PC 022603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson advised that this building conforms to the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Commercial land use designation. While the Downtown Specific Plan encourages retail uses on the first floor, it did not mandate it; it was intended to address Manz Street more than the side streets. Because of the limited parking on Spring Street, office uses were preferable to retail uses. In the future, if the G'ity is able to provide parking in the transportation corridor, that would provide more potential for retail or restaurant uses in a small building. Staff believed that the land use was acceptable, and that it expanded the downtown commercial area off of Main Street onto the side streets, as encouraged in the Specific Plan. Staff believed that the design of the site and the house would maintain the neighborhood character_ The applicant had given considerable attention to the design details, as encouraged by the Design Element of the Specific Plan_ Although the applica.iit has provided a list of proposed green building measures, this building is exempt from the Green Building Ordinance because it is smaller than 20,000 square feet. The Ordinance asks for "best efforts" in the smaller buildings. Staf£ suggests rewording Condition 22 to be more reflective of the encouragetrient, rather than requirement, of green building measures. Staff believes that the applicant, architect, and contractor have given a lot of thought to green building measures, and that they had experience with other buildings on Spring Street. Mr. Iserson noted that staff supports the project, as does the Pleasanton Downtown Association. Staff had not received any negative comments, and recommended approval of the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the building, and of the design review to rebuild the building. Staff suggested that the Commission consider the alternate language for Condition 22. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson noted that the language would be more user-friendly, and that the square footage of the building exempted it from Green Building Ordinance requirements. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr_ Iserson did not know whether the colors were being coordinated between this building and the neighboring building, and that he would ask the applicant to provide that information. Conm-iissioner Roberts noted that she had communicated with George Thomas and Robin Eisenwinter about the gutting of the building prior to a building permit being issued. She inquired whether the debris was properly recycled. Mr. Iserson did not know the answer to that question, but noted that the contractor had done a good job in terms of recycling at 240 Spring Street In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson confirmed that any framing timbers not damaged by termites or dry rot may be recycled, and he believed that they intended to do so. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2003 Page 6