PC 092502 - Laserfiche WebLink

the architects had not been historically asked to work with the LEED checklist, and r initially, the professionals may ask for more fees until they become more experienced in green building. He noted that the USGBC consisted mainly of architects, and their input has been valuable to the ongoing development ofLEED. In terms of hard costs, he had not seen that a LEED certified design has added more money on a fIrst cost basis. If the requirement is armounced up front, and ifit was part of the initial contracts and design, the training of architects and engineers would blend into the standard program. He believed that money could be saved on a first cost basis. He cited a project in San Diego seven years ago, where the soft costs for professional intelligence were increased, but the mechanical system costs were reduced by one-third on a first cost basis. The lighting system was reduced by one-third, and a different procurement process was implemented, saving another $300,000. In aggregate, they saved approximately $1 million, which was spent for better mechanical and control systems, windows, and better indoor air quality. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas, Mr. Gottfried replied that the materials were primarily off-the-shelf technology, excluding photovoltaics. He noted that photovoltaics were not required for the Certified level, and that the more exotic items such as solar cells and composting toilets were part of the Gold and Platinum levels. He believed that the LEED certification should add to a higher appraisal value, a higher loan amount, less developer equity, and higher developer return on equity. He noted that he would be happy to show developers how include LEED on their pro forma on a line-item r basis. He noted that they were working on a residential LEED, and saw the need for a commercial interiors LEED without including the building as a whole. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Gottfried replied that the U.S. Green Building Council was headquartered in Washington, D.C. Jon Harvey, 3790 Smallwood Court, expressed his support of the Green Building Ordinance. He noted that while he was on the Plarming Commission, the commercial projects had no trouble meeting the Certified Level. He believed the Ordinance would help spur the market for green building materials, which would encourage more architects to choose those materials. He believed that it was appropriate for Pleasanton to take a leadership position regarding the Green Building Ordinance. Wendy Sommer, Alameda County Waste Management Authority, noted that they fully supported the Green Building Ordinance. She would like the Ordinance to be reviewed in one year to determine whether any modifications would make it more effective, and whether it would be easier for the developers to comply with it. She noted that the ACWMA would be available to support city staff during the program implementation, including the development of the specific list for Pleasanton. In terms of incentives, she had received requests to emphasize the importance of public recognition of those developers which used green building standards. She noted that they would mention the developers in their newsletters and web site. .-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2002' Page 10