CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

of approval that are placed by decision makers on the plan. He indicated that this building has not changed in terms of its setback, its width and length, and its floor area. The height of the building has evolved slightly. When this proposal first came before Council, Ms. Hosterman recalled that it was supposed to be a garden office type development, and asked if thls had changed? Mr. Swift said that garden office has many definitions and might mean either a one or two story office building. The connotation of a garden office is a smaller office building or a multi-story tenant type office building. In the particular layout for the office building on Ray Street, the individual offices surround a courtyard so it makes it look like there is more mass to the building than there otherwise is. The individual offices open directly to the outside with no interior corridor, which is more common to a "garden office" than a building that is big enough to require a corridor and be served from the corridor. Aga'm, the overall design and location of the building is a direct reflection of the neighbors input. Ms. Hosterman asked about Green Building opportunities for this building as well as the diversion of ennstmction waste from the waste stream. Mr. Swift pointed out that this site is located in the downtown area, is not covered by the Green Building Ordinance and is smaller than what would otherwise be covered by the ordinance. He believed there are no direct requirements, but oppommities are available for this building, both for the demolition that will occur for the single-family house that is on the site, as well as for construction of the office building. Ms. Hosterman said she liked the idea of the shared public parking and wondered what other councilmembers thought of it. She wondered if Council might want to consider a trial period, and if it becomes a nuisance for the neighbors, Council could be notified and make some changes. It was her understanding that there would be 51 additional parking spaces and would go a long way towards providing additional parking for the downtown, at least on the weekends and during offhours. Mr. Swift pointed out that the applicant had voluntarily submitted a LEED scorecard of 24 points and it would normally take 26 points to be subject to the City's ordinance. Ms. Hosterman wanted to change the wording to include access to the Arroyo del Valle. She understood the concerns related to having it too open, but at the same time, she believed it was important to have increased access to the Arroyo del Valle because the more it is accessed, the more it will increase the community's awareness of it, which will be a real amenity to the downtown. She asked if the applicant would be willing to set aside funding for a dedicated right hand mm lane, so if the mm lane becomes necessary in the future, the money would be available to address this issue? Pleasanton City Council 12 02/17/04 Minutes