PC 022702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Building Code. She further clarified that with regard to including additional conditions, it r appears that because South Bay is coming forward with a request to modify the PUD development plan, it is essentially a "quid pro quo" situation and the City can ask for something from them. Ms. Kline noted that staff did receive an e-mail today stating opposition to the extension. Commissioner Kameny asked about the fee structure that would apply to this development. Ms. Seto advised that the under the development agreement the applicant did negotiate for protection with regard to fee increases. She further advised that the applicant agreed to pay the fee that the City has in place at the time the permits are issued. Commissioner Roberts asked if there is some definition for "policy" that would be used if the Planning Commission conditions the project to comply with future measures that have not yet been codified. Ms. Seto advised that the difficulty would be in determining at what point a policy or practice is established and what the enforcement mechanism would be. She advised that staffis asking the Planning Commission to think of things that may have not been included, but the Planning Commission has become more familiar with over the past few years and that they would like to see added. She further advised that under State law, ifthere is a change in State law or City law that is imposed as a result of health and safety issues, that can be imposed on a project, irrespective of a development agreement. r- Commissioner Sullivan inquired as to whether the applicant will actually go through the U.S. Green Building Council's process to get LEED certification. Ms. Kline suggested that the applicant respond to this question. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Sullivan, Ms. Kline confirmed that the reference to the "waste generation disposal and diversion plan" relates to the City's construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance that will be forthcoming. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dan Rosenbaum, 1690 Dell Avenue, Campbell, represented the applicant. Mr. Rosenbaum advised that they concur with the staff report. He noted that a cornerstone of their ability to provide the funding needed for this project was the ten-year development agreement. He reported that when he realized that the two-year construction timing condition was included, he specifically asked Brian Swift regarding this condition, and he was told that the ten-year term would supercede the condition of approval. He noted that they spent a lot of time and money generating the plans for this project and they worked with the Planning Commission to develop those plans. He also noted that they have prepared the working drawings based on the approved plans and their business plan was to construct the project. He reported that they intend to keep these plans current by resubmitting for plan check each year so that they can build the project once the demand comes back. Mr. Rosenbaum questioned whether in August 2000 staff really meant that they would have to come back in two years to have the project approved again. He advised that he thinks that the Planning Commission believed that what they were approving (the design, color, texture, and brick) was for ten years. He advised that he thinks the protection that ,.-. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 27, 2002 Page 9