CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

work more efficiently. However, there is concern about an ordinance that mandates rather than provides incentives. Some concerns expressed are: the proposed ordinance does not provide a way to measure and balance the costs vs. benefits; procedural burdens should be measured, controlled and predictable; a building should have all necessary requirements at the point of first contact on a new project; the LEED system should be a source for guidance not a bible of irrefutable truths. The ordinance ties the City of Pleasanton to a rulemaking body, the U. S. Green Building Council, over which the City has no control. As a consequence the ordinance may be affected in ways and at times not to Pleasanton's choosing. The LEED system should not become an alternate building code. There are accepted procedures for appending local building requirements to Title 24 building standards and those procedures should be followed when incorporating LEED building practices. The move to green building practices must be a collaborative process between the private and public sectors. No law is effective without the cooperation of those to whom it applies. The Chamber would like to work with the Council and the Planning Commission to make certain the green building practices are embraced by the building community. There are also concerns that the ordinance would create a competitive disadvantage for Pleasanton in attracting quality projects if surrounding municipalities are perceived to have less burdensome and constrictive requirements. There are three Chamber recommendations. Council is encouraged to adopt the green building at this time as a starting point. It requests a review period of two years with regularly scheduled workshops with the Council, Planning Commission, City staff, Chamber and other stakeholders to discuss areas of the ordinance that work well and those that do not. They encouraged the City to review its approval process to insure that "in-process" requirement changes are eliminated or minimized as much as possible. If new ideas or new interpretations arise, they should be incorporated into the City's building requirements and applied to the next project that comes along. He asked that a workshop be held as soon as possible and before the Council priorities workshop in the spring. By allowing feedback and adjustments to the ordinance, Pleasanton will ultimately arrive at the best possible green building ordinance. The Chamber recognized the hard work of the many people who worked on this ordinance and commended them. Moreover, it also recognized that the work has only just begun and it looked forward to working with Council and staff to reach the mutual goal of effective green building practices in Pleasanton. Pamela Stoddard, Pleasanton Downtown Association, 830 Main Street, Suite A, asked for an amendment to the green building ordinance at Section 17.50.040(d). The Economic Restructuring Committee and the Board of Directors of the Pleasanton Downtown Association have reviewed the ordinance and support its passage this evening. They would like to change the heading of that section fi-om "Historic Structures" to "Exempt Structures". The first sentence would be amended to read as follows: "All historic structures and privately owned structures within the Pleasanton downtown designated boundary are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter." They are asking for this to adopt the same boundary as the Downtown Specific Plan rather than the boundaries of the Pleasanton Downtown Association. The Pleasanton Downtown Association understands that the ordinance does not directly affect a great number of the buildings downtown, but it did not want to be remiss in considering the effect the aesthetic character of the downtown over time. Ms. Dennis asked what "exempt structures" means? The ordinance does not apply to buildings under 20,000 sq. ft. Pleasanton City Council 13 11 / 19/02 Minutes