PC 020806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ concerns could be addressed. The Pleasanton Cultural Foundation also hosted a family-oriented picnic at the site during which the renderings for the project were displayed for the neighborhood. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding whether ELS was provided a copy of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines, Mr. Noland confirmed that they did have that documentation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding why the staff report was silent with respect to the conformance of this project with the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines, Ms. Decker advised that there was no intention for the staff report to be silent on it. She added that the application was reviewed to deterrnine whether it was in conformity, and staff felt that it did meet those design guidelines. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether there was a rendering of the original concept design, Mr. Jorgensen noted that the project presented was, in fact, a more refined product of the original concept design and that funding was a significant issue for this project. He added that the City Council had allocated $6 million for this project several yeazs ago and that the Task Force had agreed to build the best facility possible within the physical and fmancial constraints. The resulting cost analysis revealed that the facility would cost approximately $8.44 million to build. He noted that ELS stated that if there were savings related to some minor contractions of the overall footprint of the building, the height of the building could be lowered by three feet, saving ~ approximately $500,000. He believed that the materials envisioned for the exterior, which aze meant to complement the old historical building, were rather modest. He noted that the Council had considered several strategies to reduce the construction cost by approximately $2.25 million, which might eliminate some of the programming components of the building, such as the gallery or the theater. He believed those draconian moves would keep the project from being an actual arts center. The City Council had reviewed the vazious alternatives and expressed unanimous support for the design before the Planning Commission, maintaining all of the program components. Mr. Jorgensen noted that the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Foundation (PCAF) stated that it would like to go forwazd with the project, even with the $4 million gap, committing to an aggressive fund-raising program. He noted that the project was taken before the Council and the PCAF to brainstorm fund-raising opportunities and that the Council directed staff and ELS to return before the Council with some possible phasing programming schemes to move the project forward. He noted that the project returned with several phased development processes for the Council to consider, along with the fundraising report from the Foundation. At its January 17, 2006 meeting, the Council directed ELS to move forward and begin the construction drawings so that two approaches could be taken when it came time to bid. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Februazy 8, 2006 Page 9 of 18