Laserfiche WebLink
Janice Sangster - Phalen questioned why we would go through the exercise of merging <br /> the two if what is stated here will be pushed beyond it anyways? is there any benefit to <br /> merging the two? <br /> Janice Stern replied that the benefits would be, as Rosalind has indicated, we would get <br /> regular updates as compared to the current situation when we don't know when the <br /> updates are happening, a training structure that is state wide for building inspectors and <br /> planning staff rather than keeping our own specific system which is not going to be <br /> familiar to people outside; by adopting it [the CALGreen Basic] and doing the minor <br /> tweaks needed to meet the current code standard. <br /> Rosalind Rondash added that we need to keep in -mind outside areas as well. We have <br /> to show that we are meeting our current standard or we will need to provide additional <br /> reasoning for why we are stepping down, this could also mean doing environmental <br /> reports to show what it means to our greenhouse gases, what it means to our climate <br /> action plan if we go backwards in this area. There are many facets that we have to be <br /> aware of, and that is why our charge is to figure out what the comparable level is to <br /> where we are at today. Thus, utilizing minor local amendments to make sure that we <br /> are keeping the level comparable to what we have today. As well as getting feedback <br /> and input from our local stakeholders to make sure we go forward with a <br /> recommendation that is ultimately going to be supported. <br /> Sharrell Michelotti stated that Pam said [at the Chamber Meeting] that there were <br /> current standards that had been raised so often that the higher level has now become <br /> the standard [waste diversion percentages]. She feels that it is important the Planning <br /> Commission and City Council be advised of how this has come up already, and they <br /> need to understand that people have already gone (voluntarily) way beyond the <br /> standards before they start the discussion and asking for more exactions. Janice <br /> Sangster - Phalen added to Sharrell's comment with the fact that they were now asking <br /> people to go from 80% [the imposed standard that is above code] to 100 % - what are we <br /> getting as a point of benefit to the environment verses costs. The Commission and <br /> Council is just going to arbitrarily keep pushing because we have the "Pleasanton <br /> standard" that says we are always going to be 50% better or something. <br /> Sharrell Michelotti further stated that Scott really summed it up well at the end [of the <br /> Chamber meeting] when he said what we are looking at and what Economic Vitality <br /> might be looking at too is what is the overall effect in comparison to other jurisdictions. <br /> If other jurisdictions are just adopting the minimum, will developers go else where rather <br /> than try to do business here? <br /> Mark Herberger questioned what the frequency of development that goes above the <br /> current standard (voluntarily, not by condition of approval)? <br /> Rosalind Rondash responded that it is hard to quantify that because the applicants are <br /> aware of our code and have worked out their plans before they meet with staff. As an <br /> estimate it is about 90% that come in with some area above what would get them a <br /> Page 4 of 7 <br />