My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
010411
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2010 1:35:07 PM
Creation date
12/28/2010 1:35:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/4/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2010 with the draft ordinance as a hearing item for their review and recommendation. <br /> The staff reports for these meeting are provided in Attachments 2 and 3. The Planning <br /> Commission voted 3 -2 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Code <br /> amendments. The minutes for the Planning Commission meetings are attached <br /> (Attachments 4 and 5). A letter received September 22, 2010 (prior to the work <br /> session) is provided as Attachment 6. <br /> It is important to note that Commissioners Narum and Blank both supported the <br /> proposed amendment but voted against the motion that was made because it did not <br /> include photovoltaic readiness as a mandatory measure. As proposed, photovoltaic <br /> readiness is one of several options that can be selected to meet the green building <br /> requirements. <br /> Other Committees, Commissions, and Stakeholder Meetings <br /> This item was presented to the Economic Vitality Commission, the Committee on <br /> Energy and Environment, the Pleasanton Downtown Association, the Chamber of <br /> Commerce, and James Paxson of the Hacienda Business Park Owners Association. A <br /> summary of the stakeholder comments are in Attachment 7. The comments generally <br /> relate to costs for measures that are above those required by the ordinance that are <br /> being imposed through the discretionary review process, incentives, outreach and <br /> education, and comparison to the surrounding jurisdictions. <br /> StopWaste.Orq <br /> Stop Waste.Org was the original author and administrator of the Build It Green (BIG) <br /> rating system, the system the city currently uses as the basis for its Green Building <br /> ordinance. Stop Waste.Org is officially opposed to Cities abandoning Build It Green <br /> program in favor of the new State requirements for CALGreen. They would prefer that <br /> Cities enforce the mandatory components of CALGreen while continuing to utilize the <br /> BIG system for requirements beyond the basic components of CALGreen, rather than <br /> adopting Tier 1 or Tier 2 CALGreen requirements. <br /> StopWaste.Org has stated that the reason they do not support the adoption of <br /> CALGreen Tiers for residential projects over the use of the current system that was <br /> originally established by their organization is that they believe the verification <br /> procedures for some of the measures required by the CALGreen Tiers are not yet well <br /> defined. On October 5, 2010, StopWaste.Org issued a letter to the Programs and <br /> Planning Committee of the Waste Management Authority (also known as <br /> StopWaste.Org) with recommendations related to CALGreen (Attachment 8). City staff <br /> met with members of StopWaste.Org, on October 29, 2010 and again on November 19, <br /> 2010 to discuss the recommendations outlined in the letter. At the conclusion of the <br /> November 19th meeting staff was provided with a revised letter with the same <br /> recommendation as their previous letter (Attachment 9). <br /> City staff recognizes the conclusions drawn by StopWaste.Org related to verification; <br /> however, staff believes Pleasanton is unique with regard to its experience with green <br /> building measures verification. Pleasanton staff has been trained to, and has been <br /> implementing and verifying green building standards since 2002. In staffs review of the <br /> proposed Tier 1 standards, staff believes many of the Tier 1 standards can be easily <br /> Page 4 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.