My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031203
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
PC 031203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:39:48 AM
Creation date
12/8/2005 10:03:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/12/2003
DOCUMENT NAME
PC-031203
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
b. PUD-02-1D, City of Pleasanton <br />Application for design review approval for a new fire station facility with <br />apparatus bays and living quarters for the Livermore Pleasanton Fire <br />Department located on a 3.26 acre site defined by Bernal Avenue, Oak Vista <br />Way, Mill Creek Place, and Whispering Oaks Way. Zoning for the property is <br />PUD Planned Unit Developments District. <br />Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report and the history of the application. He noted that <br />because the square footage of this building was less than 20,000 square feet in floor area, it <br />was exempt from the Green Building Ordinance. However, even exempt buildings are <br />encouraged to use their best efforts to incorporate as many green building conditions as <br />possible. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that Commissioner Sullivan was unable to attend the meeting because <br />of illness, and read his email regarding this item into the record= <br />"I will unfortunately be unablc to attend the Planning Commission <br />meeting tonight due to a case of the flu. However, I would like to ask that <br />the Planning Commission consider adding a condition of approval <br />regarding the LEEDTM rating of the new Fre station. <br />I am confident that the Staff is committed to achieving a LEEDTM Silver <br />rating for the building. I am also aware that budget constraints could limit <br />the ability of Staff to incorporate the planned measures at a later date after <br />the discretionary approvals by both the Planning Commission and City <br />Council are granted. I think it will be important to compare any additional <br />costs required to meet the Silver rating against the life-cycle cost savings <br />that these measures would achieve. <br />In my discussions with Staff and ACWMA, they believe that an economic <br />analysis that compares first costs against life cycle savings could be <br />prepared at the 75% design stage of the building, which would occur <br />sometime prior to the issuance of the final building permit. I£ at that time, <br />the final estimates show that the existing building budget could not <br />support the LEEDTM Silver rating, I would propose that the economic <br />analysis be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. The <br />Commission would review the analysis and make a recommendation to the <br />City Council for additional. expenditures to incorporate LEEDTM measures <br />that would meet the Silver rating based on an acceptable pay back criteria <br />from the cost savings. The final approval would be by the City Council, <br />and then the project could move to the final design and building permit <br />stage. <br />I have discussed this approach with Marion Pavan, and I believe that Staff <br />will be presenting some options to the Commission tonight in this regard. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2003 Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.