PC 092910 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank recalled that staff has yet to return to the Commission with information on the cost differences between requiring a building to be PV-ready while under construction versus adding it later on after the building has been constructed. Commissioner Narum stated that she believes this was in connection with the Staples Ranch project and the Auto Mall. Mr. Dolan replied that said he believes that answer has been provided to the City Council. He added that he does not disagree with the Commission’s conclusions but would simply like to report the feedback received from developers. He added that while this is something that appears to be relatively easy, some applicants flat out do not want to be mandated to do PV-ready and would prefer to address their requirements in a different way. Commissioner Pentin referred to the statement regarding weather-detecting devices being better than soil ones for irrigation purposes mentioned in page 2 of the "James Paxton Meeting Notes." He inquired if this was covered under CALGreen and if any consideration has been given to this. Mrs. Rondash replied that staff considered what would be more appropriate in certain situations, the costs associated with moisture sensing, and irrigation sensors versus weather sensors, and it came down to a project-by-project choice. She noted that some projects do well with soil sensors and some do not. She added that the City’s landscape architect has stated that larger projects will benefit from a weather system while smaller or internal projects like a courtyard would do better with a soil-sensing system. She indicated that staff looked into this based on Mr. Paxson’s concerns, but are not proposing any reduction in the choice; however, one or the other of the choices would be mandatory. Commissioner Pentin stated that the Downtown Vitality Committee Meeting Notes, dated September 7, 2010 expresses concern about the impacts of Proposition 23, if passed in November, potentially repealing the Code. He indicated that he has not studied Proposition 23 and inquired how this might impact the City. Ms. Stern replied that Proposition 23 has the potential to repeal AB 32, which is the global warming act. She added that this was the speculation of the speaker at that meeting but that staff does not know whether or not it would have any impact on CALGreen. Chair Olson stated that the staff report indicates that staff has evaluated and compared Pleasanton’s existing green building requirements with CALGreen basic Tier 1 and Tier 2, but he does not see the results of that comparison. He indicated that he understands Exhibit D; the listing of all the electives, the Tier 1 residential required measures, the non-residential required measures, and the long list of required measures. He inquired how staff determined that Tier 1 is closest to the City's present requirements. He noted that one concern out there for developers trying to build a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 29, 2010 Page 14 of 21