Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember McGovern referred to the Planning Commission minutes and confirmed with <br />staff that the CEQA review period had ended and no additional comments were received. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked staff to discuss Title 24 CALGreen and how that relates to LEED <br />standards, which is in the City's ordinance. Mr. Dolan explained the condition of approval was <br />crafted to allow for each because of the upcoming transition to CALGreen. The timing of the <br />applicant's request for a building permit will determine which set of regulations Clorox is subject <br />to, and how that compares to LEED standards is dependent upon which level of CALGreen the <br />City chooses to adopt, which the Council will consider in the coming weeks. <br />Councilmember Sullivan referred to Condition of Approval No. 25, which discusses water <br />efficient landscape. This, along with other elements of the Green Building Ordinance, should be <br />revisited as part of the Climate Action Plan process. He referred to Conditions of Approval No. <br />13 and 30, which discuss waste diversion and enclosures. He acknowledged the commercial <br />separated recycling program had yet to be implemented but said he would like to see these new <br />commercials buildings set up to accommodate it. <br />Councilmember McGovern requested clarification on Condition of Approval No. 19. She asked if <br />buildings A through E were built to be PV compatible. Mr. Dolan said no, the condition merely <br />states that if the applicant were to apply for substantial changes to any of those buildings, <br />renewable energy sources would be pursued. Building F would be built PV ready. <br />Councilmember McGovern asked if photovoltaic panels would realize the 12.5% energy use <br />savings identified in the condition, and staff could not confirm. Councilmember McGovern said <br />buildings A through E are unlikely to be significantly upgraded in the near future and, since <br />building F would be PV ready, she would like the condition reworded to favor that. <br />Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. There were no public speakers, and she <br />immediately closed the public hearing. <br />Mr. Fialho said Councilmember McGovern's request could be reflected in the conditions of <br />approval, should the Council desire. He reviewed the Council's changes as follows: 1) that the <br />trash enclosures be designed in a manner that could accommodate additional recycling bins, <br />and 2) that Building F be designed from a solar perspective to accommodate the 12.5% energy <br />savings. <br />MOTION: It was m/s by Cook- Kallio/Thorne to introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance <br />No. 2011 approving the application for a modification, as conditioned by Council and adopted <br />Resolution No. 10 approving the Negative Declaration for the Application of LBA Realty, <br />as filed under Case PUD- 80- 16 -13M. Motion passed by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Councilmembers Cook- Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />14. Public Hearing: PRZ -57, City of Pleasanton, Hacienda Business Park Rezonings <br />Introduce an ordinance to amend the zoning for three sites in Hacienda Business Park to <br />remove Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1998 and to allow the submittal of development <br />applications consistent with the settlement agreement approved by the City Council on <br />August 17, 2010 in the case of Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton. Site 1: Southeast <br />corner of Willow Road and Owens Drive (APN 941 - 2778 -013 and a portion of APN 941- <br />City Council Minutes <br />Page 5 of 7 October 5, 2010 <br />