My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
23 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
060507
>
23 ATTACHMENT 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2007 11:09:10 AM
Creation date
6/1/2007 10:29:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/5/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
23 ATTACHMENT 2
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Roberts was pleased with the language of Policy 9.2: "Continue to require new <br />development...." <br />Commissioner Fox had problems with the word "audit" in Policy 10 and suggested "encourage <br />energy efficient reviews" instead. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that she did not understand the title, wording, or programs contained in <br />Policy 11. <br />Commissioner Fox recused herself from the discussions on Policies 13 and 18. <br />Commissioner Arkin inquired whether the General Plan typically discussed school district issues. <br />Ms. Stern noted that because of shared facilities, there was a certain amount of coordination <br />involved. <br />Commissioner Blank requested that Policy 13.4 be reworded and did not want to see the specific <br />technology. He suggested that the target mileage should be identified instead. <br />Chairperson Maas believed that the language of Policy 18 should include "fuel efficient." <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas, Mr. Baker replied that Policy 14.1 was already <br />under study. <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that it would be discussed at the Council level and suggested <br />leaving that Policy as is for the time being. <br />Commissioner Fox had a problem with Policy 15.3, which addressed "multi-family housing units <br />to incorporate solar and other energy-efficient technology up to the minimum standard of the <br />City's green building ordinance...." She noted that text was struck out and replaced with <br />"Revise the City's Green Building Ordinance to include residential development." She did not <br />believe that made much sense and noted that amulti-family development would have entry doors <br />facing in various directions. <br />Commissioner Arkin supported looking at a residential green building ordinance for new <br />construction and added that several items could make it practical, such as fluorescent lighting, <br />insulation, and siting. <br />Ms. Nerland noted that in starting to draft the residential green building ordinance, there were <br />different menu options regarding the type of residential building (multi-family versus <br />single-family residence). <br />Commissioner Fox did not want to put burdens on multi-family housing by including <br />requirements they could not meet. <br />Commissioner Roberts stated that she was glad that Program 15.4 was cut for the most part <br />because the City changed its plans regarding the ACE Train Stop. <br />Commissioner Fox believed that Program 15.5 was too detailed in discussing specific software. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 25, 2005 Page 5 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.