My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071404
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 071404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:49 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:15:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/14/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 071404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
-- of green building options would also be welcomed by homeowners. She supported the <br />residential green building proposal. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Regarding Question No. 2, Chairperson Roberts believed that the 50-point threshold was <br />acceptable. She believed the ordinance should be reviewed afrer one year and that the <br />issue of raising it should be less restrictive. <br />Commissioner Sullivan agreed with Chairperson Roberts's assessment. He believed that <br />some measures will go down in cost and become more common in the future. He added <br />that the rules were very flexible and had worked very well in collaboration with the <br />development community. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired whether the 50 points could be the average of all the houses <br />in the development and whether each house in the development must have the same green <br />building features. Commissioner Sullivan replied that each home may have items picked <br />from the list to attain 50 points, but that they did not need to have identical features. <br />Ms. Nerland confirmed that the point total could not be averaged among houses; each <br />house must have 50 points to reach the certified level. <br />Commissioner Kameny concurred with the assessments expressed by Chairperson <br />Roberts and Commissioner Sullivan with respect to the 50-point standard. <br />Commissioner Maas liked the idea of an incentive in developing the point system, such <br />as receiving streamlined processing in the building process. <br />Commissioner Fox suggested that a higher number of points allow a builder to receive a <br />reduction in building fees. <br />Commissioner Sullivan agreed with the use of incentives and noted that during the <br />growth management ordinance heazing, extra units were to be allocated to houses that <br />were "extra green," but the City Council did not adopt that measure. He believed that <br />with respect to this issue, additional units would be allowed if the green building baseline <br />were exceeded by a certain percentage. He noted that market-driven items were not <br />always favorable and believed that in the automotive industry, seatbelts, airbags, and air <br />pollution control devices would not be regulaz features in cazs. He believed that if a <br />reasonable standard was set, the market technologies would follow. He also noted that <br />there are other issues with reducing building fees. <br />Regazding Question No. 3, Chairperson Roberts believed that the implementation of the <br />process had been working well in the City with respect to LEED and green building. The <br />Commission concurred with her assessment. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 11 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.