My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032106
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCMIN032106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
3/16/2006 1:35:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/21/2006
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN032106
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
<br />Mr. Iserson responded the changes that were made to Title 24 are reflected on <br />attachment five of the staff report. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan commented that Title 24 reflects energy only and green building reflects <br />water, materials, landscaping and sighting. There are several opportunities to achieve points <br />beyond energy. He thanked staff for working with the various committees and stakeholders to <br />create a process that residents can support. He thanked the Alameda County Waste <br />Management Authority and Ms. Sumner for the support they provided to the City in the past <br />years to move the green building program forward. <br /> <br />It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Thorne, to introduce the green <br />building ordinance for new residential development projects and to include notification <br />to the City Council when changes to the green building points and/or Title 24 <br />requirements are made. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne commented that he would like to recommend the permit process be <br />completed more quickly for those complying with the green building program. He asked that if <br />Title 24 changes and points removed, could the Council require the ordinance to be re- <br />evaluated. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush responded he would suggest that as the Title 24 changes go through the <br />process, the City can track it. If there are changes, those changes and the ordinance would be <br />returned to Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne indicated that if changes are made, they be returned to Council. If that <br />occurs, he also would like the building community notified that the ordinance is being reviewed <br />in order for developers to have input on the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan indicated that he would like Alameda County Waste Management Authority <br />notified as well if the ordinance is planned to be reviewed. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky commented on the number of changes and believed the City lost 20% of <br />the options that were available. He indicated the changes are not only Title 24 changes and <br />believed when the guidelines change, the Council should be notified to review the matter <br />further. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was taken as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Brozosky, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: McGovern <br />ABSTAINED: None <br /> <br />7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL <br /> <br />Councilmember Thorne requested an appeal regarding the decision not to have <br />a crossing guard at Greenwood and Alameda. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brozosky requested staff to explore applying for State recycling <br />grants to offset the costs of e-waste day. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />03/21/06 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.