Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to established oak trees needs to be clarified. The limits of irrigatio time between 6 a.m. <br />and 10 a.m. would be another problem for golf courses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch directed Mr. Chadbourne to Page 14, Section I .18.070 B, which states <br />a possible exemption for golf courses. Mr. Chadbourne is assuming that in a worst-case <br />scenario, if the exemption isn't granted, golf courses must adhere to the guidelines. <br /> <br />A discussion ensued among the Commissioners of how golf courses ere irrigated during <br />previous drought conditions. No figures were available, though it noted that watering <br />was significantly reduced and the courses stayed green by using site pecific watering <br />practices. In fact, Crow Canyon was awarded twice by East Bay M 0 for conserving <br />water. Mr. Swift advised that during the last drought, the Pleasanto Sports Park was <br />watered close to the 20 gallons per square foot per year requirement The park didn't look <br />perfect, but it was certainly usable and green. The speaker is corr t in thinking that the <br />exemption is up to the City Council, and if the exemption isn't gran ,they must follow the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch noted that new landscaping would require mor water for seeding start- <br />up. Mr. Swift indicated that the ordinance speaks to when the deve pment is mature and <br />not during installation and a grow-in period. <br /> <br />The speaker indicated that a typical grow-in period for a golf course would be a full year. <br />Mr. Swift stated that the ordinance had not been drafted to make go f course usage very <br />clear, however, even if an exemption were granted, there probably ould be a limit or target <br />amount for water usage. <br /> <br />The speaker indicated several golf courses are currently being retro t to use recycled water, <br />which could be something to think about for the future in Pleasanto <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh feels this is a good ordinance, with perhaps some future fine-tuning, <br />but feels the Commission should recommend to the City Council th t it be adopted in total. <br />He is in opposition of removing the requirement of using a certified and licensed landscape <br />architect (14.18.100 B2). <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright concurs; he would also like to see Section 1418.110 A to read ....the <br />landscape and irrigation system installation has been certified by the certified installer and/or <br />the project landscape architect to be in compliance with the approv plans. . <br /> <br />In response to Chairman McGuirk, Mr. Swift stated that the ordin ce was so written that if <br />a landscape company provided all services (landscape design and in tallation), they can sign <br />it off even though their company performed the installation. Comm ssioner Hovingh stated <br />he is opposed to this. Commissioner Wright feels that if a licensed installer certifIes that it <br />is installed according to specifications, the landscape architect does 't need to inspect it. <br />Commissioner Finch advised that the City must sign off on the ins tion as well. <br />Commissioner Hovingh believes the City should be able to recover e cost of signing off the <br />permit from the project. Chairman McGuirk concurs. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />September 22, 1993 <br />