CCMIN101502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steve Clarkson, 6155 Stonefidge Drive, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, requested a continuance of item 6c, Green Building Ordinance, to allow a more detailed review of the ordinance and an opportunity to get input fi.om the Chamber members, before the Chamber takes a position on the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the Chamber Economic Development Committee supports the green building concepts. However, several concerns have been expressed and he would like the opportunity to make a more complete presentation. He asked Council to continue the decision on this until a later date. Ms. Dennis said she has been working on these issues as part of her participation in the Waste Management Authority and there is a wealth of information available fi.om the Authority. It would be happy to make presentations on the implementation of green build'rog ordinances in Alameda County cities. That is a critical part of waste diversion objectives. Construction and demolition debris is a large part of the waste stream. Recycling of that can save money for builders. Mr. Clarkson reiterated that environmental matters were not issues. The concern is more about implementation. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, urged Council not to continue item 6c. Staffhns put in a considerable amount of time and effort in the development of this ordinance with extraordinary outreach to the community. It has worked with the local business/development community and the Waste Management Authority for over a year to draft language acceptable to all stakeholders. Staffhas also held two workshops for the business/development community concoming the LEEDTM green building guidelines. As part of the public review process, the ordinance has been reviewed by the Economic Vitality Committee and the Energy Advisory Group with comments fi.om both being reflected in the proposed ordinance. It has been through the Planning Commission review process with additional changes made as a result. The next step in the public process should be the City Council review. He felt the request of the Chamber of Commerce for a continuance was obstructionist. They have had ample opportunity over the past year to provide input and have had little interest until now. The Chamber and the Economic Vitality Committee have many members in common. Neither group attended the Planning Commission hearing. The Commission may have been interested in the Chamber's views on the subject. It was troublesome to him that the Chamber would have so much influence over Council as to get this continuance. As an individual member of the Planning Commission, he felt this was a subversion of the public process and he was greatly disturbed by it. If Council chooses to grant the continuance, he urged Council to take public testimony at this heating and then continue its decision to another date. Ms. Dennis was agreeable to a continuance so long as there was some testimony at this meeting and the matter came back before Council so she can vote on the ordinance before leaving office. Ms. Michelotti supported that and suggested continuing the item after testimony to the first or second meeting in November. Pleasanton City Council 2 10/15/02 Minutes