineplex and
Alameda Theater? Do the similar design elements and related field and accent colors of
these two project components unnecessarily add to or reinforce concerns of some
regarding the massing, size and scale of these two structures, especially when looked at
collectively?
In a word, consideration should be given to toning down the presence of the public
parking structure, so that it will not be read as either a partner of, or an adjunct to, the
cineplex. A reduction in the number of colors, perhaps to the point of using just one
basic color, as well as use of color neutral in value but clearly dissimilar to the field colors
selected for the cineplex exterior, deserves further investigation and refinement. A
simplified and toned -down color palette for the parking structure's exterior potentially
could achieve several beneficial effects: the cineplex is more likely to read decisively and
distinctively as the major corner centerpiece of the development project; the pedestrian -
oriented environment of the parking structure's first level, with its "storefront -like"
treatment of sidewalk entries and use of bas -relief panels, more likely would enjoy greater
prominence; and opportunities to appreciate all of the facade's attention to Art Deco -
inspired details and finishes is not likely to suffer, as all of the profiles, reveals, fluting and
V- shaped forms would continue to project shadows, contours and dimensioned planes.
10
SOURCES
City of Alameda, "Section 106 Review and Findings: Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater
and Construction of a New Cineplex and Public Parking Structure," Robert Bruce
Anderson /Urban Conservation & Urban Design, May 2005
City of Alameda, "Draft Initial Study /Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Alameda
Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project," Wagstaff and Associates et al,
December 2004
Komorous -Towey Architects, "Alameda Cinemaplex and Parking Structure," Sheets A1-
A22, October 21 and 25,2005
Morton III, W. Brown et al, "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings," National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1992
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer, "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings," National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1995
11
ATTACHMENT 8
CITY RESPONSE TO
SECTION 106 REVIEW AND FINDINGS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT : .REHABILITATION
OF THE ALAMEDA THEATER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CINEPLEX AND
PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE (DECEMBER 2005)
PREPARED BYBRUCE ANDERSON
OF URBAN CONSERVATION & URBANDESIGN
In conjunction with its consultants and partners, City staff has reviewed Mr. Bruce
Anderson's Supplemental Section 106 Findings and has developed the following
response:
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CINEPLEX
1) No response to finding is necessary.
2) No response to finding is necessary.
3) No response to finding is necessary.
4) The cineplex developer, Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), in
conjunction with the City will contract with Komorous -Towey Architects
(KTA) to provide transition services regarding the design development of the
exterior cineplex design to ensure final designs are consistent with the
conceptual plans and drawings prepared by KTA.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE
1. No response to finding is necessary.
2. No response to finding is necessary.
3. Report requests a "toning down the presence" of the parking structure through the
use of a "simplified and toned down color palette." A greater differentiation
between the parking structure and the cineplex is also noted. In response, new
colors will be selected which will be more closely related to each other with less
contrast in both chroma and value. These colors will also be more differentiated
from and more neutral than the cineplex. However, some variation between the
vertical pilasters and the spandrel panels will be maintained.
3/9/2006
ATT
MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson, Vice -Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson,
Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Jennifer Ott,
Development Services Department, Debbie Gremminger,
Recording Secretary.
A motion and a second was made to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 1,
2005 with corrections. 5 -0 -0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Historical Advisory Board's consideration of whether to recommend to the City Council
that it designate the structure at 2320 Lincoln Avenue as a Historical Monument. (EP).
(Continued from the 11 -03 -05 meeting).
Emily Pudell presented staff report. This item was before this Board on November. 3, 2005 at the
request of Board member. Lynch. In November, the Board continued the discussion to allow
more time for Board member Iverson to become familiar with the history of this building. Staff
does not support the recommendation to nominate 2320 Lincoln Avenue a historic monument.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, .spoke in favor of recommendation.
There were no more speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing, and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 1
Board member Lynch requested that this item be tabled to a future meeting to allow time for the
property owner to complete the proposed renovations to the building.
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) to table this item until the proposed work has been completed. 2 -3 -0.
Ayes: 2 (Iverson, Lynch); Noes: 3 (Anderson, Miller, Tilos); Absent:
failed.
Motion
MIS (Miller, Anderson) to accept Staff s recommendation not to recommend the designation of
2320 Lincoln Avenue as a historic, monument. 3 -2 -0.
Ayes: 3 (Anderson, Miller, Tilos); Noes: 2 (Iverson, Lynch); Absent: 0; Motion
carries.
2. CA05- 0035 - 2320 Lincoln Avenue - Applicant: Li -Sheng Fu for Jim Hom. Applicants
request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a historically
designated commercial structure. The proposed work includes a new foundation and restoration
of the existing siding and windows, where possible, and reconfiguration of the interior spaces for
the purposes of establishing a new commercial use The site is located at 2320 Lincoln Avenue
within an C -C -T Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (EP)
Emily Pudell presented the staff report. On July 15, 2005, an application for Minor Design
Review was received by the Planning and Building Depaituuent to restore the building at to
commercial /office use. The plans propose to restore the interior and exterior of the building,
including a new foundation, interior staircase, and restoration of the building's existing siding
and windows. A Certificate of Approval is required from this ` Board because the interior and
exterior modifications to the building exceed the 30% threshold for demolition. Staff is
recommending that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval for removal of more than 30%
of the value of the structure with the conditions stated in draft Resolution.
There were no speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened
the floor to Board discussion.
The Board had several questions regarding the plans. Ms. Pudell stated that she has not begun
the Design Review because she needed a decision from this Board regarding the demolition. The
exterior of the building will remain as is.
In response to Board member Lynch's questions regarding the front door, Ms. Pudell informed
the Board that she has not seen any historical pictures of the original door; however, the
applicant will be required to provide a door schedule as part of the design review requirements.
M/S to (Miller, Anderson) to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA05 -0035, to alter more than
30% with conditions as stated in draft resolution. 5 -0 -0.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 2
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion carries.
3. CA05 -0033 — 2708 Lincoln Avenue Applicant: Minxi Liu for Alvin and Lai Wong.
Applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a
historically designated single family residence. The proposed work includes the addition of
approximately 1,100 square feet first story and new second story, removal of 2/3 of the exterior
rear and side walls, and removal of the roof. The site is located at 2708 Lincoln Avenue within
an R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District. (EP)
Emily Pudell presented staff report. She informed the Board that this project has already received
design review approval by the Planning Board on August 8, 2005, with the condition that prior to
approval of the final plans for the building permit; the property owner shall apply for and obtain
approval for a demolition permit from the Historical Advisory Board.
According to available resources, the small, cottage -style dwelling was constructed in 1906. The
building, however, is not listed on the Historic Building Study List. The approved plans indicate .
that the modifications would not only change the architectural style of the building, but would
add approximately 1,100 square feet to the existing building and change the location of the front
entry and staircase. The approved Design Review indicates that similar siding and window
materials will be utilized for the new additions and remodel. Staff is recommending' the Board
approve the Certificate of Approval, with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Lili Rollins, 1607 Pearl St., spoke in favor of this project.
Minxi Liu, architect, was present and available for any questions the Board may have
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Vice -chair Miller commented on the fact that after this project is complete, there won't be any of
the original house remaining.
Chair Anderson spoke in favor of the proposed project, however requested that wood windows
be required as a condition of approval.
Ms. Eliason stated that the design review has already been approved by the Planning Board, so
the conditions of Design Review approval cannot be changed.
M/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve to approve Certificate of Approval to alter more that thirty percent
of the value of the structure located at 2708 Lincoln Avenue with conditions stated in the draft
resolution. 5 -0 -0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion carries.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 3
REPORTS:
4. Review and Comment on Section 106 Findings Regarding Revised Designs for the 350 -
Space Parking Garage and Cineplex at the comer of Oak Street and Central Avenue within the
C -C T (Community Commercial Theater) Zoning District. (JO). (Continued from 12 -01 -05
meeting).
Jennifer Ott, Development Services presented the staff report. She informed the Board that the
City has retained a new architect, Komorous -Towey Architects (KTA) to develop revised
designs for both the Cineplex and parking garage based on direction from the City Council on
August 16, 2005. Revisions to the facades include reduction of scale and bulk, greater evocation
of Art Deco style, additional vertical articulation, greater design consistency and symmetry, as
well as greater articulation of blank surfaces.
The City Council accepted and authorized Section 106 review of the revised designs on
November 1, 2005. Mr. Bruce Anderson, the City's Section 106 consultant, has reviewed the
revised designs for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Restoration and has prepared a supplemental report to his initial Section 106 Report, considered
by this Board on June 2, 2006. Staff requests that the Board review and comment on the revised
design and supplemental Section 106 report. Staff will forward the Board's comments along
with the draft minutes from this meeting to the City Council to consider before taking a final
approval action on the revised design.
Chair Anderson opened the Public hearing.
Susan Denault, 1416 Willow St., spoke in opposition to the new design. She stated that it is still
too big for the proposed location. The proposed design does not fit into the neighborhood.
Nina Rosen , 1045 Island Dr., spoke in opposition of the size of the building.
Monica Penya, 1361 Regent St., stated the report does not address the size and scale of this
project and does not think it will be compatible with the surrounding buildings. She believes
there is a better alternative.
Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive., spoke on behalf of RAPS and commended the new
architect on the revised design; however, the project is way too large for the area. She would
like the City to further pursue the Longs parking lot site.
Ani Dimishiva, 2911 Calhoun St, is not in favor of revised design. It still has the box- like mass
feeling of the Cineplex, which has been a major concern of the community. The question is
whether the massive box fits in it location. It must be compatible with surrounding buildings.
The report does not address if the proposed construction protects the environment. There should
be no further action taken until there is a three dimension model of project provided.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 4
Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow St., spoke in opposition of the project. She would like an
Environmental Impact Report done. She read into the record a statement by Woody Minor
opposing the bulk and massing of the proposed project.
Rayla Graber spoke in opposition of the size of the project. The present plan is an improvement
to the original design but it is still too large.
Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Ave., spoke on behalf of AAPS and briefly reviewed a November 1,
2005 letter from AAPS to the City Council, which was distributed to this Board in their meeting
packet. He stated that his main concerns are with the size of the project, and that it is not
compatible with the surrounding area The north wall of the parking structure has not been
addressed adequately. He would like to see a physical model done and be required as part of the
approval process. This would allow for a better understanding of the size and scope of the
project with regards to the surrounding area.
Chris Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Ave., spoke on behalf of AAPS and further reviewed the
above mentioned letter. He stated that AAPS feels that although the new design is an
improvement, they still have concerns with the 20 -inch projection of the Cineplex. _ He stated
that the projection is adding too much bulk and is not sure why it is necessary. He also stated
that the upward angle of the bay windows of the second floor lobby should be increased, and a
more vertical mullion pattern be used for the mezzanine windows.
Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Ave., agreed with Chris Buckley that the 20 -inch projection should be
eliminated. He reviewed the drawing that was attached to the letter submitted by AAPS. He
stated that a more substantial material should be used for the tile on base of the storefronts.
AAPS would like to review materials and color samples when they become available.
Leslie Fishback, 1334 Burbank St., spoke in opposition of the project. She does not feel that the
historic theatre is being restored. She is also concerned with the size of the Cineplex and feels
the parking garage has too few spaces.
Susan Batailia, 1351 Burbank St., stated that the size and scope are too large. The majority of
citizens agree that the historic theatre should be preserved. The Twin Towers church will not be
visible if this is built. There will be more traffic problems. The alternative has been brought to
the City, by contracting with existing parking lots. She is not as concerned with the color as
much as the size.
Russ Button, 2711 San Jose Ave., is opposed the size and scale of the project. He stated that
traffic would be increased on Park Street. The rents will go up and the "mom and pop"
businesses such as Ole's, La Pinata, and Tuckers Ice Cream would disappear. This will change
Alameda in a major way. He stated that this Board's job is too keep Alameda the way it is.
Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio Ave., also opposed the size of the project. She would
also like to see a model. She urged the Board to infoliu the City Council that the size of the
Cineplex and parking garage will ruin the historic character of Park Street.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 5
Irene Deeter stated her main concern is the location of the parking garage. The Elk's site would
be a much better location and it would allow for the height and bulk of the Cineplex to be scaled
down. The people of Alameda want a fully restored historic Theatre. She would like an
agreement from the developer that he will completely restore the Historic Theatre.
Charles Kasdorf stated that the proposed structure is too large. He would also like to see the
historic Theatre completely restored.
Paula Rainy, 556 Palace Ct., agreed that the size and scope of the project will have a detrimental
effect on the neighborhood and the quality of life in Alameda. She would also like to see a
model.
Kristianne Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition of project. The thing that attracted her
to Alameda was its uniqueness. She wants Alameda to hold the unique charm that draws people
to it. She agreed that the garage is misplaced. She has joined the group Citizens for a Mega-
P1ex Free Alameda (CFMFA), who have worked hard to come up with an alternative plan. They
have come up with ideas that would allow this area of Alameda to be a Civic Center.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St, spoke against the project as proposed. He would like to have
more of a setback on the corner of Oak St. and Central Ave. He agrees that a model should be
done. He stated the Elks Lodge would be a better location for the parking garage, and added
that this suggestion has been ignored by City staff. The people should have a say, and have taken
a lot of abuse. He would like an Environmental Impact Report done.
Rob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), would like to address a comment made by
one of the previous speakers who indicated that the project would raise rents on Park Street and
run out "mom and pop "businesses. He would like to say for the record that the owners of Oles',
Tuckers, and La Pinata support this project as do most of the businesses on Park St.
Robert Wood stated that his primary objections to this project have been scale. He agrees that
this project is on a site that is too small He would like to blame Longs for not making their site
available. He stated that if this project goes ahead, it will establish precedence for the rest of the
block. There is no Master Plan for the Civic Center in this City. He has asked the Planning
Board to direct Staff to prepare a Master Plan for the Civic Center and its surrounding blocks. He
agrees there should be a model done which should include` the new Library and the Elks Club.
Linda Kibler, 1625 San Antonio Ave., moved to Alameda because of the historic quaintness.
She is fearful where this project will take our town in 20 years from now. It is too large and out
of place for the downtown area.
David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Ave., would first like to thank Staff and Board members for all of
their work on this project. He stated that this has been difficult because of the division that is
being created between the business owners and the community. He stated that Oak Street is too
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 6
narrow for the entrance to the parking garage and it would be very unsafe. This Board should
preserve the historic quality of Alameda.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board member Lynch stated how difficult this is. She feels the Board is being pressured to push
this project through. A year ago this Board was shown a design that looked like a "refrigerator
box" that was too big. The new design has improved, but it is still too big. She was not aware
that there could have been an alternative location for the parking garage. She stated that she
would like a three dimensional model made so she would have a better idea of the size and scale
of the new Cineplex and parking garage.
Board member Tilos agreed that the parking garage should be built on an alternate site and thinks
the Council should further consider the Elk's parking; lot as a possible site He agrees with Board
Member Lynch that the Cineplex is too large for its current location.
Vice Chair Miller stated that he has always said that this project is too large, as well as his fellow
Board members. He stated that the City Council has ignored the community. He agreed that
there should be a model to better visualize the size and scale of the project. He stated that AAPS
has good suggestions. The colors for the garage should have less contrast.
Board member Iverson acknowledged the amount of work put into the presentations. She stated
that the size and scale is incompatible to the area. She is interested to learn more about the
different parking locations. She stated that the comments submitted by AAPS are good. The
mechanical enclosure at top of the building is too high. The 70 -ft. wall should be more detailed.
This would be a good opportunity for public art. She would also like to see a model of the Civic
Center. The detailing at the street level of the Cineplex is not keeping with the style of the
parking garage.
Chair Anderson would like to reiterate what the people are saying. When she first learned that
Theatre was going to be restored she was excited. She feels they have been made hostage by the
proposed Cineplex and Parking Garage. She does not think that Alameda can support eight
screens. The revised size and scale is an improvement to previous design but does not think that
it is proportioned to the site. It is too massive. This project would be a mistake. She feels that we
do need the parking structure in the downtown area to keep the businesses viable. She is opposed
to the Cineplex and the parking garage as it is designed but is in favor of the restoration of the
historic Alameda Theatre.
Staff thanked the Board for their comments.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 7
AAPS submitted a letter regarding their request to list several buildings located at Alameda Point
on the Historical Building Study List. Ms. Eliason stated that the ARRA has directed Staff to
present them with language that will be added to the preferred development concept.
Board member Lynch asked staff if there the City is still planning to create a committee
regarding the future plans for Alameda Point.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun St., thanked the Board for their comments on Item 4.
Irene Dieter, thanked the Board for their comments on Item 4. She also informed the Board of
the 2002 Park Street Streetscape Plan, which indicated there should be no traffic on Oak Street.
Ms. Eliason stated that this document was the basis for the grants that the City has received for
the Park Street Streetscape. Staff will provide the Board with a copy.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, would like to clarify what the ARRA Board requested. He stated that
they were concerns that the plans were not set in stone before all of the historic buildings be
identified. They asked staff to put together a schedule of how the various steps of dealing with
historic buildings would occur. Staff was supposed to return to ARRA with the schedule in
February 2006.
Board member Lynch would like information on 500 Central Ave. Ms. Eliason stated that the
applicants were required to weatherize the building and will be ready for public hearing in
February.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Staff would like to remind the Board of the open house for the new Planning & Building
director, hosted by the Planning & Building Department on Monday, January 9th
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\ PLANNING \HAB\AGENM1N\Agenmin.06 \01 -05 -06 min.doc
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 8
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD GCHIWARZENEGGER, Governor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P,O, BOX 942996
SACRAMENTO, CA 94296.0001
(916) 6834624 Fax (916) 653.9824
a I shpo RO a hp, p a►k t ca, p ov
N.ohp.parks.ca.gov
March 7, 2006
Cathy Woodbury
Planning and Building Director
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501 -4477
PERMIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 94501-
REPLY TO: HUD041117M
ATTACHMENT 10
Dear Ms. Woodbury:
RE: REHABILITIATON`OF THE ALAMEDA THEATER AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALAMEDA
THEATER/CINEPLEX/PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
This letter is in response to the following letters and meeting:
• January 4, 2006, _letter from Jennifer Ott to Lucinda Woodward;
• January 18, 2006, letter frorn Cynthia Eliason to Milford Wayne Donaldson;,
• January 20, 2006, letter from Cynthia Eliason to Lucinda Woodward;
• January 24, 2006 letter from Cynthia Eliason to Milford Wayne Donaldson;
• March 1, 2006, plans presented at meeting between City of Alameda and Office of
Historic Preservation; and
• March 1, 2006, letter from Cathy Woodbury to Lucinda Woodward.
In response to our letter to the City March 15, 2005, your letter of January 24, 2006 identified
the following historic properties located within the area of potential effects (APE):
®. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (NR)
Alameda High School, 2250 Central Avenue
Alameda Free Library, 2264 Santa Clara Avenue;
Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue; and
Park Street Historic Commercial District.
• Determined eligible for inclusion in the NR by the City:
Twin Towers United Methodist Church, 1411 Oak Street
We concur with your determination that this property is eligible for inclusion in the NR.
• Determined ineligible for inclusion in the NR by the City:
2300 Central Avenue;
2305 Central Avenue;
Ms. Woodbury
March 7, 2006
Page 2
2306 Central Avenue;
2327 Central Avenue;
First Church of the Nazarene, 1415 Oak Street;
1365 Park Street;
1405 -07 Park Street;
1425 Park Street;
1 427 Park Street;
142933 Park Street;
1501 Park Street;
2314 Santa Clara Avenue;
2315 Santa Clara Avenue;
2319 Santa Clara Avenue; and
2325 Santa Clara Avenue.
We concur with your determination that these properties are not eligible for inclusion in the
NR.
On. March 1, 2006 we had the opportunity to review revised plans for the cineplex and parking
garage. Based on those plans, and on earlier submitted plahs for the rehabilitation of the
historic theater, we concur in your determination that the undertaking as proposed would have
an effect on historic properties within the APE, but that the effect would not be adverse.
If you have questions or comments, please contact Lucinda Woodward, Supervisor of the
Local Government and Information Management Unit at (916) 653 -116 or at
Ioodward @ parks.ca.gov.
Sin
Milford Wayne ' • naldson, FAIA
State Historic P = servation Officer
a
a
-a a)
• C
• •
Zir 1.
p C u
•
a a
a.
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
4 i g
w
Alameda Theater
Project name
c 4) a a1
• 5 c C
3 a) O O
O
-c c U
U c _c
O " p r..
,
.
N = A
•.p ltd _ .`
o cc Ts N do :0 0 a) O
✓ U
E N .0 , —_ aa)
M o) i0 ` F- .0 <2 c
0
0)
LO
•a
0
0
• p
O
T
Q)
a)
O
._
0
a)
c/)
a)
a)
.a
O
C▪ I)
N
N
0
la
ATT ICHIMENT 2:
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
CO
CO
C °
o
: 0
0 2
Mobilization
434,872.91 /Is
Job Supervision
•Li <1
CSJ t--
0 CO CO CO
ca OJ 0J
w w-
co
CO N CO 0
0
N 10 cn
co
1,538.66 /mos
N co tn CO
CO N 0
/43- LO
E
5,254 Added 5 -9 -05 Allowance for Debris left onsite
Cr)
E E
co
co
CO
V)
LLO
01
LO
0 cn 0
o CO
CO 2 -5...>' .5.,.., E a,'
C9 q°
a> - - a; a;
(f)
E
0
o a
0 7.-, o
t S' r5, )...
2 17; 2 >.. cn
4 0
(4) C ca. cn
CL1 0 U) CD 0 0 6
-
C 0 0 . CC 4) -5
u) .9. 4)
0 0 0 = 7-, , c
C E = 0 .0 0
• 'C' i '-'; 0 .0
F".".-. C) cb =
u ja ct,....7 ulE Ft
-0 0 0
x
;
0 totE .:=
0 .-
.- L• -• '- 3 _, o . o or. a ca . c7) g a)
o 02 To a) ca. 0 O. .- c) ,.. 0
0. o .E..) r, 0 ■-
= a" E
E al E ,&) a, .00 g 00. f:,) I 2...., 2: : .- .,,,E3 z3
O (1) -. o I- 0 SP. I- 0 (-) 2 -a "-- - c o 2
-3 U. :71 (1) •E i:
1- i- c..) a- i-- 1- co
TO 0 0 0 0 ).0 0
1- C \ I Tr L0
0 0 0 0 0 o ,-..
7
Zi; iS ,
0 G (7; -•
;
0
6/21 /2005 8:38 AM
Alameda Theater 6 -21.05 Budget Update.pee
z
0
z
0
0
c
< 2
cc -"g
z
w
0
CD 2
0
0
0
434,872.91 /Is
48,319.21 /mos
E
co
c
a)
Job Supervision
ct 0) NI.
CO 0
O CO CO CO
C6 NI NI
co
co
ww o
E
0 0 0
cD o
07
806.09 /ea
179.13 /mos
E
co
c
CO Ul CO
CO N 0
0
tO tO
2 5. Y.,-
c,
O q
t11
cs1
cq
1,313.47 /mos
5,254 Added 5 -9 -05 Allowance for Debris left onsite
tn
O 0
E
cci 0 .s2
o
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
583.77 /mos
o 5 o ..7.,
..---, 0
g
9 >.,
- 2 -0 >. cm
r...- .•- 2 Co o
Iii 2 0 0_ fn
a) a) o -0-
CD 01 C 0 0 „, a 0 -5
0
cn .2 CD 0 (.)
0 _ a a E ...z 0 .• 0 c.)
.-. 2 (?) ::-.. CU r, 'ff 0. 0 0
= cn "fi , "5. .0 o o. a_ .. X CD o I— co.
o --, X M t- a•s • • -Z .t= 2l0 - ,c , Ic= T°1- 0 o sr5 ro ..) ). , c.1aEC . 0 o -, . -1...c 6 o 8 - co .
L2L1I )
< 1 c0 2 o '1i 0 a Q 2
UCc.D ,
L
, =
- .
a 1E 0 • . . a0
,- • -J 0 - 0 2 10 0 a u) 0_ 0 0. ' 8 -a
o o E c2 E 6 0 8.- o 0
Eto E a .0 go .0 o
W 0 0 a s- I— 0 a, I— o o iC c-c) t ,
-) u_ :I cn
111
Csi 1••• (.0
o o 0
G T-
r-
0
r-
0
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
53,035.15 Imo
GENERAL CONDITIONS
N
I"- m
0
LO
0
E `c
0 CO
M
(O 0
CD
c 'E
0 0
0 0
o CD
O
O
el'
cn
O
O
cm
In
M
(0
m • V}
N
CD
0
V
to
M
O
th
O
O N
0 0
O O
2,645.69 /Is
Cn N y
0 0 0 O
T r r
52,914 Allowance
52,913.88 /Is
O
0
10)
O
0
$ • •0
• A,
d
E
E
co
52,913.88 /Is
Q)
Y C6
o E 0 4 Q
m
2 A N E N 0 m
Y V
O m° CO m CO C C t 'm • CO
a 92 2 n`. O 0 U `-
N N 7_ V a 0 CD
O O W
W j
CNI CO CD 52 In N.
CO CO
'CV1
r. csi (15
(.6
0
106,782.14 /Is
Cr)
0 o o o o o 0
q 00000 0
6 c.i 6 6 6
1— co CD CO v- 0 3--
CSI CSI CO 10 t'-
10
0
Laf3
CD 0. CO 0) 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
Concrete Reinforcement
Structural Concrete Work
0
0
o)
C)
0
ncludes reinforcing
th
-0
Deleted
Lc) Lo Lo
cz, tz, L0 C.,
di di C?, (3)
1:, "0 ..". •;3
.2 .4. 3 Pa .2
. S• .) Z. .0
Q.) 0 0, (1)
C) 01 CC 0)
CD 0 CO C7) <1. 0 CD N. CO tO CD
c-4, iz: 0 0 2 Pa' it-2 "
" 0
1,-,
0 CV
1- N.
tri a 1-: •1- r--= cii
6 c4 c\i 6
cv co
..-
s2 -co 17) -03 17)
CD CD CD 0)
• q
CD
CO
.520 0 c)(0 0
Q00 o
g • 0')
Deleted 5-9-05
,r1 w 1.-n
LO tf) DO 0
tf)
0 ,-.
6 oi (0 10) 6 6
cm 01 0 (01 001 DJ
(4) co -- r-- LO
6 ('4 (0
CO
0
o 00
c. 00
6
0
r-
co
579,255.51 /Is
0)
CONCRETE
MASONRY
Unit Masonry
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
01-
0)
uJ
9
• .
x
53,972.15 /Is
(1)
0
0
MASONRY
0
0
0
tO 03 la to to
° 9 9 9 9
c7i rsi \-1 c7i
(1) th (0
- -o
.2 a) a) a) a)
g -`->1 ' g
a) a) a) a) cD
C) cc cc cc cc
co 4- co
N
r co co
;)
35 `c?,
CO
1•••
0
cn cn
-.....
0
0
-t
•c2
a) a. E
.Z3 • 0
<
>
-a 8
92
ci) u) co
CO
r-
0)
0)0)Q)
0 0
q
CO
C0
-L-6 1-6 .17, to•
CD ID 03 CD
CO c0 CO CO CO
4 4 4 4 )
til <13 iti in Cn ‘.C.7) ci,
0 0 0 0 0 0
0000C, co
ci ...- O La O ci
CO V' 1.0 0 V'
..-- ..--
03 N 01 lf 3
tri
25,942.32 /Is
0)
LO
0
0
0
0
0)
0
E
0
0
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
N
O
N
CO VI 0)
of m
19,049 Allowance
to to 1a4})) 10 N Q) L.,)
er C1 r N t
c N _ d m rn N
0 0 V CO CO V' V' C V' st d' o
CO M m 7 d' N N N N N 0 to
N (0 O r N N N N N 0
o N r N) C) N (V N N N .- N
0) 0 W
N
on
N
o O
O
- m N = = 0
C")
co
Q
y N
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o
O C) O O C! O (O N 0
C) CO N N N r C) 0
O
O
N
E
O
O
O
755,561.13 /Is
N
J
H
W
2
WOOD & PLASTICS
26,457 Added 5 -9 -05
N 0 0 0
r N 0 N
h h N
LO (4) (0 CO
0 0 0 0
6/21 /2005 8:38 AM
)eater 6 -21.05 Budget
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
cs)
0 CD
g
0
.... OD
cs)
o
co
WOOD & PLASTICS
CO 0
N.
67,010.13 /Is
▪ tO CO
OD CO 0
68,501.67 /Is
"6 11) U) "6 la 15 12
0 0
0 0
dd
0 +-
0
0
5 12
F- CO
a, co
u-i
N N 0
0
.4-
ill Y. 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
ci
03 0 CO
0:1 CO
C.)
Ill .E
1-10' G
Cr o o fa)
ir
a t 76 o
. a) E fcl,'
0,
W 0 0 1E tn4
CC
0) >/) «0
g
F- F. FL' __ Fi t
› „, -
— t .(2 2- .-2-
:-D E fia) cc
v' .
0 E e g c=
CD co E 5 .1
.7;
6
C 5 ors
or$ Cr.. 5 • •- .6. 0 a- ..0
E
S 2 CD ..0 . 8 - (I)
—I 0) I- cn c 0 = g 2 0 m
0 0 0 0, ,,, a) .f.,,3 ca 0 0)
"c9a.
M. >. CC = `.41 > .c
ti 33 FOI :,E ..0 .c cm C _c .d
5 4.3t, .s.,,s' ..,til E-L-Q, 8- 02- =—_, lc SO-
0 13) CC =
• Cl
0 °.O313 al
= 4.5 6' 76 '='. :it'' CT) CE 1.13 mg ci)C.2 col' LI --N Ilib- U)
1-- ti Z 0) ti 0 a a. *5
co
u)
0 0 0 o 0 9
o ,-- 0 ,-
,- in co co a> cl,
N. I-- r-- to
o 0 0 0 0
V,
a)
■--
0 as
0 -o
0 CB
F- E
.0
0 <
=7.
CO CO
I, VD
CV I-
03
10 C
6 al
E2
00 00
0
o
cr)
r)
0
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
207,906.44 /Is
sed 5 -31 -05
cr
Revised 5.31-
0
CO N CO tT 0 0 0 0 0 0 V' O CA 0 0 V' CO 0 N N t` CA CD CO. CO ice : M CO CO CO CO n
N O) Q O T 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 O W CO V' CO 0) N O LO O O W CO 4 N
CO 4 to if) r Q) O 0) O) CA N� R) I : O t0 V: OD 0 r N M CO NI V CO CO :: +r-: M: M CO m PN'l_ r- (D
CV N r tfj to CO r O lA r pj N .- ::N.:+- r r .- CV
m a a CO 4 4 CO V CO CO M 4 N M N O (O O to CO CO 7 CO M tO in U'):4 O V LC) CO O
r r to O tO M LO to N N lt7 h M i17 r CO 4 CO m CO Cn N Is, LO tr) CO CO LO CO O CO CO m CO I-
4 N 6 to Oi Oi O1 Qi Di of M Oi Oi N: O O W O Oi O 6 Oi t0 co CV en CV 'N CV N CV CO V'
CO 0 O CA CA tT O) O 0 m CA m T M V' CD O) V CO O CO V LT r N N r CV N N N r O
CO CO CO GJ CO CO CO CO CO r CO CO 0 CO V CO. N tO N n CO O
r r r .- r r r r •- r .- N co
C?.+- -.M 07 M M M r
r N .-
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
co
co
0)
0
(1) N v ) to N 0 N 0 N CN N N N CI U) 0 N N N (C 0 V ) C) V V V V V V V V V V D'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:0'.0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000.0q0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
N CO CO 4 N r N r .- r ,- r r N r r r 4 CO V r CO 4 N V q r r r r
T
THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTEC
DOORS &WINDOWS
O
O
0
o
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
ton mmo om
co co 0) N d) N w
.4mm min
°o, o
141,853.10 /Is
y m •
000 O O 00 OO 0
21.166 Added 5 -9 -05
o O
cc Q n
o
T CO
J
v c N N 6
T y v
0 F- ¢ O a
C0 <t N N a�(O0) r
r O) �fi 0 07 N. u]
N v v' .3, o �5. C to
rl
d
O
\ N
CO o
( M
M rn
UNi
(rp (^') v0' 00 CO V
W
07 Lri
0 r M r n
u) - p CO
tr V
y y a N
O o °. O •
.= (0 r
N
00
N
a)
C
N N
h H °
(
L (.7 } D'
0
N L N (4 m
CIF
°e tl m v m m N ro �� CL
Q °. W N i� 0) L 3 N
3 o - c,m ()o °'0 3 C3 m �° C ro c° c
.0 co o 0. 1-. co ) co ) m m S °� a�i to N y . 3 . � N N p> m C
= E E`mQ E EC�� aj Cf. pL O: maw 3 3(C p C m �'N
Q) Q R 0 O CO i
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
N
C
0
O Ln 0 CD CO 10 h CO In CO Ln .- Ln LC) m 0) N 10 0) CO N. LO 0) CO 0) t)) O (D O CO
N O N LOry .T W M n N r CD .T- N CO n W d' CD N V 0 0 N - O LM CO
r tO N V m 0) CO N r 0) 0) r- or
co
N N` N C G` y Zi N y N N N` N N..0 _m O> .-.
G � � m
LC) CO CD a (D CO V N (n N 0 CD 0 In c•) LC) CO (n (n n CD CD U) h (D CD CD CO N c} t!) O W CD
O 0 0 CD O CD CD O O C O CD (O t` O CO O O CO CD N O O CD N O O O O V h O h N N N (O • CV cf r CV CV O CV Cry' Cp r 0)
__ N V M m 'cc?;
CO
O) 0)
CD r CV
N N N N y N N N N y N y N 0 a) co 0 co co N N N N N co m N N 0 !a
o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 CD CD O O O O O
O 0) O N (G O O 4) O 0) (0 ,- .- O O 0 0) ) 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 ) 0 N O
O 0) 0) 0) Cn O ct m t, t- 0 co CO .CO O W N CD V CO N CO N ,cF 0 0) 0
N O r O O CD O N N O N CO d' CD I, CD *- '7 CD CO r V' O 0)
Cr)
rtitions - Rm. 103
(d 0 N Ca
N -'� o > m N
0)
N E
N
a
o CC
o' E
co cc
E CC N N c V C Q...
o E E E E o M
o ¢ ¢ N - �0
,- E o Y Y O0 N m ¢ C 2 m
0 0 a a Y 'E 4` m
E¢ E d m N m o co 3 p a
¢ E ¢ M m rn m 0 O
T • N (a U m S • ro•C LL c O c
E
O
cs ma r,— c ¢ ¢ o'mE n $ 15 15 To-
CV
-0' CO 'O `t to r g N O
°°
N (o O 0 st N m N o O ¢ >> a CN L CE N N ¢
m $ al
Y¢ ° m ° o ° c ¢ E i cn c
c>'"c� mQ rLL` ` s = (E O m m rnrnm c rn rnrnm m D LLs mO m �(`` ro tL Y o � o m ¢ it c b o f = m ° ° N m ° ° g m m p () Co CO ( o m m Cn t1 m o a o
o 0 ' E m 0 q Q m= m rn — r H s c o ` F F 0 o a O m oc) 0 t J )a00 c o o —_ ` o
oimm iaa )0 o o m ?_ ¢mo v o LL o .1E ELLoLL o � E E0w ti! :m o yLLv a asOm
> m m m m m Co m 0 t `m an d (n m m
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E =
> w co CD m n w m m m 2 ¢ m > p p p m m 0 m
E E E E E E EE E E > > > > >
E a E E E E E E E E
m m m m m m m m CO m m m m 0 m m CO m m m m m 0 a) m m m m m m Q 0) N N m m m m
CC CC ECCCCC000000CCOMM000 CC CC 0 0 CC CC CC a o o co cc co fr cc cc cc cc cc cc
o 0 0 0
O o O O
▪ N CD 0)
N
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
ater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Revised 5 -9 -05
Demolition for Seismic
N- CO Lt) CO N 1,- (0 CZ CO CO
(0 0) 1,- 1,- 03 CO N.. CD 01 44.
C0 CD ,- 03 NI co .0" CD 0
I-
N
4' 4', 113A re
Deleted 5 -9 -05
CDNC003)-N-('1-0) CO
C) 0 01 •-• N 03 0) N-
6 4 tri ca N: tri ,- cv co . o
o t-- in ,- co t-- o
co ,. ,- 6 o
0
Nr
- .sn
00000000000 0
0000qooqq
6 6
o o
•ct. N
250,478.31 As
• o:r o5
(.0 LC1
CO -
01
tc-! (0 o c0 00 ,0'--0-• N1a.- 0') 0N - ul 0') q
1- Csi wi tr)co oc,6 coc.i c \ iod (0.,6 •01).- 0,i, .6 tr)co co,- Lc,
0.1 CD 0)
,- m u) -4- (43
cv
ci 6 o Cq N 6 .t....trico. c6r......7
.- 1-
(0
.- ..--
CO
CV
00 co qo 8 8 , : ,tr: , 8 8 .0 8 8 • 8 8 .0 8 8 90
l •0)
4- 6 6 r c., o s: t . , r 6 - , - 6 -
6 6 , - , -
c , T CO 0O , 0 0 0-.r. 80
tr _ , , _. -6 - 0
•ci: 4"
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
0
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
N
N
m
N
0
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
00 (0
0'
99 9
c7? c7?
U1
'0 "0
0) 0)
T T1
T T1 "0
<<
ZZ FT.,
ss.ss cq.
0
1-
c.)
r-
0
0
0
ori
0
0
tO 0 CO N
CD CO v-
0 0 1— Ln
0)0) ID - ci
0 C.4
0 141 CO CO CO
co Zocoor— V'
CV N CO 0
0) v •cr CO
CO CD 0
Cq. o 0
co
V' 1-
c/ C.0
0 0 0 0 0
C7:! 0 0
0, cS
010)
01
CO CV Of CO NI
0
ro
0
r.
0
ID
0-
00
0
cf)
0)
0
0)
0000000
00000 ez,
0000— •
00000
LO Ol el
0
cc
CD
CO
01
10,286.46 Is
(i)
u) in
0001')
ai
To-
000
0.0.00
ci •
co c0
00001')
c,
2
c
13
_92 is
P 0 8
a)
co . ,-...
00
E 00
co
C.)
0 a,
cn
TE'r92&) CrCI)`;)*CrEl
< 8
---.HE va'
Zi g
2 c)
a .
a P..
-F3
7,5 r' 41-' • 6- 22 ,- ,- .,-
(00)
. CO ',.- 0
-I— 0 .r— Q.
co
c o 03 0
=
c a . ;ui cc 4 . Ccl" .' a:7i
luc La, 70
_. ,_
...,,,e 8 a 0 u. 0
E__
0 cn a) ,Y; 4., a-, .E
0 Cc-13 14
o .2 i .4z c.) 3 3 .c) as LI ., 2 i'
IL C0 - C LI- IL LL a)
1.5 8 g 't- 0) ED, -t' 7-9 m = .,0 .2
E 13 13 rts Id iii o N cc o 92 E E
115 P-3 'i Tt 0> 0
s- a) •- El ai o Li- o o g g 8 g :- w 7,
1-- I-
t0 Zr, I- <C .,-
0 1-4 .0(
<00«()
C.) •CC
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ir)
11) tc) co
Cr) 0) 0) 0)
0 0 0
1.0
0 0
0
T— Cr;
T—
ID
6/21/2005 8:
a.
5 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
0. o
o w
9 0) 0)
M m E
c o D.
or • v a m
t' TT3 Q Q U
Q
¢ O z r
10 O 0) N 10 O N It CO 0 C l CO N
CO CO CO c} CO O 01 CO N N 0 V' N
CO CO CD N V' CO CO V' N CO 0 CO CO
M 0) 10 N W N N O N N
✓ n •m co 0 N N N N r r.n N
vi 0) vi r a
N - N r r r N N N N N N N 0)
• to in N in' (!i UI m co co (0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tri O N N .- N C7 !n m N O 0 0)
(0
cD r N N M.. VO' .- r W
M
0
o r 0 K) 0 r M 0
1(1') CO 00) O CO co a n to Kt
N r N
01 0) m t0 �.MC�7 N 00 (0 W N d' N r
t0D 00) 1N m N N: O iN 1f7 N M r
N (0 M. r m
(■ <D d m (D 0) 0] 0] c0 0 In t0 tD O r t0 m M O r r
m 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o m 01 O) m O V V'
•= m v' a ro m vi r ai 0;
0
6/21/2005 838 AM
V
m
0
0 0
N 0) N N N N h H N N N N V) N:N N.Q1 N N 0) 4) =
0000)00000)000) 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O
0000O0000.00 0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0
O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- o '- O O: V O N (V )r) : 0 0
o (f) O O O O N t0 O O N. 0 •. 0 0
V' m 0 V' 03 V' CD t0 )1') r O 0.- U) CD.
CV N
O o
o
-° E o r T o m E
a) O -° o_ o_ _0. o M a M 2 M r7 ... ,�.' M o¢
_ ,Mg c w o
E d o U E E E c c c c c c c N o E U s o
0 0 o
<C 0 o • V Q ma1.rnar.5 00as m 0., E 0 u c«)0 ,
n7 O N 0 , a G C C C to N N N m 2 U m _ttl Q¢ N g i C
0 0 0 0' °O,==00015
N M d 0) N �) N N N N t0 N y 01 y ctl ¢ m
r: NMNMM as m c��oCo7� E-� o �W � o
E E E E Q E E E E E E E a° w.n y o `0 0 0` `o_ `o- 0.o' 0' • c o c o- -o :?
¢ M M¢ , M¢¢ M M¢ 2 O d C m= m m,3 m m `m m m= d v 8 :2 — 0= m_ 0. a
m s6 0. LL¢ c c c c c N ' `° a-.5 c¢ 3
E R Z P E' o. a. E. a o. a a. l t0
al 8
c 0. c c c c ELF a. n o c 0 0 0)
R 'm o. m of m m
O.aoaaan.�a �an.¢aactrtn.¢¢oaaa �
0
0
0 (• 0
N to
0
O 0
o 0
o a
0 0
O c
o to 0 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 o
o M o) to ) o) 0 CO
CO to • to hhhu') a
E 0 m m m m m
I a) '!' �' m m m 3 3 3
N N 0) �� N N N Q) 0 O
cc CC
C) 0 O to tD m CD st CO d' O r NI" m N CO
to N h N tO N CO CO In - 7 CD O to
N V' N 0 0) 00 N 0) O In M tD , 0
tt) r 0) V- N O O N N to if) - r
to r t0
U
tD r r O O t0 to 1` CO 0 CO 0 In : V' CD t0 CO 0 CO
O O r o 'I- CO N o CD to N CO d r r O tO O
r O N 0 CD sY CO V O CO h ,- CO CO In CD N
st NCI N r r N of ::�� .iu0 N to co 0n
st CD CD to sr tO st N CD CO CD t0 CD 10 CO t0 m CD tT CO O rn O CO O I,- 4, tO sr tD O m O
CO O O CO O) CO CO 07 LO o CD 0 0 0 O N O N O N O r N to O N N O d' t0 O N. t0 n r
'o r- t0 o N CO N 0) r� r r .- .- h tt) r to r a tr.; . m r tri r r tt'7 .::Ca V r 0r 1 1. r N O
N N CO t•-• 6
N r N r.: 0
.� ._ ` TO _ .` -V. _ .a in V .� — — ._. .. _
ti to
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
c
0)
t0
.. 0_
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.. OO O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >o 0 0 0 0 0 0
d O d O o o '- tD o o tV O d O O O O� OO OO OO .- N V O tti tO ,-- cc) O
ti O O O In N 1\ to 10 0 m 0 0 0 CO N V N LA 0 t` tD r D) CO CO CO si N t- CO O N N r 03 0 O 00j: 00 CD LA C 0
N r r .- N r r st 11) r CO N r r: (0
O) C
C
Or N N
0)
,7n E m tJ 0
E- ¢ 5 5 =
- E '2
• o
m e tZ) c) c m 3 J cc3 riii
m 0) ,a,', s
°o o) O
c c a N o
M Q y m
00 o 0- o o 0 0) - w 0 LL
° o 'E 00w7 00 N c c c N 'm
CU N
Oti¢ Q Q to t7) m in U w N ttl c 'ttl N ▪ O 5 U 0) 2 ,,,
• o w ■ tD a) .E... ' .o t°) C7 C7 m 2 = d o E �c d a. 'E c c Ut o E o 0 E 8
N O Z E "...-.=- 2 ;IS 'O C N l'I 10 �. G J: N N N F G C O ) e L O)
c) N N O U Q to N' C m N N .� • b N N (U td f0 (0 N— = U.. c a` c
V
Tu. i c 2 U N ,ta to o 0 0, t,0) c 0 j 0 17, t m c to -0 -o v U U o °n ,n aa)) , •o
rn • F_-
m to itl U a` .o c):'m : , .mc E V : m N e CO Z .,. m m. m m .c t :c F. :, o o tan N : c o) � @) c Ta m 3 3 4.' o t—oa 5 0 m z Cr °o, c� c c -� �¢ v¢ m m m LL LL_ CC .= .c z cc
0) G Q _ _N N 'N N tll N.. 10 1 .O N 2 0) -5 .O
m U 3 a, to a, co , m o— d c U U .,.c _2 o .c .c r U U 5 >, > i. a in 0 >,
= 's 0) a 0 a) m t!) , .. 0: O y. y 'c m ^ •C c_ 9 c 'c U o U (0 m E o o. o m m o 0
N Z _ U to tl > t0 Ad S -.a z .N 2 2 o O `) LL LL LL y c {,L
c E3 0 5 o,. c . D. N N 0) 01 01 oo U. .0 U.. .0 to .0 i
Ei 0 0- 8 o E c' 3 c a> c c c C) Q. :; -- N to — — — Ii .c t LL 0 a .0 a a, 0 .o
to o 'to 'E m ro )., d o m o ro °) 'm to m m '� 4) co rJ a) m m o o m m m . v o .o .0 .0 m o- a
d¢aa¢a o_ ¢H¢ _I D_U0.a.ti n CC CCIZCC o`0- - zz- ;n�_°.133�od3
5 Budget Update.pee
Alameda Theater 6 -21
1,706,941.78 /Is
Cu> cal Lo P_ 11
CV CO CO t■-
•:C cci, CO 0
N: C‘i CO
CO VI' CV 0
T- —0
c.7 .
col Cn Tic 'ET-)
0
•1r
o o o
C? 0 0
Cs1
cs)
.ar
as/
a)
c6
• g
o)
0.0
CO 0
Cn C.1
CD
(0
0)
0-)
Yr
(0
co
0)
r-
1'2
0
0. 0 0
3 •
r-
CO
0
cO
CV
0
.... IA 0
0 (1) E E.
-8-
_ • ..
.. , co 2 2 o
a) m
fa a c,
(1) C- g, (I) E • D-
ui .,,,u) u j 0 o 0- o a itl
cn . LI. 1... t CC
CO , CO
c- 021 06 (3
7.: 0 u' o u)
1.11 CL 0 0 ° & g ca Ct) 0
...,1 0 I:2 . co E 8 8 u)
i < CO '2 °ZS 8 8 0 0) .CI) CD c
(I) .c....5cc,. 0:E.-E,
to 0 tr, 0 .w, Fr., 0) in in as
(I) 0, 0 co .(1) • 0.
0 M„,
a 0
Z - 111 -.5 Q) Ma3 = .... a. CL
CD CO ..... L. ,
'' t')
1-• 1- i- us
'H
39 <cir Oal CCD- crm U..M
0 Fr)
LL u_
0
a)
0)
(0
(•,)
u)
1.:
CO2
('O
CO 0)
( ° . . . csi 0
0) csi
cv ,—
0
0
Toil
0
0
0
0
C■I LO CD
0
0
co c)
0-) 1-
t() a)
o o
r- r.
81,804.85 /Is
0
SPECIALTIES
EQUIPMENT
Theater & Stage Equipment
0
7.▪ •
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
0.
123,289.32 /Is
EQUIPMENT
(/) IL-
O
Z (11 2 ea
oti
)
cZ 06- : la 17 IF3 •
.0
t
0
"O" w
u. o ui
Deleted 5 -9 -05
0
0
'1* 0
CO t+
CI tD
C's1 CV
co
co
FURNISHINGS
z
0
cc
CD
ound Assembly. Etc.
(,)
0
0
0
Co)
(r)
•r-
0 0
(0
r—
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
6/21/2005 838 AM
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
26,456.94 /ea
Wheelchair Lifts
26,456.94 /Is
Wheelchair Lifts
L1)
(0
26,456.94 /Is
CONVEYING SYSTEMS
MECHANICAL
0
0 0)
m
0
--.1
Cf)
CZ
ix)
o kr) in .a)2.-c,
in
Q.
<
. cr)
to (0 th -o
(6
c 030;
01 -t) 0 C)
O ..9)..) 0 o a a
.cLI 92 . t2. 'GI o 0)0)
a) 2 P_
cc Q c2 ir2 0 Zi" Zt
tr)
9
0 N tO N CV
00 0 1"-- 0 CO (3: 33:3'. 0 lf) al tO 0 tO
tri" Lri c6 cs.1 tei
CV V) 0.1
,_.2 .;■12 4 42- 01 CD 0 CD 03 01 CD
■ ■' ■' 5 ...p " ' ", : ■D 9. ' 412
CD 01 a:, CO 3'. 3--. N. N. al 1.0 31
:,--, -4-
0) CD CO
0 0 -0. -0- rri .4 0 4 0 0 P.:
N.ON.0 - 0)3:3 14)
CO 0 -r- tD 3) 3) g DO ZE... C 0 CO
Ntri ,:sr cii ,- 0.1 -4- 0,1 ei ,- a
cs,
Tr. 0) 0) CO CD U:3
fc c?)
33)
co 4;1 2 to to
co 3100010
Cq 01 0000031
ai r•Z La
g 30 0) E.1"
in 5 i) 5 —9_ 5 ill o o In_
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 c, 8 co, 0 0000o0o,0 0000 r?
c‘i c; tri csi cri
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
E
_C
...
.c r 0 .'"i"; 31)
I-. . a)
= ..d. to
o 0 0 ' cti
0)
1
ct
E Er — m co 2
a_ 8 5 cc cr to — 0 co
E, ■ l ; .,>' z-q , .
0
g >Pg
?
o 3‹ EFe F c) t 2 r ca,11 S' o -
3U1 °g : 2 41 : W 3:. :' 0. 0)2
. 1,2° E -g-cn
v) 0) ...
PD-
i'
.
cg d i l C . t9
.,s 0. , u) _ej 0 3 g, .
E - ._ to m cm .0 .0 o ,0 , .c o . V. c 310 n g
.0 a ac c 0 T . D II E 0 Fv a g-
w E 0 ° e'le 2e
...
ir. Ir. ii: EL9
EL- o_ CC a. a_ cc cc z cc 4 I— cc = 2 ci CC = al .S ii: 13
co
to
o o o 9
o 0 0
0 Tr to
to in in (b
1- 1- v-
0)
.c
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
P
CC;
N-
CO
c.
E
0
15,837 Allowance
0
0
111
0
1,411,046.38 /Is
T'd
LL
0
t'cl'
co
g
-0
co cc ie
-0 23 To
F3
e.
E E 0 Fo
2 2 < -17,
.9- o
= ''2 -a al
"--
✓ :V 'Lci g
(0 (0 ,..a. .•E',
a) a
.§ ..
0)
C.) M tra CD Ca CO Ca 1,-. 01 Ca 0 0 0 0 V' CM CD LO ID CO Ca M N
0 0 N N CD CO. N 0 0 0 0 III CV N CO 1-.. C7) 0 0)
Li a h: C)
Lo,- ,-- o .- ....
CO
(0
`1) g g, 42
0.1 LO 01 41 LO 0 0 LO CO CO
N cl co 01 C7) LO 0 0) N N CM CO 10 0) V,
00(0(0)00)00,-0) ai
LO 01 0.1 LO CD 0 01 0 L41 1`... La csi C) OD 0) 0.1
0 0 LO `Kt co cv co LO CD 1.-.• (D1.0 0 0 0)
LL5 c‘r csi
Lo
Deleted 6 -7 -05 per SL
c,
tn a M c U a a 0
g t 1 A t I' (I -.2 t Fe 0)0 0 0 0) 0)0)00 ,. q IaY. . Y ..cL, 49
0 000000000000000cc00000Lo oL:;.
c00000csooc,00000aoaoc000
00
0
1— N 'cl - a)
.r- to
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
o
c, c, cc cc
cc
. .
E E Tti ,... ;) a
03 CI) ' - ET1 CC
■ . ,..-. V
,'''' '5- 2 zia 0 ..-
-LT,
.,.2 E i T. i r. 2 i Ta ' • :- -1 2
as • = a5 co co . ,
7, T, "4 f. z :7,-F. (c,,, i 11 E a - S2
O • w -t, t 7, I 2 2 a, .6 e.). f...),, E• ,.g,, 0.8' 2 g c2 gi Fei t.'9 a, c
fl
T. 4. 0 J()
-0 --• 8 = 27=26.—-2'2-%
0 co<
.
- m - (..)
— E :2 E P..., g 0 •.E.- 0 g 0 0. .c.., Cr :1- C ..... TO g TS .... .9. E
..§, g ?.„ caag8- 5 8- 2 8- g 'a E 8 E 8 6'`• • c‘si,i .8, .22' t
i . E c (7E
T ' 1t rff`Lfc It aigg c) 03 "';?s '8 0 c 1. 1 ...
76 ,(,)
r, .,„--, .....z.,.
.52 -
,,,,, 0 co ca a > al as ca a o 2 8. 'di ▪ g> a; al g 2 2) E, 2
L1J cc o c.) o ci a_ c_) 0 c.) cc ci 0 cc tli cc iii LT." a_ co .) Zi w ..1, L. G
0
(0
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
a,
0.-
6.21 -05 Budget Update.pee
0 N
0
0 0) ,-
ci
N
874,491.83 /Is
0
2 .12 21 E
c,
q • (-)
— csi oci
0
0) CD 0
t■
CO 4 0)
Q) 2 .sp
0,
c‘i
to
0
0
.21
E>•.
0 co
(r) 0 '&
0
o
c 8 E
Z.- 0 o
co .0 v 0
'E
c c
E
E • 0 -
E
o -8 a
0 0 c
")
To 03 1—
i.— a.
to o
co
a; 1.--
to
r- r-
878,498.29 /Is
(i)
0
ELECTRICAL
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
0
0
0
CO
LO
CO
r▪ .
0)
CO
0)
00
.ct
CO
0)
0
0
5,253.89 /wks
OL
26,269 ALLOWANCE
26,269.44 As
0) ”, V)
o 00 0
0 0.0 9.
— •
,-- ,-.
o d,
Irz cn
2 fi
0
c -
o 2
1 -
/7) .
u) a)
.>:
cr)
a)
0
cu „,
c .
0
5° §
..trli. ., 1:2 :
Q
s
75 0 0
O t
a, s •
mt i g
0 ii) (- ....:
ti 0 2 13
u)
.- -. '-
co
tii w
*C -,
.., o.
Cx 2
U)
a)
u)
a) • .
Q. 0
O. 0..
,.. It,
a. a. CL 13 M CT3 En-
= so
a) 8.
O 0 o in
in 1- to cv
0 ,_ ,- to
co co co
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
0
cu
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
10,508 ALLOWANCE
0
NIC, By Owner
0
0
r-
NIC, By Owner
CO_
CN
;`2
c‘i co
't
ci
CD
CO
(NI
0
0 0
q0
0
0
0
a
a 0
0 ..,..-..,
r; 1), Q
to c Ci. CL
II. o co
,:Z 0.
0 .C.3 ai 0 ,
CD 0 = 0
0 .G tm C ci CD 03
(f) a 2 _:'
To 0
ca Ri
0) 2 i— M •-• = D c 2 -,...
1— 1-- cn 65 c..1 (! ii: it
0 • Lc)
r•-• co cr)
co co co co
co
co
0)
0
109,862.49 /Is
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
To be carried s
10,508 ALLOWANCE
tr)
OD
0
co
Ts;
fi)
co
11)
• tr)c°°.
0
ix)
CD
00 00,
0 C!
cr)
ILI
W
LI-
›— '2 g-',
0, z-;,
0
I...Eris mai 8 ,...O: 0
X 5
W °
44C = C
as
,_
c a)
-a
0
c
,... 0 0
0 0 ... .., c c 0
co c0
Z 0 -C. Ct) .ye E ..1C go a-
W c
zC) ii E 2 2
—
Gt.> cr,nY2 .:12-(1)" C.;
• 7.5 0 a —
Z 7/1 (n- :S3 -8 • s :EC
0 g
O L) CD m
Z 5 Ca
• a.
0 tr)
t-
Z3) c,/
.zr•
6/21 /20058:38 AM
Prime Contract Bond
0 0 I-
0 0 trl
23
0 0 03
cr) 04 e
1.-. 01 La
<
MC, By Owner
LC) 0) 0
0) LO
(4.) 0 0
V) V)
0
1—
4.`
110,834.62 /Is
cn
0
0
INS, BONDS, TAXES.FEES
Cr)
.Zr
7.•
ECT
co
cr)
`J
E E
0 o
o
0.1
Cs.I CD
tri
1,2
•cl- Cc)
LO
ca
cv
0.1
30,000.00 sf
CO
CO
tO 'al
0 o
o. o
6
.,- cn
17)
0
CO 0
0
CD
1-
c1)
0
o
a
CO 2 a a_
0
• 0( a. s2 m (0 a)
C
(I) 2 = 0 c ..c cf)
D •
• to c g 0
Ill 5
o w 2 5 0
o ..... A.,.., 0
M z; as a) si g z x o =
,103,0 c 0
0: c ot L ) , 13,i 77 c r): 4>: 0: ; ' 0 :2? s . -:
Z` S.D 2 a) E.) ti fi, tla
.8 -° i" (7) ,- s 2 o. ,-. t,.,
co g 2
t 0
0.O Wt o
-20
o.. o cl_
E
E E
tr, t-
op
ni
I, I,
LO
E
E E
O 0
O 0
E
c) 0 0 0 0 Cl
0 0 0 0 0 CD
(1) c.-) •zr LO 0
CV (1; 0) CI CI et
(NI CV CV CV 0s7 CV
0 0
a a
0 0
cf) cr
CV 04
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
• w O
E E E
m O
O CD
CO (V
r N
L
C C
E E
°o oo
(V
0
N
N
0
E
O
O
O C
• Q
S' d C
ex ~ •_
•7 v m O
2 W cn
0
N
co
co
r
JOB EQUIPMENT
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISION
DIVISIONS 0 & 1 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
DIVISION 4 - MASONRY
DIVISION 5 - METAL
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICS
DIVISION 7 - THERMAL and MOISTURE PROTECTION
DIVISION 8 - DOORS & WINDOWS
DIVISION 9 - FINISHES
DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES
DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT
DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS
DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS
DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL
DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL
Probable Construction Cost
10% Contingency
Conceptual Estimate
ANALYSIS
Total Square Footage
Total Elevated Deck Area
Total Number of Stalls
Total Post - Tensioning
Total Reinforcement
Total Concrete
1/27/2006
TOTAL
$1,518,933
$547,055
$3,065,315
$52,000
$647,475
$0
$123,025
$750
$244,263
$139,950
$124,500
$o
$0
$300,000
$303,308
$410,725
$7,477,298
$822,503
$8,299,801
Unit
118,440 sf
100,000 sf
350 stalls
87,500 Ibs
828,000 Ibs
5,225 cy
Conceptual Es i ate
% of COST
20.31%
7.32%
40.99%
0.70%
8.66%
0.00%
1.65%
3.27%
1.87%
1.67%
0.00%
0.00%
4.01%
4.06%
5.49%
Unit Cost
$63.13/sf
$74.771sf
$23,713.72/stal l
0.88 Ibs/sf
8.28 Ibs /sf
16.93 in/sf
TT CH T 1-
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISIONS 0 & 1 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
Section Title
Sub Contractor Bond Cost $89,375
General Contractor Bonds $60,477
Supervision & Overhead $595,837
Design Cost $350,000
Profit $423,243
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK
Section Title
02072 Excavation of Contaminated Soils $50,000
02200 Clearing & Crubbing $66,500
02314 Mass Excavation $100,000
02315 Excavation $113,750
02316 Backfill $34,475
02317 Trenching $7,500
02440 Fencing $0
02500 Paving $22,500
02528 Concrete Sidewalk $56,480
02600 Striping $21,750
02635 Storm Drain System $12,500
02640 Sanitary Sewer System $10,250
02715 Water Main Connection $14,250
02721 Aggregate Base Rock $12,600
02810 Irrigation $7,500
02900 Landscaping $17,000
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
Section Title
03100 Concrete Formwork $1,098,440
03200 Concrete Reinforcement $748,350
03300 Cast in Place Concrete $834,775
03365 Post Tensioning $148,750
03370 Crack Repair $10,000
03450 Archtectural Precast $225,000
DIVISION 4 - MASONRY
Section Title
04220 Concrete Masonry Units
$52,000
Conceptual` Estimate
$1,518,933
$547,055
$3,065,315
$52,000
DIVISION 5 - METAL $647,475
Section Title
05120 Structural Steel $361,250
05310 Metal Decking $2,750
05400 Light Gage Framing $19,125
05500 Metal Fabrications $264,350
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICS
Section Title
so
1/27/2006 Page 1 of 3
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISION 7- THERMAL and MOISTURE PROTECTION
Section Title
07130 Waterproofing
07500 Roofing Membranes
07600 Flashing & Sheetmetal
07725 Roof Hatches
07900 Joints & Sealants
DIVISION 8- DOORS & WINDOWS
Section Title
08100 Metal Doors & Frames
08710 Door Hardware
DIVISION 9- FINISHES
Section Title
09250 Gypsum Board
09260 Exterior Insulation Fa-n o System
09275 Plaster
09300 Tie
09900 Painting
DIVISION 10 -
Section
10200
10400
10500
10522
10600
DIVISION 11 -
Section
11150
DIVISION 12 -
Section
SPECIALTIES
Title
Louv er_s
Sic_inage
Bike Storage
Fire Extinguishers
Mirrors
EQUIPMENT
Title
Parking Equipment
FURNISHINGS
Title
$26,500
$11,025
$10,000
$500
$75,000
$500
$250
$35,125
$27,000
$27,688
$7,500
$146,950
$350
$125,000
$9,300
$4,800
$500
$124,500
Conceptual Estimate
$123,025
$750
$244,263
$139,950
$124,500
$0
1/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
ALAMEDA CIV
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
G Conceptual Estimate
DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
Section Title
13020 Parking Attendant Booth
DIVISION 14 -
Section
14200
DIVISION 15 -
Section
15300
15400
15430
15500
DIVISION 16 -
Section
16000
16070
16123
16131
16140
16145
16231
16341
16411
16442
16510
16612
CONVEYING SYSTEMS
Title
Elevators
MECHANICAL
Title
Fire Protection
Plumbing
Plumbing Fixtures
HVAC
ELECTRICAL
Title
Electrical General
Hangers & Supports
Wire & Cable
Conduit
Wiring Devices
Fire Alarm Devices
Generator System
Switchgear
Enclosed Circuit Breakers
Switchboards
Luminaires & Accessories
Uninterruptible Power System
$30:0,000
� _Fe
$250,858
$42,500
$7,450
$2,500
$6,500
$4,000
$64,375
$96,600
$10,750
$10,000
$0
$74,000
$13,000
$0
$116,500
$15,000
$300,000
$303,308
$410,725
1/27/2006 Page 3 _of 3
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
00(0
0'
99 9
toc7? c7?
1.0 'QC
-o -o
0)00 000)
17 "0
'0 "C1 "0 .52
< <
'c;
cci
0
co
r-
0
0
0
0
tO 0 CO CV 00
0.. ID T 03
T 0 0 [r)
6 6- 6 ci
co Zi)• . co."- co— CS ,-C.7 0 LN
CV is., 03 (I) 0) CO 03 st
CV N CO 0
4 4 -a' •a: -a' 4 •
0) CD 0
Cal o o,
to co CV
er 1-
CO V) 0) CO CO
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
CD
0 6 6 to
co CV 1— CD N
CO 00 CV CO CV
ra
r.
0
CO
CD
CV
03
0
a)
0
co
co
00000 0
00000 c,
6 6 6 6 •
00000
Lo N. co co
0
ct
CD
CO
6
10,286.46 Is
(1)
lb CD
0 0
0 c
T— Cr;
IDT-
as. co cco cN• •g "c' " .
C4t-TI8 — C o o
1Ct0 8; -C o '
ccu
CC W O
Cc D
ccga . c a 7G6 ,
-6
0 _Q
= 3 1"
oo • a 1 • l, c o c c c c:•;
8 o2m
E o N o c
— icc n
ca 2 2 N
18 ;80.r.3
c u-
f,
Q. *al rD
cc cc
< < < <
-• o -o
I- F-
• r) 'is I-
at
<E 0 0 «
t t"
0 " •ct .
0 o.
ca[ ma.) crt,1 s CC iii
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 141 (C) CO
CD 141 (() CD CD
0) 0) 0)
0 0 0 0 0 0
6/21/2005 8:
5 Budget Update.pee
0)
9
M
0) O
N v
�
0) 0) Q) N 0 CD N d' CO DI CO CO N
CO CO LO c} CO O 01 M N N CD t N
0 CO CO N V' 0) M v N CO Dl CO CO
M 0) 0) N W N N r O N N O)
Net Add to Base Project
n r VCO d0' 0) T (� t` t` �. T CO
v 0) vi r
N. N N r
N N h n N N N N N t[)
O
m
co
tri
O
N N N N h N N N 0)) (0 (0 N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
ih O 01 N .- N CO LO C.O N O cc) (D
CD r N N 0) r r CO V a eN- M
O
O
O t- 0 m 0 t- CO 0 CO 0) O) CD C.MC�7 N CO d CO N d' N I�
O 0) V V N N CO CO N N N :.:N: O ID 0 N N r Id
0) CO CD 0 07 07 V n 0 0) 0) CO
N r N N
N 0) iA I/I i N N N VJ N `N ^N N N
CD d cO CD 00 CD CD CO CO LO CO CO 0 CO CO CD N- r
O t� 0 0 0 0 0 o O N O 00 O 0)(0(0(0(000' d'
mr (`N') tD N O r m 0
r D) co N '-
N N N N (0 co N N N N (0 V) U) (0 : (0 f!1 0) U) N N) 4) '.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 (0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0
ONOO Ovoaici070o
o V7 O o 0 0 N 0) O 0 N. 0 a 00 0
d' CD 0 .0 O] V CD CD 07 N. O f�: U) 0)
CV r N
6/21/2005 838 AM
0)
0)
CO
d
CO
11)
O
N
CD
O
CD
0)
F
ms
to
)
0)
E
m
E-
0)
m
U
of
N
li Li' ti
N c u)
n N
cn a
. m m cti
O 0 0 o m
O 5 0 0
La
o 'e -89. 0 0
0 0 0 0 m •
m m
0 0 0
O o o E
LO In in h C) v •o -o m
O O O O O O y y O t7 'Q
,a M M O) 0 to O) aN • N t0 d
co O h Ln 0) tt} to to )O • a .0 1) 3
E m m m m 92 m m m m aN
a) '!' N m m 1-5
3 3 3 N=
CC CC
M M o to t0 CD O I, ) tO r r CO • O CO If) • l` CO O ▪ CO O LC) V' O CD CO O CO O N h N f 0 CO N m N W V r N. O CO u 8 10 O N V' N tO D) m N r O 0 IO M O r O N N CD V CO V O M h r GO CO t0 CD N
LO n r M <F N In O (V N
(0 O Lf r r V N N r r Co � 0) ( t� � N� 0 0
.
_ U
1.5 172 'r6 9 •tC N N N\ N `\` N` .N .N - .N ` N`` N N y. . N N y
V t0 10 LO V N ' N f0 CO OD LO CD ID m CD CD t0 0) O O rn O CO O t,- .tD CO < tC O m O
CO o O CO CO t0 CO CO LO O to 0 0 0 O N O N O N O r N LO O N N O dM O N. t0 n r
r r 0 o N 10 O r 6 r r .- .- h tri r tri r a tr. m r to r t ca r o r...... N O N N r N N N CO t•-•
CV r N N: 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O: O.. OO O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
d O d O o o '- tD o o tV O O O O O m 6 O O O- N V O t i of O - .ad O t[] r CV O
- 0 O 0 LO N I\ 4) t0 0 O) 0 0 0
N V N lO O I-. CD r D) CO O] CO V N 1-. CO 0 N N r 0) O D�j: O
N r r V 1.6 .- M N +- r: (p N h N tV
O) C
o C
Or N N
d
.h E m CJ 0
C cc .` 5 E =
- E '2•
m v c) c m 3 J c(3
m 0) m 0 t
°o 7.6) O -mac M 2 actl) E tNa !a c
M y (0 W o U_ 0 O C7 0 w a0i LL
° o 'E oO w7 o N c c c N : � m 'm
_..
ir. cc
> c 3 tc o . 0 U U
W
.0) Q -I CO N N j m C)
N N C .'it'' N T N s O ti (_ • O w
d o w , to 0c o Cam m pc c � cb C .u. c ,_ 'c o N o)o-1 �� E .6 asv¢¢ a CC
0 o Ep m ,m
> E O _•2 'O .0 o cF G 7 J 3 N N (F G C O c 0 L
C
) Z E O U N Q N N - = U aU • N ¢ N o c N -N N N U U m a),0 .i 2 U N N 0 m °c 0 j ro v c m c m-0 a v 00 o a) @U
• m e m Z m m m :, o o N: c o f, c rn_ N o tl U a c:'m ) 2 V m N c � . ¢.c t :c LL -.2 zcc m u o0 mCr°o c� c �� . LL _ CC . =•
G • Q -o z N N -N N N N' N N N N N N 0 > N o imm ° c u) rm N _ _ d cUU •C ss 'os.crU o al 0 E o o o a m m n 0 . c m ma m y , o: y c m - N N , D c c U U o al O `) LL LL LL y a {L c Z > .N .l c Ad S N a C - y 8 Z o m= o �; 3. m i c c c _ tq 10 S o d ' 3 m c m c c - 0c n ti .== N N - == LL C t l C JD a a a o
� a to • 'm n ro )o ., m o m o ro ° 'm • m '� 4) co C� m m o o m m m r. o 0 � d¢aa¢a a¢H¢_D_UO.aLL fctrCC CC 0.0- zz
JJJ2UD_ J
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
5 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
CO
0
O
co
rn
N
O
W
O
O
O
0) c
c a)
> • .E
O N U
Ta
c m =
c C
E co
a a
1,706,941.78 /Is
O
o in
C7
cr
Q N
0
0
G N
0
N •
CO m
0 CO
CV On
of
v
0) 0)
Cr)
O
N
O
O
Toilet Compartments
0
o o
n o)
Obi N
n
(0
(0
M
0)
co
[T
(0
co
M
0)
r
y
CV
N
0
0))
M
0)
N �
0 0 0 0
O
W
•
r
O
W
O
O
(V
0)`'
0)
(0
tn
o p'....
• O
• rr
co
cn N
C/) m y cca
m 2 a
a y O a (a
c a a
C E to CL 0 < U. (fit LL
..
O O 1(0 N 0) Or
0)
O O O 0 0 0
O r r r
O
O
0
O
81,804.85 /Is
0
SPECIALTIES
EQUIPMENT
Theater & Stage Equipment
(D
0
r
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
a
123,289.32 /Is
EQUIPMENT
(/) E IL-
O
Z 2 66
oti
cZU 61 : la 17igt3s
±-2, t
U. to Lu
Deleted 5-9-05
cr 0
c0 r•-,
CI tD
0.1 D4
co
(NI
FURNISHINGS
z
0 0
o
0
0 0
c)
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
6/21/2005 838 AM
cv
th
E
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
2
w
1-
(0
uiZ
>-
>
Z
00)
o
0
26,456.94 /ea
Wheelchair Lifts
26,456.94 /Is
Wheelchair Lifts
L1)
26,456.94 /Is
cc;
0
CONVEYING SYSTEMS
MECHANICAL
o
O 0
3M 3D
co
cn
0)
(t)
co
..--1
CI)
it) g
Q.
K.. ..... 0
c
al
O S.' 0
!II - g 2 g ow
3;
cr G) c2 172
0 co asJ N P-00
CO CI N. 0 N- 0(0 3'. 0 LEI (13 tf) o
ozr ui csi c\i 6
0)30 030
.;_F A V
,32 4 g 'V • )
CD 0 CO CO N. 1,-- r.... 1,...
r-- N 03 in cl• ct. ,-.. ‘3-
0) M
6 6 4 4 6 4 6 C°T; 1-:.
'4. 0
N-ON-0
tri <2, cd .4- a CO N tn
MC) -r-,..3D-cs,747)..0,176-g '-' 0) 0 0
N Cri ,- Cti
9
37?
'0
a)
03)
0) c c
0) 22
O 7,t Zt
CI) sc7.
rm.
C) 0) ..nr 03 .1.
;73
in
-. .o. --,-..• --_ o. -,---
co 1.-- cf3 IS) 0 01 LC)
CC) CO 03 CD 03 0) V)
0 a? 6 ■-•:. 6 6 6
vr 49, -a 4 cr-o `,‘? (.°
(D.. at 66.--
tO In cv i;,
cn
cn
in 2 X 2 2 2 2 • In
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 csO 0
c‘i c5 L6 6
32
0 o
cj o 0 o
0)
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
E
_q.
_a 152: 0
E
t0 l-i
g I 2 0 2 —
2
Li: 0
E ‘4,1 tu E n ' ° — --- u
ed 13 DS 0 • 5 =m-
E Lb u- (3) -§-
ti. 2 ‘' ,S :5 0- 0 ir a: if, ' 0 ,-,7.:
'-' TO 'c .,4 C g
E .A 6' 0 s a' 0.
aC2 ) l• (-22 . - Cl2 ) ': . S 0 c. n : .,n,... Eac ,.' c— a2a) L :cc E0m : "c E0, CoO :02 7 _?. "cnrt .-..E0 .3-. C-50 aO ; 6 :E, 0l .-3 • 2.,- c m E
2
fc 9 L-CO ..- C at — (ca
F• .,.0 , .0 .0 n 0 6 A >. .0 m, u 0 0. G) E3 -02-i-e c8a 7
' 9 L 1 "agteel, lIc1- > c* ta R
i r1 I 1 E ,
n
m
to 0
0,
o o 9
to
r) er
to In to
(0 T". V" In
t
0)
.c
1--
co
-0
a,
E
a,
<
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
0 (1)
t-L-,
CO
co
cn
0
E
Cr-
c.)
15,837 Allowance
0
111
tr)
1,411,046.38 /Is
0
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
o°
to
LL
a)
id
co
g
-0
to ta s_0
-o
0)
e.
E E
2 2 < -17;
.9- o
112- -co
=
N N
.o a) t
.c
o "6 ti_D c.)
..,
0)
V) LO LO ,D Ca c0 Ca 1--. 01 ca 0 0 0 (Ta V' CD cD LO tf) CO Ca In 01
0 N CD CO. 1"-- 01 01 0 0 LO CV N CO ,--. C7) 0 0)
6 ..- a N: C)
Lo .-- ,-
(0
Deleted 6 -7 -05 per SL
0 il i C g S g C0 0 al 0
ca
(! •' -' - - - C i I al D 01 (0 0) D 9g i l! g = 2
CO
a a 6 6 a a 6 oi 4 4 cc ea la ,- ai 0
(') LO LO N LO CD 0 N 01 0 L11 1, LO el 01 0) 0.) (C) (0) U) OD 001 0.1
or-co vl. LO 4 6 to cv co co LO CD 1.-.. CD 1.0 Cr 0 0)
6 co' Lti 6 oi .= ,—N 6'
6 o -.-
(0
2 2 2 2 2) 2) 2, 2 2 2 Ar). .c s.) 1,2 2 F w
00000000000000000ca000La o()
c000LoocLooc,0000c,aoaocoac?
4 6 6 oi oi
,—
E. E
o o
„... .,... ,-
E E. To. 2 a>
V
co vo ■ '''' Tra — EL" LE
t F- = E.-
T°
:71 °
C 01
..T. E -0 .c ' 0
E 0) -'2 -'2 —6 2- . 0 -c c c ° -R -8 c m E 2 -
a.ags2)E2t ' 72. 5 ,'„ F, i>,_- 2) 2 c
8 2Z3 ?so; la
cC .- CC
g id a)
m
1 a., .w, ...9. .9. To k
80cLac& 5 8-128-VaEg,,E2,) oc,;ii.t3
_
al o
-13 a. 8 8 0 aa 07 0
c ecce- .2
E.E.0-0.-0 a--
-52 a 2 2 .2 2 c' .2
W cc 0 c..) 0 0 o_ C_) 0 C.) cC 0 0 cc Lli CC ELL- al o_ co .) D W
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
6.21 -05 Budget Update.pee
Alameda That
0 N
0
0 0) ,-
ci
N
874,491.83 /Is
0
2 .12 21 E
c,
q • (-)
— csi oci
0
0) CD 0
t■
CO 4 0)
Q) 2 .sp
0,
c‘i
to
0
0
.21
E>•.
0 co
(r) 0 '&
0
o
c 8 E
Z.- 0 o
co .0 v 0
'E
c c
E
E • 0 -
E
o -8 a
0 0 c
")
To 03 1—
i.— a.
to o
co
a; 1.--
to
r- r-
878,498.29 /Is
(i)
0
ELECTRICAL
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
0
0
0
CO
LO
CO
r▪ .
0)
CO
0)
00
.ct
CO
0)
0
0
5,253.89 /wks
OL
26,269 ALLOWANCE
26,269.44 As
0) ”, V)
o 00 0
0 0.0 9.
— •
,-- ,-.
o d,
Irz cn
2 fi
0
c -
o 2
1 -
/7) .
u) a)
.>:
cr)
a)
0
cu „,
c .
0
5° §
..trli. ., 1:2 :
Q
s
75 0 0
O t
a, s •
mt i g
0 ii) (- ....:
ti 0 2 13
u)
.- -. '-
co
tii w
*C -,
.., o.
Cx 2
U)
a)
u)
a) • .
Q. 0
O. 0..
,.. It,
a. a. CL 13 M CT3 En-
= so
a) 8.
O 0 o in
in 1- to cv
0 ,_ ,- to
co co co
6/21/2005 8:38 AM
0
cu
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
10,508 ALLOWANCE
0
NIC, By Owner
co
U7
r-
NIC, By Owner
OD_
172
c‘i co
't
ci
CO
(NI
C
C 0
0 10
= 0
0 0 Q
0 c 0. CL
0 Z 0.
0 .° ai c
CI = a)
CO (1) a) 6 E5
(f)
— 0 0
ca o
i— 1-- u) 65 (5 0 ii: it
0 1.0 0 0
0
CO CT)
CO CO CO
r-
co
0)
109,862.49 /Is
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
0
To be carried s
10,508 ALLOWANCE
op co
0
t--..
cS
6/21 /20058:38 AM
CI) 0)
co co Lc) cn
• 0)
co
co
111 • cd-
• c0
to U7 U)
00 0
q q
o 0
o o
co tr)
c,c
c‘t
c•1 Cs/ Cs/
Prime Contract Bond
MC, By Owner
In 0)0
O to
0.) 0 0
CC!, ai ai
a) a)
0
7....
110,834.62 /Is
0
INS, BONDS, TAXES.FEES
2 2
E E
CV CO
N C)
I,- CV
CD CO
06 (0
Cr)
.Zr
7.•
ECT
(.0
co
.3*
US'
to
IN co
CV CD
CD IN
tri
17,
(c)
• LO
CV
CD
0)
30,000.00 sf
CO
CO
111 ig
0 o
o. o
6
.... m
(D
17)
0
0
0
6
CO
1-
c/)
0
o
a
CO 2 03 Cl_
0
M fi a. s2 m cri )
CD
(/) 2 = 0 c
•
to c g
til • 2
c) '1' 2 5
Z-3 cn
I— c...) ,T) zi o a) ..... 9 0
00 1.-T3 E? i co: . 0
C. -5 ..r.,
LT. C
cuE") co• lD C° (I): L.->. . Cllinr5 : CD: 2(1)
C.)
i" C/1
L- .c 2 O0. 0 a
M
t 0
tn .10
1 "3 $2 11
c9 0t)
a. a_
ca o 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0
(o e) (a (0
CV 01; 01 CO CI
CV CV CV CV CV
0
CJ
.0
*C-
E E
1.--
r■I
NI- to
E • E
o o
O 0
c‘i
(,)
E
0
Webcor Builders
Budget Update 6 -21 -05
• w O
E E E
m O
O CD
• Csi
t•-• N
L
C C
E E
°o oo
(V
0
N
N
0
E
O
O
O C
• Q
S' d C
ex ~ •_
•7 v m O
2 W cn
0
N
c
co
JOB EQUIPMENT
Alameda Theater 6 -21 -05 Budget Update.pee
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISION
DIVISIONS 0 & 1 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
DIVISION 4 - MASONRY
DIVISION 5 - METAL
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICS
DIVISION 7 - THERMAL and MOISTURE PROTECTION
DIVISION 8 - DOORS & WINDOWS
DIVISION 9 - FINISHES
DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES
DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT
DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS
DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS
DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL
DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL
Probable Construction Cost
10% Contingency
Conceptual Estimate
ANALYSIS
Total Square Footage
Total Elevated Deck Area
Total Number of Stalls
Total Post - Tensioning
Total Reinforcement
Total Concrete
1/27/2006
TOTAL
$1,518,933
$547,055
$3,065,315
$52,000
$647,475
$0
$123,025
$750
$244,263
$139,950
$124,500
$o
$0
$300,000
$303,308
$410,725
$7,477,298
$822,503
$8,299,801
Unit
118,440 sf
100,000 sf
350 stalls
87,500 Ibs
828,000 Ibs
5,225 cy
Conceptual Es i ate
% of COST
20.31 %
7.32%
40.99%
0.70%
8.66%
0.00%
1.65%
0.01%
3.27%
1.87%
1.67%
0.00%
0.00%
4.01%
4.06%
5.49%
Unit Cost
$63.13/sf
$74.77/sf
$23,713.72/stal l
0.88 Ibs/sf
8.28 Ibs /sf
16.93 in/sf
TT CH T 1-
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISIONS 0 & 1 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
Section Title
Sub Contractor Bond Cost $89,375
General Contractor Bonds $60,477
Supervision & Overhead $595,837
Design Cost $350,000
Profit $423,243
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK
Section Title
02072 Excavation of Contaminated Soils $50,000
02200 Clearing & Crubbing $66,500
02314 Mass Excavation $100,000
02315 Excavation $113,750
02316 Backfill $34,475
02317 Trenching $7,500
02440 Fencing $0
02500 Paving $22,500
02528 Concrete Sidewalk $56,480
02600 Striping $21,750
02635 Storm Drain System $12,500
02640 Sanitary Sewer System $10,250
02715 Water Main Connection $14,250
02721 Aggregate Base Rock $12,600
02810 Irrigation $7,500
02900 Landscaping $17,000
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
Section Title
03100 Concrete Formwork $1,098,440
03200 Concrete Reinforcement $748,350
03300 Cast in Place Concrete $834,775
03365 Post Tensioning $148,750
03370 Crack Repair $10,000
03450 Archtectural Precast $225,000
DIVISION 4 - MASONRY
Section Title
04220 Concrete Masonry Units
$52,000
Conceptual` Estimate
$1,518,933
$547,055
$3,065,315
$52,000
DIVISION 5 - METAL $647,475
Section Title
05120 Structural Steel $361,250
05310 Metal Decking $2,750
05400 Light Gage Framing $19,125
05500 Metal Fabrications $264,350
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICS
Section Title
so
1/27/2006 Page 1 of 3
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
DIVISION 7- THERMAL and MOISTURE PROTECTION
Section Title
07130 Waterproofing
07500 Roofing Membranes
07600 Flashing & Sheetmetal
07725 Roof Hatches
07900 Joints & Sealants
DIVISION 8- DOORS & WINDOWS
Section Title
08100 Metal Doors & Frames
08710 Door Hardware
DIVISION 9- FINISHES
Section Title
09250 Gypsum Board
09260 Exterior Insulation Pacing System
09275 Plaster
09300 Tie
09900 Painting
DIVISION 10 -
Section
10200
10400
10500
10522
10600
DIVISION 11 -
Section
11150
DIVISION 12 -
Section
SPECIALTIES
Title
Louv er_s
Sic_inage
Bike Storage
Fire Extinguishers
Mirrors
EQUIPMENT
Title
Parking Equipment
FURNISHINGS
Title
$26,500
$11,025
$10,000
$500
$75,000
$500
$250
$35,125
$27,000
$27,688
$7,500
$146,950
$350
$125,000
$9,300
$4,800
$500
$124,500
Conceptual Estimate
$123,025
$750
$244,263
$139,950
$124,500
so
1/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
ALAMEDA CIV
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
G Conceptual Estimate
DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
Section Title
13020 Parking Attendant Booth
DIVISION 14 -
Section
14200
DIVISION 15 -
Section
15300
15400
15430
15500
DIVISION 16 -
Section
16000
16070
16123
16131
16140
16145
16231
16341
16411
16442
16510
16612
CONVEYING SYSTEMS
Title
Elevators
MECHANICAL
Title
Fire Protection
Plumbing
Plumbing Fixtures
HVAC
ELECTRICAL
Title
Electrical General
Hangers & Supports
Wire & Cable
Conduit
Wiring Devices
Fire Alarm Devices
Generator System
Switchgear
Enclosed Circuit Breakers
Switchboards
Luminaires & Accessories
Uninterruptible Power System
$30:0,000
� _Fe
$250,858
$42,500
$7,450
$2,500
$6,500
$4,000
$64,375
$96,600
$10,750
$10,000
$0
$74,000
$13,000
$0
$116,500
$15,000
$300,000
$303,308
$410,725
1/27/2006 Page 3 _of 3
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
Description
02072 Excavation of Contaminated Soils
Allowance for Removal
02200 Clearing & Crubbing
Remove Exixting A/C
Clear Site
Conceptual Estimate
Catt Unit Rate Extention Total
$50,000
1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
19,000 SF $2.50 $47,500
19,000 SF $1.00 $19,000
02314 Mass Excavation
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Mass Excavation 2,000 CY $25.00 $50,000
02315 Excavation
Elevator Pits
Recompact Soils
Footing Excavation
02316 Backfill
Backfill at Footings
Backfill at Ramp
Backfill at Elevator
02317 Trenching
Trenching
02440 Fencing
Chain Link
02500 Paving
Conform Paving on Oak Street
02528 Concrete Sidewalk
Sidewalk & Curb
Driveway
Tree Wells
02600 Striping
Parking Stalls
Misc. Striping
Bike Lanes
50 CY $25.00 51,250
1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000
1,500 CY $25.00 $37,500
200 CY $35.00 $7,000
750 CY $35.00 $26,250
35 CY $35.00 $1,225
150 LF $50.00 $7,500
0 LF $20.00
1,500 SF $15.00 $22,500
4,500 SF $12.00 $54,000
40 SF $12.00 $480
4 EA $500.00 $2,000
350 EA $15.00 $5,250
1 LS $8,500.00 $8,500
1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000
$66,500
$100,000
$113,750
$34,475
$7,500
$0
$22,500
$56,480
$21,750
02635 Storm Drain System $12,500
Piping 150 LF $50.00 $7,500
Connection 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000
02640 Sanitary Sewer System
15
Piping 150 LF $35.00 $5,250
Connection 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000
$10,250
1/27/2006 Page 1 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
02715 Water Main Connection
Domestic Water
Domestic Water Connection
Fire Water
Fire Water Connection
02721 Aggregate Base Rock
Aggregate Base at Parking Area
Conceptual Estimate
$14,250
150 LF $30.00 $4,500
1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000
150 LF $45.00 $6,750
1 EA $7,500.00 $7,500
$12,600
360 CY $35.00 $12,600
0281.0 Irrigation
Irrigation System 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500
$7,500
02900 Landscaping $17,000
Trees 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000 ? ??
Precast Planters 5 EA $600.00 $3,000
Plants 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000
03100 Concrete Formwork $1,098,440
Foundation 350 SF $10.00 $3,500
Slab On Grade 100 SF $7.50 $750
Columns 14,400 SF $7.50 $108,000
Shear Walls 25,000 SF $5.00 $125,000
Pilasters 6,500 SF $7.50 $48,750
Basement Walls 7,500 SF $7.50 $56,250
Elevated Slabs 100,000 SF $5.00 $500,000
Elevated Beams 6,100 LF $27,50 $167,750
Elevated Girders 300 LF $27.50 $8,250
Stair Beams 416 LF $27.50 $11,440
Exterior Beams 2,500 LF $27.50 $68,750
03200 Concrete Reinforcement $748,350
Foundation 45,000 LB $0.95 $42,750
Slab on Grade 30,000 LB $0.80 $24,000
Columns 78,000 LB $0:95 $74,100
Shear Walls 125,000 LB $0.90 $112,500
Pilasters 35,000 LB $0.90 $31,500
Basement Walls 30,000 LB $0.90 $27,000
Elevated Slabs 200,000 LB $0.90 $180,000
Elevated Beams 200,000 LB $0.90 $180,000
Elevated Girders 20,000 LB $0.90 $18,000
Stair Beams 15,000 LB $0.90 $13,500
Exterior Beams 50,000 LB $0.90 $45,000
1/27/2006 Page 2 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
03300 Cast in Place Concrete
Foundation
Slab on Grade
Columns
Shear Walls
Pilasters
Basement Walls
Elevated Slabs
Elevated Beams
Elevated Girders
Stair Beams
Exterior Beams
03365 Post Tensioning
Elevated Slabs
Elevated Beams
Elevated Girders
03370 Crack Repair
Epoxy Crack Repair
03450 Archtectural Precast
Precast at Oak Street
Precast at Santa Clara
04220 Concrete Masonry Units
CMU Full Height Walls
Railing Wall CMU
Walls at Oak Street
05120 Structural Steel
Elevator Hoist & Spreader Beams
Elevator Roof Framing
Elevator Housing Floor
Tubes at Front Facade
Steel for Stair Towers
05310 Metal Decking
Metal Decking at Elevator Roof
Metal Decking at Stair 1
Metal Decking at Stair 2
05400 Light Gage Framing
Framing at Elevator Shafts
Framing of Stair Tower 1
Framing of Stair Tower 2
Framing of Front Facade
1,200
300
300
700
125
140
1,500
550
50
50
310
CY
CY
CY
SF
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
33,000 LB
50,000 LB
4,500 LB
Conceptual Estimate
$145.00
$155.00
$155.00
$155.00
$155.00
$155.00
$170.00
$170.00
$170.00
$170.00
$170.00
$1.70
$1.70
$1.70
$834,775
$174,000
$46,500
$46,500
$108,500
$19,375
$21,700 Add Curbs
$255,000
$93,500
$8,500
$8,500
$52,700
$148,750
$56,100
$85,000
$7,650
$10,000
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
2,300 SF
3,000 SF
800 SF
1,500 SF
300 SF
2,000
7,500
15,000
20,000
100,000
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
200 SF
350 SF
350 SF
3,250
1,500
1,500
1,000
SF
SF
SF
SF
$225,000
$75.00 $172,500
$75.00 $225,000
$52,000
$20.00 $16,000
$20.00 $30,000
$20.00 $6,000
$361,250
$2.50 $5,000
$2.50 $18,750
$2.50 $37,500
$2.50 $50,000
$2.50 $250,000
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$3.50
$2,750
$1,000
$1,750
$19,125
$8,125
$3,750
$3,750
$3,500
1/27/2006 Page 3 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
05500 Metal Fabrications
Ladders at Elevator Pits
Handrails
Cable Rails
Exterior Bollards
Steel Canoies
Interior Bollards
Metal Stairs
Conceptual` Estimate
1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500
650 LF $35.00 $22,750
780 LF $50.00 $39,000
0 EA $150.00 $0
6 EA $4,000.00 $24,000
14 EA $150.00 $2,100
10 EA $17,500.00 $175,000
$264,350
06400 Wood & Plastics $0
N/A
07130 Waterproofing
Elevator Pit Walls
Exterior Basement Walls
Interior Basement Walls
07500 Roofing Membranes
Roofing at Elevators
Roofing at Stair 1
Roofing at Stair 2
07600 Flashing & Sheetmetal
Allowance 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
300 SF
4,000 SF
1,000 SF
$5.00 $1,500
$5.00 $20,000
$5.00 $5,000
200 SF $12.25 $2,450
350 SF $12.25 $4,288
350 SF $12.25 $4,288
07725 Roof Hatches ..
Roof Hatches at Elevator
07900 Joints & Sealants
Closure Pours
Misc. Joints
Precast Joints
08100 Metal Doors & Frames
Metals Doors & Frames
08710 Door Hardware
Door Hardware
09250 Gypsum Board
Gyp Board at Elevator
Gyp Board at Stair Tower 1
Gyp Board at Stair Tower 2
Gyp Board at Front Facade
09260 Exterior Insulation Facing System
EIFS on Oak Street Columns
EIFS on Santa Clara Street Columns
EA $500.00 $500
1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
1 EA $500.00 $500
1 EA $250.00 $250
6,500 SF $2.25 $14,625
3,000 SF $2.25 $6,750
3,000 SF $2.25 $6,750
2,000 SF $3.50 $7,000
1,500 SF $15.00 $22,500
300 SF $15.00 $4,500
$26,500
$11,025
$10,000
$500
$75,000
$500
$250
$35,125
$27,000
1/27/2006 Page 4 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
09275 Plaster
Plaster at Elevators
Plaster at Stair 1 Tower
Plaster at Stair 2 Tower
Plaster at Front Facade
Conceptual 'Estimate
$27,688
3,250 SF $3.75 $12,188
1,500 SF $3.75 $5,625 Plaster
1,500 SF $3.75 $5,625
1,000 SF $4.25 $4,250
09300 Tile $7,500
At Oak Street Base
300 SF $25.00 $7,500
09900 Painting
Underside of Slab 100,000 SF $0.75 $75,000
Beams 34,000 SF $0.75 $25,500
Columns 15,500 SF $0.75 $11,625
Shearwalls 25,000 SF $0.75 $18,750
CMU 2,600 SF $0.75 $1,950
Plaster 5,000 SF $0.75 $3,750
Front facade 1,000 SF $1.00 $1,000
Elevator Tower 6,500 SF $0.75 $4,875
Stair 1 Tower 3,000 SF $0.75 $2,250
Stair 2 Tower 3,000 SF $0.75 $2,250
10200 Louvers
Louvers at Elevators
10400 Signage
Allowance
Sign at Front
10500 Bike Storage
Bike Storage Lockers
Electronic Bike Lockers
Bike Rack
EA $175.00 $350
1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
9 EA $700.00 $6,300
0 EA $1,500.00 $0
2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000
10522 Fire Extinguishers
Extinguisher & Cabinet 24 EA $200.00 $4,800
10600 Mirrors
Mirrors at Entry
11150 Parking Equipment
Pay per Stall
Sensors
Loop Detectors
13020 Parking Attendant Booth
Booths 0 EA $1,500.00
2 EA $250.00 $500
12 EA $6,000.00 $72,000
350 EA $150.00 $52,500
0 LS $750.00 $0
$146,950
$350
$125,000
$9,300
$4,800
$500
$124,500
so
1/27/2006 Page 5 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
14200 Elevators
6 Level Hydro Elevator
15300 Fire Protection
Sprinkler @ Parking Area
Sprinklers in Stairs
Wet Standpipe System
Fire Pump
Fireman Connections
15400 Plumbing
Hose Bibbs at Parking Area
Storm Water Drainage
Conceptual Estimate
2 LS $150,000.00 $300,000
118,440 SF $1.50 $177,660
2,000 SF $1.95 $3,900
118,440 SF $0.45 $53,298
1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000
500 LF
500 LF
$35.00 $17,500
$50.00 $25,000
15430 Plumbing Fixtures
Hose Bibis 30 EA $15.00 $450
Sump Pumps at Elevator Pits 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000
Sand Oil Separator 0 EA $25,000.00 $0
15500 HVAC
Fan at Elevator Machine Rooms
16000 Electrical General
Electrical Hookup
Telephone Hookup
EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000
1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500
16070 Hangers & Supports
Allowance 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000
16123 Wire & Cable
Wire for Lighting
Wire for Elevator Power
Wire for Misc. Power
Wire for Telephone
Wire for Data Pay per Stall
Wire for Power Pay per Stall
Wire for Fire Alarm System
16131 Conduit
Conduit for Lighting
Conduit for Elevator Power
Conduit for Misc. Power
Conduit for Telephone
Conduit for Data Pay per Stall
Conduit for Power Pay per Stall
Conduit for Fire Alarm System
16140 Wiring Devices
1/27/2006
24,000 LF $1.25 $30,000
1,000 LF $1.25 $1,250
7,500 LF $1.25 $9,375
1,000 LF $1.25 $1,250
6,000 LF $1.25 $7,500
6,000 LF $1.25 $7,500
6,000 LF $1.25 $7,500
8,000 LF $6.00 $48,000
300 LF $6.00 $1,800
1,500 LF $6.00 $9,000
300 LF $6.00 $1 ,800
2,000 LF $6.00 $12,000
2,000 LF $6.00 $12,000
2,000 LF $6.00 $12,000
$300,000
$250,858
$42,500
$7,450
$2,500
$6,500
$4,000
$64,375
$96,600
$1 0,750
Page 6 of 8
ALAMEDA CIV C Conceptual Estimate
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
Allowance
Exit Alarm
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
1 LS $750.00 $750
16145 Fire Alarm Devices
Allowance 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
16231 Generator System
75 KV Generator 0 LS $0.00 $0
Transfer System 0 LS $0.00 $0
Fuel System 0 LS $0.00 $0
16341 Switchgear
Vault Allowance
800 Amp Meter
750 KVA Step Down Transformer
30 KVA Transformer
16411 Enclosed Circuit Breakers
100 AMP Power Panels
Circuit Breakers
16442 Switchboards
Allowance
16510 Luminaires & Accessories
Lights at Parking Area
Exit Lighting
Roof Lights
Stair Tower Lighting
Elevator Lobby Lights
Access Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Exterior Sign
1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000
1 LS $36,000.00 $36,000
1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000
4 LS $2,000.00 $8,000
1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000
0 LS $1,500.00
250 EA $300.00 $75,000
48 EA $125.00 $6,000
12 EA $450.00 $5,400
24 EA $150.00 $3,600
12 EA $250.00 $3,000,
10 EA $350.00 $3,500
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
2 LS $5,000.00 $10,000
16612 Uninterruptible Power System
UPS System 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
$10,000
$0
$74,000
$13,000
$0
$116,500
$15,000
1/27/2006 Page 7 of 8
ALAMEDA CIVIC
Parking Structure
Alameda, California
Conceptual Estimate
1/27/2006 Page 8 of 8
0
Use of Funds
a) .0
0) a)
CO
0 0 cDl 0 0 0 0 010 CO
0 0 010 ca Eft o wt 0 0
0 0 0 0 CO CO CD
oi. ai C•I ce cri tgi v-
di •ct. t.- I,- CO .4-
N N 0
CO h■ '‘"' N CO
69
64 41) 69 69
0 0 010 0 0 010 0 0 010 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 CO. CO,
- o ol r. 0 O it) i.6 0 oi to col a> 1.71
co co .,-, cl o o I-- ts•
,— 0 0) 0 0 V- I,- 'Cr
'69 OS CV r"
�P1 CO CO
6,010)03 co
69 69 49- 69- 69 -r-, N
(0 69 49-
0 0 0 o
o o 0 0
0q00
(005
0) N
(0(00)U
69 (6 c.4
4f;
cu
0.
0
0 o 0 o j
0 I.- 0 0 0 -- 0 C 0
0 0 0 0 0 010 0
000 coo° o
5 d 6 6 6 to to c
o a) rD N
ON CD
LO 0 0 10 CO
0.1 64 esi C\i R cil ci ca±
Gs 4.9- to9- tn- .r. N
(0(0
a
0
0. :a
c ....=
ozi
a) Zi ocz >,
OS 0 0
0 .0 --..
6, 0
0
CA Ch r[ ct a) cn
c its" g LI 0,6 co -c
0 -c, E, . ..
fu g o o
-c_ 2 0
0
o = C.) .., CI C7 V, 0 To
0 .8 " m -13 0 •_
CD te.
kr 0 < .5 0
s... 0
.12 03 CO It E '0
.0 N co +4
= CD r = CIS a)
CI_ I I-- VI < ...■ Ce 0 (f)
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS
>,
0)
0)
0)
0
0
0
0
0
ca
0)
0
.o=
0)
•ct-
0 L:
o 0
cri
CO C
C
r-
-o
>
2
o.
o.
v
.2-
0 -.6
00
CL
0 •ct
cr,
0
0)
C
0
0.
0 so
x
>
o. 2
co o_
01.
`13
-01
00
c
CB 0
CU 0
0) .0
F-
as -a
0
0) CD
E
as
<
00)
(13 0)
E
ca
ID.
c
.c
0 c
c 0
ID. a)
co
as
0 .0
a)
‘..o
0 =
0, -a
6 a)
C
-0 (0
0 0)
a)
0
a)
<
sr) u.)
o
o
0) 0)
Cr)
CD
.0
0)
}-
N
o O O c
N w
2 in
-
d
SOURCE OF FUNDS
0 0 0
64 6900
0
0
ti
0 0 0
O 0 0
CO C9 d'
69 (H
b9
0
0
0
0
O
ti
O
0
0
O
CO
CV
-
o O 910
Ea 9
U
0
O
O
M
69
d)''
O
) c
0) O c
CI
z 11.3
_(„90
cn
U. U V O
0 `t b U
N O
W
c c _
CI) a�UOco
oEf3 OEfr 9I 4
60
0000
(ft 64 641 64
0
0 0 O
0 0 0
to
O N CO
N Eft
69
CD
69- E0- !? Ea-
0 0 0 0
o O o
O �
co � O
64
O
O
O
L()
Co
Cr)
(fl
o 0ta 691 69- 0
O
0
O
O
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 CO O CO co
O N- N- d' M
LO Cr) d' C+') C.0
4 r o
d
G)
U
0 0 O
o (o 0
cci co
o -I�
CC) :C9 c)
N N
64 69
69
O
O
O
O
O
69
U
N
in
N c LP
c
O • U o
U) O C'�n
U O
—
< U
t6
co • CD
_J Ct Ot9
0)
z
u_
O
w
V)
J
0
F-
0
tFa
NET BALANCE/ PROJECT CONTINGENCY*
0
E _
N
59
O
U
m
m
.n
Cn
t
m
c
c
E >
a .0
N
c N
O • CO
U j)
_ v.
U
• C
L o
0
h U
.0 C
C o0
E '2
E `°
o
U --
0 C
(6
N
O
a
Em
c
E
N
N
tl) c
=
U O C
O C6
N N
c
c • '0a
= c
U
r� -C
N
0 .a
C
o
m
U 4)
• E
78 co
0 0
Qc
to
a1
IT 0
C
0. 'O
C
L L a)
a x
as w
s
t-
_
3 co
0 oo so
C 113-'aN
o w r
O.
M
Kv-
a. W O
0
d Q
O
7
7 c0
to 0
d O '0 r
lii
~ m
O.
Use of Funds
0000
00.0
Or
0000
0000
0000
(0 '- i- N
CD r r r
0000 000010 0000 0
00_ �' in if} EFr v> O H} LO O OO 0
r N _M CO CO N (0
00 c0 r Lt) IC) r N
6 _
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00010 0
O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0000
O CO O l0 f0
0 cc) r O O Ito tt) O co- co co
roa)o oorr. orry M
W CO r-
0
M co N (D (t.1 In co 0) a0 co
CN r 6� Nt!}EN r N
it fa
d
a
5
Downtown Theater Project
Design Expenditures
c
0
o 2
0a
C
o
O m c
o c a o
a) c
c a 0
o. 0 in
c w V c
x o
U as 0)
.ac0 ii
a' '� a a
000 oa)
c -8
aa) .c
c
c � a) c
o E a)
co a
d W
c o .c N 0)
Q) c X a) 0
a •0 a) 8
:n -o F. o to
of
RS a) (1)
g -0 a n
a a a)
o w X
U w C. N c:
C •0 0
U.= w 0.'t`..
CO o '
C 12 a) 'ci
— as a) c c
O
0)
03
O
N
Total Design Expenditures
0
a)
as
O)
c_
0.
c
c
O
.o
:o
m
ca
a)
n. a)
m
oC
W 0
y �
a
co) 3c
0 2
,U
h
co.)_
o
O ci
0)
Eto
a
ww
Construction Cos
Design as % Construction
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
OFF-AGENDA
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: November 9, 2005
Re: Update of Executive Director's Funding Strategy for Historic Theater
Rehabilitation, Cineplex, and Parking Garage
BACKGROUND
The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) on November 16, 2004 approved the
staff-recommended funding plan for the $24.7 million historic Alameda Theater,
cineplex, and parking garage project ("the project"). This plan allocated $24.7 million in
City, CIC, and federal funds towards the implementation of the project including
approximately $9.5 million for the rehabilitation of the historic Aiarneda Theater, up to
$4.0 million to help offset the costs of the cineplex project, $10.6 million for the parking
garage, and approximately $600,000 in additional contingency. The aliocated funding
sources included $18.3 million in earmarked redevelopment tax increment bond funds,
$1.7 million in parking meter revenues, $2.7 million of the $7 million HUD Section 108
loan and $2 million in uncommitted tax increment bond funds (see Attachment 1). This
left $4.3 million in available resources if the total Section 108 loan was utilized.
DISCUSSION
Staff recently completed final construction drawings for the historic. Theater and
prepared an updated cost estimate of the rehabilitation/restoration project. The updated
cost estimate resulted in a $1.8 million increase in construction costs for the
rehabilitation of the historic Theater due to scope of work changes, resolution of
technical issues, and general construction cost inflation. Additionally, costs associated
with increased contingencies on those higher construction costs, construction
management and inspector of record services, as well as additional specialized
architecture and engineering services have contributed to increases in the historic
Alameda Theater budget. As a result, the updated budget for the historic Theater
component of the project is currently $12.5 million, representing a $3 million increase
over the previous budget of $9.5 million (see Attachment 2). This cost increase
assumes replenishment of the construction contingency fund at 15 percent. The total
cost of all three components of the project is now estimated at $26.8 million.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ATTA,
T 15
Honorable Chair and November 9, 2005
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3
The increase in Theater costs requires an update of the approved funding strategy for
the project. Accordingly, the updated funding strategy proposes allocating the full $7
million HUD Section 108 loan to cover the current $26.8 million project costs, which
allows $2.2 million in 2003 merged bond funds to be used for an additional project
contingency (see Attachment 3). At this stage of the development process there is
uncertainty about the construction cost of the garage due to potential cost inflation and
resolution of technical issues as the garage design progresses from design
development to construction drawings. Therefore, it is recommended that the additional
contingency remain committed to the project until the City receives hard construction
bids for both the parking garage and historic Theater restoration /rehabilitation. Staff will
pursue formal approval of the updated funding strategy once final garage design
decisions are completed and a detailed new garage cost estimate can be prepared.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund with the use of any of the identified funding
sources for this project. As proposed, the project revenues are estimated to be sufficient
to cover the costs of this project.
RECOMMENDATION
This is for information only. However, as construction costs continue to increase every
month, staff recommends that the CIC consider maintaining the additional $2.2 million in
2003 merged bond funds as a contingency for the project until hard construction bids
are received.
DK/LAUDES /JEO:ry
Respectf
Le le A. Little
Development Services Director
submitted,
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
visio
Je ( nife E. Ott
De eloiment Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \econdev\Jennifer\Parking Structure \Reports \oct040ffAgenda2.doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre Project/Staff Reports & Resolutions
Honorable Chair and November 9, 2005
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3
Attachments
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Reference Binder
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comde■\econdev\Jennifer \Parking Structure \Reports \octO4offA9enda2.doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre Project/Staff Reports & Resolutions
ATTACHMENT 1
FUNDING SOURCES OPTIONS SUMMARY
(Presented to the CIC on November 16, 2004)
L SHORT TERM
Earmarked Bond Funds
2002 BWIP $ 500,000
2003 Merged Area Bonds $ 17,802,921
Parking Meter Revenue Funds $ 1,700,000
Section 108 Loan $ 2,731,604
Uncommitted /Unallocated 2003 Merged Bond Funds $ 2,000,000
$ 24,734,525
II. POTENTIAL LONG TERM (available funds)
Earmarked Bond Funds
2002 BWIP
2003 Merged Area Bonds
Parking Meter Revenue Funds
BEDI /Section 108 Loan
g: \econdev \theatre\
staff reports \Funding Options Summary 10 -31 -05
$ 500,000
$ 17,802,921
$ 1,700,000
$ 7,000,000
$ 27,002,921
Contingency: $ 2,268,396
C}
0
t)"'
1—
o
c
b'cl)
1
0
-a
"6
N
4-,
C
E
C)
Difference
Use of Funds
0 0 Ca
0 0 0
C) 0 CD
C5 ,--- CO
10 N
OD CO CD
69 (15
69- 69
No change: previous garage budget
0
0
0
0)
U)
0 0 010
o o 010
o 0 Q1 o
c5 co 0)
N 1'-
C° CO Cr) Lt)
s.5 cm as"
ft
4/3
C9
CD 0 0 0
0000
0 0 0 0
0 ui Lo
o o N. r-
co cv (0
ft
c \I 69 fA
,1A3
ca o
c6
o cn
(0.,-
0 o to
o N-
o co Ln
c: o tri
cr) N.
Lc') o
EA 69- 69
0 0 CDJ
0 0 0
0 0 C3
6c3
C5 C \I CV
LC) N
o op CO
1.6
a)
E
0
a)
-o
t n
0
0
0)
0
0
.c
0
0.
a)
0
a)
,c
0
LO 0 ti)
CO 0 CO
co 0 CO
•ct-
0 0) 00
LO
4,3
0) 0 10
CO 49 OD
CO 00
03.
0)
CO
CO
t.6
CV
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CO 0) C9
0) r-
ili 4/3
CV
4/3-
a
o
a III
a
C :a 0
>...,
0 a) as o 0
.5
.- .c c
a) a)
a) ,..,.. a)
0)
cn c c Trj E.
-g-
o
eu
P 0 ,c2 as o 0 0
,...)
,.. s.-.,
2 E
7SCr 15 X
..r) 2
a
00
Ca < .0
. g - 0 II) 4-) t : ". .. .L., CO CO
.61 a) .0
8 E -c— c c
.., _. c
CL -J 0 0 Ci3 L./ 0- 1 H- 0) 'CC —I EC 0 Cl)
Contingency
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS
a)
0
0
al
i-
c
0
8
ij
Li
0
0
1)
C)
c
—
u)
E
12 'as
o -..
o s 0
N co
4A
co
0)
0
4A
SOURCE OF FUNDS
0 0 0i 0
EA- 0 0 0
0 CI
4- CA 0
CO -
CO 4- 0
69 69-
0000
69 69- EA 69
0000
49- EA
0 0 0 0 0100
69 49 69 Eft 49 69 EA
0 100 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0
o 00 o o o
6 6 6 0010
tn N N.- 0 0 1---.
co 0 co co N CD
69 c‘i 69 69
Ea 49-
0 0 0 0
4d3 69 -69 09
0
0
0
10
N.
CD
to
0 0 10 0
69 69 WI E9
0010
0
0 co
0010
00)
ix) o 41.
cNi N.: CV
Ehr Ef)
0 0 0
qa 69- 0
0
0
1.0
LC) LI)
CO CO
00 CO
10 ID
C\1 N
0 0
0 0
o
0 0
o o
69- .69
4re
0 0 0 O 0000 0 0 CD L0 LO CD
0 0 o 0 0000 o h., ,-- co co c,)
o o 0 c) o o o o o 0) Lo co co o
6 ,-- co arc 6 6 10 tri. 6 6 iri tri a; co-
tr.) o.) o r- c) o 1-... I"- 0 CA N- CD OD
CO CO 0) 10 OD N CD CO ID 0 0) 10 CO .1.-
c \i` 69 69 c-*5 c.i N: ni c\1 CD
69 69 T-- 69 619 69 69 69
69- 4/9 4/4
0
a_
= "II
C Er:
ca .$)
›..
c.) a) ea c.)
c 0 .c
a) 0 (1)
cs) u) en
u) c c CtS 0
ti c)c
0 .0 0 c c al cp 0 0 0 0
a) R-17 c 0
E' u) 0 1- ........0;
cr ti o t< o c C...) ts cr Lt$ 0
En as as 0 -.- = ..." = ai .0 =
c :5 NI a)
0 a) —• c
a. -J 0 0 0) C.) a. 2 I- CD < -J CC 0 U)
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS
0
0
E
cm
1T)
0)
t.)
0.
rO
.0
0.
0)
.c
0.
0.
0.
E>
`)
ID 0
.0 2?
0)
0.0)
On
o
- 9.
"c6 tn;
c
E 8
E T;, .c
o _
o
E
.EL
c
E
a)
a, 2
a) a)
u)
6
.E
0 td
a) 2
00
IP.
th
00
&
00)
2 E
00
00
Cs.1
(00.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council on the 21st day of March, 2006, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3.
NOES: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this 22nd day of March, 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Cleric,
City of Alameda