PC 072303 - Laserfiche WebLink

least 150 feet in length. She noted that the Fire Department vvould be able to pull into the drivevvay irl. 'the rl.eighboring business. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan.,.. 1'v1s. EisenVV"inter noted that projects under 20,,000 square :teet in size are exempt from the Green Building Ordinance_ J:~hc V'\/ording '-"Vith rcspcc't 'to' "best efferts to' implemel"1t greel"1 building"''' '-"Vas rerrloved frOIT:L tl"1c cOI"1ditiollS" aJ."1d per the Ordinance.,. may not be included in the conditions. She noted that 'the applicant volnntarily s-ubmittcd an iI"1itial LEEDTlVI: scorecard Tor the Commissiol"1"'s inforlT1ation" and believed that the project vvould score at or close to the certified level. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner ~aJ:T1eny" 1'v1s. ~erland confirlT1ed tl"l.at as "the Ordinance stands.,.. nOTl-covered projects (less than 20.,.000 square feet) are encoL1-raged 1..0 use their best e:fIorts. In previous applicatiol"1s." lal"1guage that vvas inclL1-ded in the conditions of approval vvas believed to have g01"1e beyond encouragement or "best efTorts."'''' She noted that the Ordinance still stands" and the applicants are still given inTormation at the counter. She noted that this applicant follovved up 01"1 that. information.,. but there vvas no specific condition attached to the projecT- In response to an ir1quiry by Commissioner Sullivan regarding the COIT1111ission"'s ability to condition a design revievv vvith respect to the Green Building Ordinance.,.. 1\.I1s. Eisern..>\Tinter noted that she had raised t.hat question vvhilc vvorkil"1g on. the project. She noted that she l"1ad included "the "best eTfor1s""" condi"tion.,. and vvas advised to remove it. She noted that there vvas a general Teeling that the conditions vvere exceeding tl"1e origil"1al intent o-t- the Ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan.,.. I\.I1s. Nerland replied t:h.at i-t- an applicant did not comply vvith the conditions of approval.,.. subseq-ueI"1t int.ernal discussions vvould occur. Irtl"1ose discussions "",ere not productivc.,.. the matt.er vvould be brought before the Comrnission. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kame.ny.,. J'\I'1s. Eisen'VVinter noted that construction VV"as prohibit.ed on :tederal holidays because or the volume of cOll1plaints received by Code En1:orcement. THE PUBLIC HEARING VV AS OPENED. J'V1:r. Felix:: Bachofl"ler" 1189 ~m"1da .Avenue., Seaside:., displayed a PevverPoirl.t presen1:atie>n detailing the neVV" renderings o:t- the desigI"l..,. as vvell as various vievvs or the site requested by the Commission. He noted that a n"LuT1ber of heritage building references" covered V'v'alk~ays." aI"l.d toV'\/ers in. DoV'\/ntoV'\/n", vvere: irlCh.l.dcd in developing the de:sigrl. "rl"1cy contemporized the design to re-t-l.cct Pleasanton'" s 1uture., usi.ng building technologies an.d significant landscaping features. He noted that vvhile the Planning Comn"lission may not approve a project cond-i1:ioned on revenue 1actors.,. l"l.e advised that 1:1"'\c busirless vvould brirlg an additional 18 jobs to Plcasanton" as vvell as t.l"l.e in.creased revenue derived Tron'] increased property,. business license.,. and sales taxes. PLA~ING COJ'V1J'V1ISSIO~ J'V1I~UTES .July 23, 2003 Page 5