My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 1 TO 5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
010411
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 1 TO 5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2011 11:32:01 AM
Creation date
12/28/2010 1:38:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/4/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 1 TO 5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
Mrs. Rondash stated that only "must haves" are considered for total points; however, <br /> there are also 66 electives from which to choose in the residential categories, and 99 <br /> electives in the commercial category. She then described a scenario to meet current <br /> standards for the single - family residential and repeated the scenario for multi - family <br /> residences. <br /> Mrs. Rondash stated that staff's recommended action is consistent with Pleasanton's <br /> existing requirements, with a few minor changes to meet the State's new mandatory <br /> minimum requirements. She added that staff believes the developer cost to implement <br /> the CALGreen Tier 1 is equivalent to the cost to implement the City's existing green <br /> building ordinance, and that taking the action is likely to help developers save time and <br /> money while working on construction drawings. <br /> Ms Rondash then presented a cost analysis based on standard construction versus the <br /> Tier 1 measures in effect. She stated that Tier 1 would be equivalent to the City's <br /> current standards and would have a no cost impact. She added that the cost analysis <br /> does not include savings from reduced energy, water, medical bills, or existing incentive <br /> programs such as tax credits or rebates which would also reduce the payback <br /> projection from the approxirnately 10 -15 years. <br /> Mrs. Rondash also described the cost effectiveness study and payback projection <br /> prepared for the City's climate zone, which states incremental improvements in overall <br /> annual energy performance of buildings exceeded Title 24 by 15 percent. She added <br /> that the study further notes that the building's overall design, occupancy type, and <br /> specific design choices may allow for a larger range of incremental first cost and <br /> payback projections. She noted that the study did not consider the tax credit or rebates. <br /> Mrs. Rondash presented what other jurisdictions have in place, as follows: <br /> • City of Livermore <br /> o Has a green building ordinance; will amend their green ordinance to <br /> default to the CALGreen. They are looking to enact something that is not <br /> less than their current ordinance. They are still analyzing the new code, <br /> but think that their recommendation will ultimately be similar to <br /> Pleasanton's. <br /> • City of San Jose <br /> o Going with CALGreen basic for now. After next year they will be looking at <br /> offering an option for developers to go with a tier as an alternative to using <br /> the third party system. <br /> • City of Dublin <br /> o Has a green building ordinance; is recommending CALGreen basic with a <br /> local amendment to require PV prep on all new construction. They will <br /> keep their existing ordinance for all other projects. <br /> • City of Walnut Creek <br /> o No existing green building ordinance; will be adopting CALGreen basic. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 29, 2010 Page 3 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.