PC 061301 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Sullivan as to whether the document had been submitted to the ACWMA for review, Mr. Pavan advised the Waste Management Authority elected not to look at the office portion, because it was going through the LEED certification process. Mr. Pavan further advised that a copy can be provided to Ms. Sommers. Commissioner Arkin asked why Kaufman & Broad Homes cannot use flyash in their concrete for the foundations. Mr. Ebrahimi advised that K&B Homes' structural engineer would not allow them to use it. He noted that Greenbriar's structural engineer approved up to 15% flyash in the concrete. Discussion ensued regarding the options that will be offered in the residential units. Mr. Ebrahimi advised that they intend to include the options in the model homes and provide information in the sales brochure. Douglas Davis, MBH Architects, 1115 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda CA 9450 I, advised that he is representing the developer of the commercial portion of the site. He noted that currently they are proceeding with permits, but reassessing the construction schedule. In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Sullivan, Mr. Davis advised they have no objections to submitting their Green Building plan to the U.S. Green Building Council for actual certification if the Planning Department desires. r In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Harvey, Mr. Davis advised that additional measures will be included as the tenant improvements are made. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED The Planning Commission commended the applicants for their work in preparing the Green Building measures for the Bernal Property project. c. Consideration to rescind the approval of Case PUD-85-5. a development plan for a four-story approximately 66,000-sQuare-foot office building on an approximately 2.8-acre site located on the south side of Johnson Drive, easterly of the Hilton Hotel. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - ICO (Industrial. Commercial. and Offices). Marion Pavan advised that PUD-85-5 is a 16-year-old development plan approval for an office building. He noted that the approval is not vested. He advised that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission initiate an action to rescind this PUD approval, and if the Planning Commission does so, the item will be returned to the Planning Commission for action at a subsequent public hearing. He stated that the property owners and affected parties have been notified regarding the rescinding of this approval and no objection was voiced. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED No one spoke. - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13,2001 Page 10