Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ayala stated she was confused. She asked if the Planning Commission was <br />making a recommendation on incorporating something into a development plan that <br />Council had not yet voted on? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift pointed out that the Planning Commission has been doing this for the <br />last three years on every residential project. He stated that every residential project has <br />come with a list of Green Building measures that Council either supports or not. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala was aware this was not a point system. She remembered when the <br />commercial plan came before them for adoption. She asked if what Council had been <br />requiring from residential projects in the past automatically gets a developer to 50 points. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl indicated that it would depend on the list. He noted there are some that <br />will not make the 50 points and some that were adopted in the past that would meet 50 <br />points and go slightly higher. In the past, there was not a way to measure on a scale what <br />the Green Building components identified on a list would do. The Alameda County Solid <br />Waste Management Authority has gone through and given points for certain kinds of <br />measures; one measure might be worth more than another in terms of its Green Building <br />impact. He stated that they have developed this method to look at what the total benefit <br />of doing Green Building measures would be. When looking at new residential projects, <br />the Planning Commission direct staff to review what the developers are proposing against <br />the standard list to see if the measures add up to 50 points. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky's understanding was that this was something that the Planning <br />Commission has asked staff to talk to developers about. The developers may implement <br />measures that do not meet 50 points, and if the Planning Commission does not like it and <br />recommends denial, Council still reviews the project. Since it is currently not an <br />ordinance, it is not required and is discretionary, and would be up to the Council on a <br />case-by-case basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift confirmed this as correct and pointed out this was the case pertaining to <br />Item 6B. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan noted that it is true it would not be mandatory if there were an <br />adopted ordinance. On the other hand, applicants are going to want to try and please the <br />Planning Commission just by the nature of trying to get an application approved. She <br />remarked that sometimes planning commissions, over time, will try and get certain <br />unadopted policies applied to projects. She mentioned that this has happened in the past, <br />and when it becomes an issue where applicants are concerned or Council is concerned, <br />Council should send direction to staff or the Planning Commission to review the matter <br />and determine whether an ordinance or policy should be adopted. <br /> <br /> Bruce Torquemada, 3072 Alburni Court, commented about a letter to the editor in <br />yesterday's newspaper. He was concerned about School Board candidates taking <br />contributions from the Teachers Union. He believed it was a conflict of interest and did <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 9 10/07/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />