My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092210 Special Meeting
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 092210 Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/19/2011 3:28:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
found in the sustainable site measures, which is placing the building properly on the <br />site, such as taking advantage of the solar orientation, wind, landscaping, existing trees, <br />and shading, all of which could be low in cost. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired, if this is the case, why some of the neighboring cities <br />are not adopting Tier 1. <br />Mrs. Rondash explained that City staff began the review several months ago with draft <br />documents while other cities had not even looked at the CALGreen Code and <br />requirements. She added that cities are now starting to question where they will fall in <br />the coming months, and she believes they would not stay where they are for very long. <br />Dennis Corbett, Senior Plan Checker, stated that he spoke with Livermore and Dublin in <br />the past week, and Livermore is inclined to recommend the same thing Pleasanton is <br />doing while the City of Dublin is going in a different track in that they currently have a <br />green building ordinance [similar to Pleasanton’s] which they will maintain in addition to <br />requiring people to have all minimum and basic measures that CALGreen requires. <br />She noted that in this sense, theirs will be similar to Pleasanton’s. She added that <br />Dublin’s process requires the developer to do two sets of documentation for the same <br />measures. <br />Chair Olson inquired if there were requirements in the basic CALGreen that are not <br />currently in the City’s requirement. <br />Mrs. Rondash replied that there are some measures that do not translate to the current <br />system. <br />th <br />Chair Olson requested to have an outline of those measures for the September 29 <br />meeting. He stated that he had attended the meeting held at the Chamber of <br />Commerce, and one of his requests was an outline of all measures that are possible. <br />He asked Mrs. Rondash if Exhibit C of the staff report was intended to provide this <br />information. <br />Mrs. Rondash said yes. <br />Chair Olson stated that he shares Commissioner Narum’s concern about added cost, <br />but the way to address it with the community and business community is to show them <br />how much flexibility there is and how easy it is to accumulate points under Tier 1 at very <br />little cost, such as the location of the property on the site. <br />Mr. Corbett stated that one difficulty staff had is that every organization that establishes <br />some type of green standard has different internal priorities. He mentioned, for <br />example, that one group may emphasize water conservation where another is <br />emphasizing resource conservation. He added that Build It Green and LEED are point <br />based but CALGreen is not; it has required measures with a lot of electives to choose <br />from such that there is not always a straight comparison of different measures. He <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 19 of 23 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.