CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Sommer said they were using the Waste Management Authority model, which focuses on civic buildings. She was certain the other cities would be interested to see how the Pleasanton ordinance works on commercial buildings. Michael O'Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, agreed it was time to work on green building issues and he encouraged that, since he is an environmentalist. He is in the process of working on 350 Main Street and is trying to implement some of the green building practices. As a builder he supported the Chamber's position and that of the Downtown Association. As a construction consultant, he would recommend that developers consult only with Brian Swift on the green building elements or to go directly to the City Council. He felt the proposed ordinance needs a lot of work because of the arbitrariness of pages 7 - 11, where it is let~ to the Planning Director to make the decisions. He agreed everyone's heart is in the right place, but the workshops would be a good idea. He was assigned the task of getting information on the costs of this program but was unable to get tangible information. There could be a four to seven percent increase in construction costs and possibly the same percentage increase due to administrative issues. If that is applied to a building with a known end user there is no problem, however if that is on a speculation development, that building will no longer be competitive in the market and he felt that type of development would no longer occur in Pleasanton. He supported adopting the ordinance, but to include language that would allow further study on the ordinance. There being no further speakers, Mayor Pico closed the public hearing. Ms. Michelotti said it seems the proposed ordinance is an interim measure to start the process. Two different organizations have asked for further workshops and review of the process to see how it can be improved. She asked if the original intention was to adopt the ordinance and review it in a year to see how it is working. Mr. Swift said this is intended to be an evolutionary process. For example, it may be found that it is very difficult to get to 26 points if the buildings are a particular size or retail buildings rather than office. (Office buildings seem to be the structures for which most of these standards were written.) If it appears that it takes too long to process and there are many discussions about settling for 20 points rather than 26 points, that is something that would need to be reviewed and the ordinance adjusted as necessary. It could be changes to the process, or which elements work best in Pleasanton, which products are available, etc. One year review time is not too long because there won't be very many buildings built in that time. Staff strongly supported workshops and reviews after one and two years. Ms. Michelotti thought the idea of getting all the Planning Commissioners, City Council, etc. at least for the first workshop would be a good idea to get their feedback. She supported further workshops to get the best ordinance. Ms. Dennis said she has seen how businesses have benefited countywide by these kinds of green building elements and they have become the biggest boosters for some of the programs developed by the Waste Management Authority for resource conservation and for solid waste Pleasanton City Council 16 11/19/02 Minutes