CCMIN100703 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Caml3belI asked staffto comment on Mr. 0'Callaghan's comments relating to the Planning Comxnission's adoption of their policy. Ms. Ayala asked Mr. O'Callaghan asked as to his role with the Chamber and the Green Building Committee. Mr. O'Callaghan informed her that he is a part of a volunteer committee that was to conduct quarterly study sessions to bring the Green Building process along. At this point, he noted there have not been any meetings. Mr. Swift reminded Council that it adopted a Green Building Ordinance for commercial buildings but not residential buildings. He pointed out that the standards in the ordinance are the ones that staffand the Chamber committee that Mr. O'Callaghan was referring to will be meeting to see how the ordinance is being implemented. So far, we have not had a property owner that is required to follow those measures take out a building permit. He noted there will be shortly, including the City's Fire Station. For residential projects over the last several years, the Planning Commission has asked developers, and asked staff to ask developers, to identify Green Building measures that they will incorporate into their projects. All of the projects in the Vineyard Corridor have proposed measures that the developers felt were feasible for them to incorporate into their projects, in order to increase the amount of Green Building provisions that goes into those projects over an ordinary subdivision. He noted that this has been done on a case- by-case basis, and has been done with the developers working with City stafffirst to come up with a list. The Planning Commission reviews the list as the project goes through its PUD stage. The list ultimately comes before Council and is adopted as a condition of approval on all projects - virtually every new residential project for the last two or three years. During the last year, the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority has been working with residential builders to come up with a uniform list of Green Building measures that can actually be put on a point scale, and identify the value of certain kinds of measures. This is an attempt to try and avoid a scattered approach that we have used by asking developers to propose things and then looking at them on a case- by-case basis. The Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority is hopeful that communities within the county will use their point schedule to create a standard for residential development in the future. He mentioned that when the Planning Commission heard the presentation, the Commission directed staff to look at using the point schedule that had been adopted by Alameda County Solid Wgste Management Authority for projects that come through. Currently, staffis looking to see whether this would be easier to do this on an ordinance basis rather than a case-by-case basis. He pointed out that Item 6B was a minor modification but has since turned into a full modification of that PUD. One of the requests of that developer was to change the list of Green Building features that was originally approved for that property to be incorporated into that project. In reviewing those, the Planning Commission felt satisfied that the modifications of the Green Building list of measures was fine, but added a condition that if those measures did not total 50 points, additional measures should be added. This was done in conjunction with the PUD review and was not part of an adoption of any Green Building measures as an ordinance, or as anything other than direction to staff. Pleasanton City Council 8 10/07/03 Minutes