PC 092210 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum recommended an amendment that new buildings must be photovoltaic-ready. She stated that it is easier to incorporate this into the building during the construction stage and that once something is built, it is more difficult and expensive to retrofit. She indicated that the way she reads the requirements is that they would have the flexibility to not build the building PV-ready and still meet the requirements. Mrs. Rondash stated that the City currently requires it as a condition of approval; hence, the question is whether or not to include it in the ordinance. Commissioner Pearce stated that it feels like more of a “creep” if it is in the conditions of approval and not in the ordinance. Commissioner Narum agreed and supported this amendment. Mr. Corbett stated that a couple of the electives to choose that are not that difficult to achieve are to provide enough roof area under the right orientation for a PV installation and the conduit space for the equipment. Commissioner Pearce stated that she thinks the point is that if the City adds it as a local amendment, it will become easier to achieve the points and would help people along the way. Commissioner Narum agreed. Mr. Corbett added that in meeting with groups involved in the green business, one thing that is emphasized is not to require so many things that it takes design choices away from the designers. He stated that the Bay Area Climate Collaborative which was established with the cities of San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco established their recommendations, and this is what they are proposing. He noted that Pleasanton came up with it prior to the Collaborative making their recommendations, but it is in line and consistent with how people are starting to evaluate this. He noted that staff started on the process very early to meet with all of the different groups to obtain their input, and the City is happy with how it has turned out thus far and has incorporated input from everyone. Commissioner Narum noted there were many comments about the diversion requirement for recycling versus going to the landfill and construction materials. She inquired what the percentage would be for recycling. Mr. Corbett replied that the City has an existing construction and demolition debris ordinance in place, and staff is using this without requiring a higher standard of diversion at this time. He indicated that it is 50 percent for overall debris and 90 percent for asphalt and concrete debris, which is fairly consistent across Alameda County. He added that in order to be eligible for certain funding, the City was required to have this ordinance in place almost two years ago. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 21 of 23