PC 053007 - Laserfiche WebLink

utilize green building techniques, and that the buildings would be more appropriately designed. At the request of Commissioner Narum, Mr. Dahlin commented on the sign, stating that they had discussed hotel operators and felt strongly that the best spot for the hotel was on Owens Drive and Rosewood Drive from a planning and hotelier standpoint. He noted that in addition to the CarrAmerica sign, they would like some kind of identification on I-580 that their hotel was available. Commissioner Blank did not believe the hotel should be placed right next to the freeway. He inquired that if all the approvals and financing were in place by January 1, 2008, the applicants had given any thought to construction phases and approximate durations for each phase. Mr. Edwards noted that would be a market-driven scenario and added that the rates in the area did not support new construction. He added that they had been approached by several very large users who cannot find a site else that would be interested in doing a pre-lease and pay-over market. He noted that they were not hotel developers but that he could speak of the demand studies in the area. He added that the more office space they had, the more demand the hotel would have. He estimated that the construction period may be 18 months if all the leasing were to be in place; the individual buildings may take 14 months, and the parking structure would need to be built concurrently. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether there were any concerns related to the glare from the east/west-facing glazing near a street, Mr. Dahlin replied that there would be concerns and believed that was a good point. He added that they would likely use a non-reflective material. Martin Interbitzen, CarrAmerica, 4218 Casterson Court, wished to clarify a point in the staff report on page 4 regarding land use. He noted that they would like to be very respectful of the entitlements that the existing property owners in Hacienda Business Park have. He believed the staff report stated that the 1.6 million square feet that was not built was approved and that various property owners were entitled to that 1.6 million square feet. He noted that they were currently in discussions with those property owners and hoped that by the time an application was made, they would be able to present an approach to the Commission regarding where the additional square footage for this corporate center will come from. It was not their intent to focus on that issue as part of this design review study session. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, noted that he was working with BRE and that these projects generally had PUDs or development agreements. The unbuilt 1.6 million square feet was all square footage owned by other property owners who paid for the North Pleasanton Improvement District, including the five freeway interchanges and the other North Pleasanton improvements. He believed it was premature to have a discussion regarding the disposition of the square footage and suggested following Mr. Interbitzen’s guidance with respect to that issue, especially prior to a more detailed traffic discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 30, 2007 Page 12 of 20