My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092910
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 092910
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/19/2011 3:30:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/29/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Pam Hardy, Ponderosa Homes, also concurred with Mr. MacDonald’s comments. She <br />stated that she sat on the BuildItGreen Building Council and believes Pleasanton is <br />forward-thinking in its work. She conveyed her appreciation with staff on their analysis <br />and outreach. She indicated that Ponderosa Homes supports one comprehensive <br />checklist and Tier 1 components, and does not want jurisdictional creep of added items <br />such as PV which is an option in the checklist and costs about $400 per home. She <br />indicated that she did not want to quibble with numbers, stating that meeting all baseline <br />and Tier 1 requirements adds about $30,000 to $40,000 per home, noting that there are <br />direct costs as well as indirect costs that have to do with site preparation, individual <br />inspection, third party reviewers, excavation, and design costs. She agreed with staff <br />that they are hard to quantify but noted that they are not insignificant. She asked that <br />the City adhere to Tier 1 requirements and to not allow individual, case-by-case <br />conditions which results in unpredictability to builders. <br />Chair Olson asked Ms. Hardy if the $30,000 to $40,000 in added costs runs inversely or <br />directly relational to the square footage increase. <br />Ms. Hardy replied that these numbers are based on the average square footage costs <br />and actual costs of two of their housing projects. She indicated that she was not sure <br />what the average square footage breakdowns are and added that there is no scale of <br />economy on homes. She noted that it was not just dollars-per-square-feet but rather <br />the existence of many other variables that must be considered, most notably a lot of site <br />work. She provided as an example, the fly ash requirement and its unintended <br />consequences. She stated that their structural engineers will not let them do 20-percent <br />fly ash, which means that they will have to go to a thickened slab for the driveway so <br />they can add the 20-percent fly ash, which then increases excavation costs by a couple <br />of inches and more concrete. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired whether the $30,000 to $40,000 would apply either to <br />a 2,000- square- foot home or a 5,000- square- foot home. <br />Ms. Hardy replied that homes in the Village range from 1,900 square feet to <br />2,900 square feet. She reiterated that there are flat costs independent of construction <br />costs which do not have to do with square footage. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />With respect to the addition of PV-ready, Commissioner Pearce expressed concern <br />about valuing it over some of the other green requirements. She indicated that she is <br />comfortable keeping it as an elective rather than making it mandatory. <br />Chair Olson stated that he concurred with not making PV-ready mandatory and that <br />there should be flexibility. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that the only reason she thinks it needs to be considered is <br />that there are some things that need to be incorporated during the building construction <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 29, 2010 Page 17 of 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.