PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the use for the in-lieu parking fees, Mr. Otto confirmed that the monies would be used to construct new pazking lots Downtown. He noted that the City has been pursuing acquisition of the Alameda County Transportation Corridor and anticipated the construction of a pazking lot in the neaz future. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the options for the doors which aze not to code, Ms. Decker replied that under the Phase I approval for maintenance and weatherproofing, it was anticipated that the existing double doors could remain. However, closer scrutiny has determined that there are certain Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and landing requirements that must be met. The applicant returned with an idea to replace those double doors with a single 30 door which would be compliant and a side light in the front and side of the existing structure. A further conversation has indicated that there might be an opportunity to recess existing doors in the existing structures and retain the two 2040 doors. At that time, the existing Code would be met. She noted that the existing structure and addition would be subject to both the California State Historic Building Code and California Building Code. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regazding whether historic buildings must comply with ADA requirements, Ms. Decker confirmed that at least one door must be handicapped accessible. Commissioner Blank believed that the pazking in-lieu fee should be aone-time fee and a recurring payment to compensate for the impact of inflation and for not having the pazking space over the yeazs. He noted that the recurring fee could be discontinued when the City builds the parking gazage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Wayne Rasmussen, Rasmussen Plannir-g, 2010 Crow Canyon Place, #100, San Ramon, representing the applicant, noted that he would serve as the City liaison on this project. He added that the applicant planned to restore the buildings to the fullest extent possible and that the walls on the one-story building had been replaced several times. The historic fronts of the buildings had remained substantially intact from their original construction. He noted that the applicant took into careful consideration the ARG report from the historic preservationists and chose Option #2, where the two existing buildings would be saved and relocated. That would allow the addition to go in. He added that the recommendation in the ARG report indicated that from the standpoint of historic preservation and resource, it provided justification for some kind of parking variance or in-lieu situation. He noted that the variance was essential to keeping the cost of this restoration to a reasonable level. The applicant agreed with staff's recommendations and appreciated the PDA's input. He believed a consensus agreement regazding the parking arrangement could be reached. He urged the Commission's approval of this project. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regazding the timeline for completion, Mr. Rasmussen estimated that, if everything went smoothly, it should be completed by next summer.