HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 7, 1981 (27)O.
901 w. locust st. lodl. ca. 95240
.�E►tet►,hr, 7'l, 1981
Mr. Henry Gloves, City Managed
City of Lodi
271 West Pine Street
Lod;, California 95240
Dear Henry -
We would like to suggest the followinci items for considerotion:
1. Designotea the old LUHS campus as a point of local interest.
2. Adept they Los Angeles Historic Building Code.
3. Develop a program fot ;mpletnentoticn of donor Neojects by staff with
Dauber -Kikuchi.
4. Dc•v.:lop for implementatinn via CIP repo it/rnaintertance scl-edule.
Develop program to see vlint con be occutnplished with absolute min'-nwil,
dollar investment to achiev,, master plan program uses in cofeterio,
and auditorium buildings.
6. Design incremental placement of north parking lot with necessary occev, point,
7. We endorse the development and implementation of the Hutchins St,eet
improvemenh noted in CH2M Hill report.
8. Direct development of o p,o9tvn and co-ordinate o Sid package to serk
investment from the private sector via requests for proposal.
Regards,
LODI DESIGN GROUP
Lewis Bishop
le"Iel
Avo.
GYo
0
ISSOLUTION 90. 81-118
181aR]O18, the City of Lodi has purchased. the Old Lodi union
High School site for the purpose of developinq a future "Lodi
Cosmnnity Center•r i s and
M 163, the City of Lodi has retained the Lodi Design Group to
prepare a Master Plan for this Common ty Centers and
1fimURM, the City Council of the City of Lodi on September 16,
1981 adopted the Lodi Design Group Master Plan report on the Lodi
Cosmanity Center dated September 7, 1981s and
1 715, this report revamm nds the preservation and future use
of the cafeteria, cask, auditoria and gym buildings are of local and
special interest to the citizens of Lodi and that they should be psre-
asrved and restosed in their present fora for the eudsting and future
citisens of Lodis and
NOM, TORE, W IT RES UND that these buildings do be" a
historical vtlue.
Dated: October 7, 1981
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 81-138 was passed and
adopted by the City council of the City of Lodi in a regular
rating held October 7, 1981 by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen - Hughes, Kataich, Murphy, Pinkerton, and
McCarty
Noes: Councilmen - Noce
Absent: Councilman - None
ALICE M. REI)IM
City Clark
October 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Capital Outlay --Community Center
The Capital Improvement Budget for 1981-82.provides for two expenditure
items for the Community Center. At the Council meeting of September 16,
1981, I explained that I considered the two expenditure items as tentative
in nature and subject to increase. After further review with Mr. Bishop
and Mr. Ronsko, I am confident the funds recommended in the budget will
not cover the work recommended by the citizens group.
1. In a report to the City Council last summer, Mr. Bishop
recommended, and the City Council approved, the demolition
of certain buildings and the removal of the perimeter
fence. The Public Works Director prepared a cost
estimate for this work as follows:
Remove main building foundation $18,000
Remove girls' shower building $10,000
Remove frame structure connecting
Auto Shop and Industrial Arts
Building $ 6,000
Relocate and remove fencing S 5.000
TOTAL
With the completion of the Community Center Master Plan
and its adoption by the City Council, it is now logical
to consider the demolition of the Science Building.
We do not have cost estimates for this work at present,
but Mr. Ronsko can secure an estimate when desired. I
would guess it will be at least twice the cost of
removing the foundation of the main building.
2. I secured a rough estimate from Mr. Bishop for the necessary
roof repairs and boarding up and security for the Music
Building, Auditorium and Gymnasiums. Though rough, this
estimate is $60,000. I do not have a precise breakdown
of this item; however, Mr. Ronsko and I met with Mr. Bishop
Page 2
to discuss ideas for this work. Mr. Bishop's estimate
only provided short term roofing repairs to the buildings
to terminate water damage to the interiors. Since the Plan
calls for roof design changes, it does not appear
economic to replace sheathing, etc. at the time. In
our discussion we agreed that since no roof change was
contemplated in the Music Building, it might be better to
do a more complete roof repair at this time. A more
precise estimate will be -secured for this item, and it
will probably increase Mr. Bishop's estimate.
3. Since the Capital Budget was prepared, I have learned
that considerable interest is generated in moving ahead
with the development with the open activity area of the
Master Plan. This is identified at the northwest corner
of the Plan. Charlene Lange has been approached by
several groups interested -in contributing funds or labor
to accomplish portions of this area in the near future.
In order to take advantage of these offers, it will be
necessary to develop the engineering and landscape plans.
I have secured a proposal from Mr. Dauber of $11,000 for
a landscape plan to include water and drainage systems
and cost estimates. I recommend this item be included
in the Capital Budget, and appropriated from Revenue
Sharing Funds.
4. I budgeted the Revenue Sharing Funds to a balance of
approximately $162,000 with the thought that necessary or
desirable expenditures for the Community Center will
surface later &. ing the year. If the President's plan
for a reduction of 12% in Revenue Sharing is approved,
this balance will shrink to about $95,000. We will
still have the ability to appropriate necessary funds
later in the year.
At this time it is apparent to me that some additional
funds will be required as questions arise requiring
information or investigation.
HG: dg
t _
wiwA'i
4'
rte'
f^S f
-.:.:'
h.
rte'
-.:.:'
h.
s
rte'
h.
301 W. locust d. loth, ca. 95240
Q
September 24, 1981
Honorable City Council
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95240
Gentlemen:
Having re-reod our report on the Community Center and obtained input from
the community and staff, a word of explanction is in order. Page 2 shows,
under recommendations "Board up and preserve" item 2-b Science Building.
This item was placed here due to the inclusion on page 1 of consideration
of an alternative, using this building for senior citizen housing. Since you
adopted the master plan as presented, this option would not be considered.
Our recommendation would therefore be to move item 2-b to item 1-h.
Res fully,
Lewis Bishop
d�
4
re>,.r.
1�torc461titectu=ai/Sngfneering fee for a pro ject of thi:e scope
}4be�t@ X91 of the construction cost. :Assuming a 5 mi_ ion
t�a1.
aopable fee. would be $440,000 to $4950-ODOj Cur�ertly
ndt
any monies: available to fund the ;total fees ho�iC-
der„ Me believe, that we can continue working, on the project i3h Y
it of services in mind
Nttat is> necessary at this time is a `comprehensive survey of esGb
of :the structures . that remain. The blaster Plan study is now
compY-This.:: analysis was briefly discussed but': only to he
point df evaluation of buildings and their relationship
potential programs'`and relative worth for rehabilitating. The-
next ste
p;�rould:be to isolate each facility and prepare the
#oYl6W 'ncu cork:
1) . Develop:,. a scope, .of pork and list the steps of
restarting with minimal task
A s to ultimate
final completion.
2) Delineate areas of work that can be completed by volunteer -
labor and donated materials. #
3 ;v
3) Evaluate support systems (mechanical/electrical/ =
structural) and make recommendations.
4) Detailed cost estimate.
' 5) Code analysis.
6): Develop support graphics. rx14
5s t xhr�taa,^
A ti .max � �-"•�m�F��'j$'
..........
ro
1:
G1avea
fer -
)DY
1�torc461titectu=ai/Sngfneering fee for a pro ject of thi:e scope
}4be�t@ X91 of the construction cost. :Assuming a 5 mi_ ion
t�a1.
aopable fee. would be $440,000 to $4950-ODOj Cur�ertly
ndt
any monies: available to fund the ;total fees ho�iC-
der„ Me believe, that we can continue working, on the project i3h Y
it of services in mind
Nttat is> necessary at this time is a `comprehensive survey of esGb
of :the structures . that remain. The blaster Plan study is now
compY-This.:: analysis was briefly discussed but': only to he
point df evaluation of buildings and their relationship
potential programs'`and relative worth for rehabilitating. The-
next ste
p;�rould:be to isolate each facility and prepare the
#oYl6W 'ncu cork:
1) . Develop:,. a scope, .of pork and list the steps of
restarting with minimal task
A s to ultimate
final completion.
2) Delineate areas of work that can be completed by volunteer -
labor and donated materials. #
3 ;v
3) Evaluate support systems (mechanical/electrical/ =
structural) and make recommendations.
4) Detailed cost estimate.
' 5) Code analysis.
6): Develop support graphics. rx14
5s t xhr�taa,^
A ti .max � �-"•�m�F��'j$'
..........
ro
'"M
S.nA� � ..' •..rte 1,.� LTil _ i
*Tb�►9 �Itudy prepared by. Rranceschi and Schreiter, Arc
tett �xn ho ar 2, 19? -8 ^ is a. gsefnl foal, qn ort
it sit onfc%i�m to "the c*erall .water Plan cone
' har trlr?De, wee vadId 'expand and re-evaluate this, t:43
Cdr; ino udsd in :this . phai of the
woa eanat
cheYt: tie rill ovate rk will be
a,rl5-yeer Period and Enter
ith'JI
t31A „prOpclBee t�eV@lm@lt . lteQq@;1ce r
rtl : DISSIG�4'bi' si�3 cs xrci�itacts for the atic
ho --t, t# fsm of Daub+er/ICikucbi .inc.' tail. no lc
Esiat �►th t grogp and pill contract directlywitt
it art ctn a` °:cs ultfng arrangemena' ►ith the L062 ' QBsu*.,
i4lY bank yoeat "for your Continued interest in 'ths i►OD2 DBS
add xook =forty- °. w�orki'ng. Mith the committee on the . AW
K
`r
j p
5 4r r
unatse],Y►,
it4t0I1 {�', ,
fame►'* it r� Y
f y ~t"'uny Questiona
concerning the above." pleasen do nat y
Nie :Call.;
s �
h
-
E
r
n to..y
pt
IEZ ; DS$ZG C QQP
4
Y:
•
s"J4
kb tt P
G
tMorris
r'Ss
y t -
•
C
s �
h
-
Ek ))
pt
R
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: October 1, 1981
SUBJECT: Applying State Historical Building Code to
Lodi Community Center Buildings
After receiving and discussing with you and Lew Bishop the attached letter
of September 22, 1981, 1 called Judd Boles, the building official in Novato.
Mr. Bates is renowned in the field of historic building preservation and was
Instrumental in persuading the State that a historical type building code
was necessary and he also served on the committee that developed the draft
State Historical Building Code.
Mr. Boles confirmed that the first two items in the attached letter should
be done. He indicated that No. 1 of the attached memo, "Designate the old
LUHS campus as a point of local interest," could be accomplished by the
City Council adopting a resolution which included the following statements:
WHEREAS the City of Lodi has purchased the Old Tokay High School
site for the purpose of developing a future "Lodi Community Center,"
and
WHEREAS the City of Lodi has retained Lodi Design Group to prepare a
Master Plan for this Community Center, and
WHEREAS the City Council on September 16, 1981, adopted the Lodi
Design Group Master Plan report on the Lodi Community Center dated
September 7, 1981, and
WHEREAS this repor� recommends the preservation and future use of the
cafeteria, music, auditorium, and gym buildings,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lodi finds that the
cafeteria, music, auditorium and gym buildings are of local and spe-
cial interest to the citizens of Lodi and that they should be preserved
and restored in their present form for the existing and future citizens
of Lodi, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these buildings do have a historical value.
It was pointed out by Mr. Bodes that this resolution need only be on file with
the City of Lodi in order'to use the contents of the State Historical Building
Code.
Mr. Boles indica d that the City of Los Angeles is a front runner in develop -
Ing structural al es for unreinforced structures. is was his suggestion
that we have t e odi De "ign Group request a copy of their Historical Build -
in 9dd'PI
In r that can be reviewed prior to its adoption.
p
Jansko
Pu ks Director
-st cc:Design Group
Charlene Lange �.-
F
E I
Mr. Hwwy Gloves, City Manager
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Henry:
We would like to suggest the following items for consideration:
Designate the old LUHS campus as a point of local interest.
Adopt the Los Angeles Historic Building Code.
3. Develop a program for implementation of donor projects by staff with
Dauber -Kikuchi.
4. Develop for implementation via CIP repair/maintenance schedule.
5. Develop program to see what con be accomplished with absolute minimum
dollar investment to achieve master plan program uses in cafeteria, music
and auditorium buildings.
I
6. Design incremental placement of north parking lot with necessary access points.
7. We endorse the development and implementation of the Hutchins Street
improvements noted in CH2M Hill report.
8. Direct development of a program and co-ordinate a bid package to seek
investment from the private sector via requests for proposal.
Regards,
LODI DESIGN GROUP
Lewis Bishop