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
enforcement of the CALGreeri mandatory provisions, which the City is doing with our public <br /> outreach, informational handouts and simplified checklists, and our internal schedule for <br /> training of our inspection and plan checking staff. The final recommendation by the BACC <br /> study encouraged jurisdictions that proceed with adopting CALGreen with a Tier requirement <br /> in place of the outside rating systems to also incorporate the City's ability to accept a third - <br /> party rating system in lieu of the Tier requirements. The proposed ordinance does <br /> incorporate an "alternative compliance option" that would enable an applicant to pursue <br /> certification by a third -party rating system in lieu of the City's green plan check process. <br /> On September 2, 2010, a collaborative that consisted of AIA- California Council, BIGTM, <br /> USGBC, Simon & Associates, Inc., SFEnvironment, and Stopwaste.Org also distributed <br /> some documentation regarding system comparisons. The cover letter of the documentation <br /> states that the "documents do not provide extensive analysis of the similarities or differences <br /> in verification of any of the rating systems or CALGreen." Based on staffs review of the <br /> documents provided by this collaborative and another comparison of the systems by staff, <br /> staff found that the documents did not provide all the credits and /or measures for all the <br /> programs, much of the information that was provided was either not clear or conflicted with <br /> other comparisons of the same measure /credit without detailed justification of the discounting <br /> of the credit, and the format of the documentation did not provide clear correlations between <br /> the systems being compared. Therefore, staffs recommendation to pursue a code <br /> amendment to incorporate CALGreen as the City's reference standard remained unchanged <br /> 5 The collaborative review did influence reconsideration of some credits and measures by staff, but the overall <br /> determination that CalGreen Basic plus Tier I with our proposed local amendments was equivalent to the City's current <br /> programs and procedures remained unchanged. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.