CCMIN101502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis referred to the recommendation that the ordinance be reviewed in a year and asked if staff recommended that. Mr. Swift said the Planning Commission recommended that it be reviewed in a year. Staff felt it would ordinarily review the ordinance at that time to make certain it was working as proposed. However, a year is too soon, since most buildings will not be completed during that time frame and in order to properly monitor the operation of a building, it should be occupied for at least a year. Ms. Dennis felt that eventually it would be useful to add incentives to encourage builders to meet the higher levels of the LEED system. She said she has been interested in green building programs for a long time and was delighted when the Planning Commission expressed an interest. The U. S. Green Build'mg Council familiarized the Planning Commission with the certification process. It is helpful that a lot of background work has already been done and many cities support the concept of green building to help the County to meet the waste reduction and resource conservation goals. She was enthusiastic about the ordinance because she has seen how strongly businesses support waste reduction policies. There is no point in buying something then throwing it away or in build'rog something that takes ail the profit out of operating it. Over time through working with green building program for small businesses and through the stop waste program for larger businesses, it has been seen that businesses are enthusiastic about implementation of standards. She felt it encourages people to go in this direction and does not penalize those who want to because others may get off cheaper by not complying. The concept ora level playing field is there. One of the things she liked about the proposed ordinance is that it sets standards and choices for the businesses. There is a menu of possibilities for construction with the main point being energy and resource conservation, waste reduction, etc. As the ordinance is perfected over time, she would like to see more incentives for a higher level of achievement in this area. It will benefit businesses and the public for years. It will benefit occupants of buildings and make it more cost effective to do bus'mess in Pteasanton. Ms. Ayala was disappointed Council was not adopting the ordinance at this meeting. She did not see it as a punitive ordinance and felt staffhad done a very good job working with developers and all the commissions in drafting the ordinance. She quoted from an email from a member of the Economic Vitality Committee which stated no one was opposed to the environmental aspects of the ordinance. The concern was more bureaucracy and slowing the process. She noted she was called by a developer to meet with an architect who was certified by the LEED process. She felt that was very encouraging. Ms. Michelotti took issue with the assumption that getting more input and educating the business community was slowing the process. She believed the model ordinance was admirable. She felt the business industry would agree. The questions are what are the implications; is this an incentive or is it going to be a mandate? She encouraged the community to be educated on this before the second meeting in November. Mayor Pico believed the process was working. He did not feel it was necessary to force a decision on this issue. He wanted everyone to feel comfortable with what Council proposes to Pleasanton City Council 16 1 O/15/02 Minutes