PC 022603 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUELIC HEARING WAS OPENED- Mr_ Tim Cosetti, 3598 Wind Cave Court, noted that he recycled as much material as possible, and added that vary little material want to the dump- He noted that the material cost of the building was $88,000, and explained how the cost figures were derived. He noted that the cost of the lots were currently 60-70% of the cost of the house- He noted that the rebuilding cost did not include code improvements. A discussion of the 50% rule and its application ensued- Mr. Cosetti noted that there was a significant difference between demolishing a building, and taking a building apart using the recycling methods- He added. that it was more expensive, and took longer, generally about two weeks. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kemeny, Mr_ Cosetti noted that the cost for the foundation replacement would not include bringing it to Code_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kemeny, Ms_ Nerland replied that she did not believe a building permit could be obtained without the structure being up to Code_ Mr. Cosetti noted that he believed that the bid represented bringing the building to residential standards. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr_ Iserson replied that for purposes of this formula, the building would not haves to be brought up to commercial code standards, but that residential code standards would be sufficient- Commissioner Maas noted that the applicant brought the project forward by the existing rules, and suggested that the Commission hear the substance of the application as with the other Spring Street projects. She suggested that any examination into the 50% rule and code standards be discussed under Matters Initiated by Commissioners. She did not believe it was quite fair to use the applicant as the example. Commissioner Sullivan noted that he wished to understand the details of the application, and added that he opposed the other Spring Street project Michael O'Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, wished to discuss Item 22 in the conditions of approval in their generic sense, but not necessarily with respect to this project. While he supported green building practices, he believed that the condition was restrictive and demanding, and amounted to amini-ordinance. He believed that Sentence 1 , "The developer is encouraged to utilize the green building practices in the construction of the new office of this site," was appropriate- He believed that the sentence, "The project developer shaZZ use its best efforts to implement the measures identified in the Alameda County Waste Management Authority-__" should be changed to "may use" to soften the tone of the language. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2003 Page 8