My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 6 TO 13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
010411
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 6 TO 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2010 1:45:31 PM
Creation date
12/28/2010 1:45:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/4/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 6 TO 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Pam Hardy disagrees that the electives that staff chose were actually inexpensive or readily available as <br /> stated by staff. Dennis said there are 70 items to choose from the list. There are individual conditions <br /> for each project that would make one elective better suited for a project over another elective, but that it <br /> is up to the application to choose. We don't want to limit designers. <br /> Chris asked how it's different for commercial. Dennis said it's entirely different and have different <br /> selections. <br /> Gary Dominiques asked if this applies to existing structures. Cal Green applies to new construction <br /> only. Dennis said this will apply to large additions for both commercial and residential because of our <br /> existing code does apply to them. <br /> Pam Hardy asked who established the 2,000 sq ft size threshold for additions? Rosalind responded that <br /> Planning Commission did in 2006. <br /> Streamlining the process by using one checklist/one program would for customer service would allow <br /> customers coming to the counter to know what regulations they have to meet, reduce the burden on the <br /> outside customers, updating period is well established, new hires will already have experience and be <br /> able to help the public starting day 1. <br /> The proposed local amendments would address Gary's questions about additions. While still exempting <br /> historic structures. The Pleasanton checklist would be clear for what is required in the City of <br /> Pleasanton. <br /> We were asked at the other stakeholder meetings to provide cost impact analysis and payback <br /> information. This information is in comparison to standard construction measures. Because the City of <br /> Pleasanton already has a Green Building ordinance, we already have an increase to the construction <br /> costs. Increase would be $2.14 for Basic plus Tier 1. Again, based on our current codes you would not <br /> see an increase from what is currently required. As for the payback information, staff was able to a <br /> study that was published in April 2010 projected payback periods for various types of projects. <br /> The survey of the surrounding cities produced a wide range of responses. Notably, the City of Dublin <br /> will run their green building ordinance concurrently with the CALGreen requirements, and the City of <br /> Livermore will default to CALGreen, they think that they will similar to ours. <br /> John Mahoney asked about application to buildings downtown and which ones would be exempt. <br /> Rosalind responded that when the original Green Building Code went through the process the <br /> stakeholders had opposition to including the Downtown area, because the City supports businesses in <br /> the downtown and we didn't want to put any addition constantans on the Downtown area. Because we <br /> had a choice, we made the concession to exempt the Downtown area. Because CALGreen is mandatory <br /> state -wide for the basic measures - We do not have that choice with the CALGreen code. We are not <br /> recommending that they go to a tier 1 as with the other projects, but we don't have the ability to exempt <br /> them. Dennis added that we can go more restrictive than the code, but you can't have a lesser standard <br /> than the code. <br /> Pamela interjected that this presentation has already been made to the PDA. <br /> There was some discussion on the project payback periods. Dennis stated that the study that that <br /> information was derived from is available for anyone that would like to read it, but summarized that the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.