My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
021511
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2011 2:52:49 PM
Creation date
2/10/2011 2:52:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
differently. This analysis is still useful and not perfect, but staff believes it provides a good <br /> indication of what the apples to apples comparison would be. <br /> For all projects currently covered by the City's current ordinance, staff is recommending the City <br /> adopt CalGreen Tier 1. There are other non - covered projects currently in the City's regulations, <br /> and staff is proposing adopting CalGreen Basic for new downtown buildings and for new <br /> buildings not located in downtown, which are currently exempt from green building <br /> requirements. They are covered by the State, and while the City does not cover them now, <br /> CalGreen will cover them. Since exemptions have been provided in the past for new downtown <br /> buildings and for buildings not located downtown but which do not meet certain size <br /> requirements (2000 square feet for residential, 20,000 square feet for commercial), the City is <br /> obligated by the new State law to impose those requirements. Instead of ratcheting these up to <br /> Tier 1 and increasing the City's requirements, staff is suggesting considering the basic level of <br /> CalGreen for those projects which are not regulated under the City's current ordinances. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan questioned how CalGreen Basic compares to the existing or previous <br /> Title 24 or other building codes for those two categories. <br /> Dennis Corbett replied that CalGreen's basic mandatory measures simply state one shall meet <br /> the Title 24 energy requirements. If not going to a tier level, projects are not required to exceed <br /> them. <br /> Mr. Dolan summarized that staff is proposing CalGreen Tier 1 and CalGreen Basic for those <br /> areas not covered by the City's ordinance but are required by the State. In addition, staff would <br /> like to propose amendments to address some of the City's own special circumstances. One is <br /> incorporation of the current regulations for additions. CalGreen does not apply to additions, but <br /> the City's ordinance does. Staff is also proposing local amendments relative to the construction <br /> and demolition ordinance and to the regulations regarding separate water meters for indoor and <br /> outdoor water use. Staff is also proposing that the City continue to exempt historic structures, <br /> which was a component of the City's current regulations. <br /> Finally, staff is proposing that the Municipal Code incorporate the CalGreen Building Code as <br /> the City's reference standard. Tier 1 would apply and staff would refer to that document, except <br /> for the local amendments as discussed. <br /> Mr. Dolan said staff is including an option to allow developers to use a verified third party rater <br /> system for LEED as a substitute to the system. The reason for this is because it can provide the <br /> same level of greenness, and some applicants that prefer that system. They might have a grant <br /> or loan dependent upon a certain type of certification, and staff feels it is prudent to allow them <br /> to go through the process and receive their LEED certification and provide it to staff as an <br /> equivalent way of achieving green building. Also, certain builders and developers find there is a <br /> certain marketability and benefit to their product if they have the well -known standard, such as <br /> LEED. Staff feels goals can be achieved through these processes, as well, which would be in- <br /> lieu of the CalGreen system. <br /> Regarding the water meter issue, this is an area the City is being stricter than it has to be. <br /> CalGreen requires a separate water meter and connection, or a sub -meter provided for non- <br /> residential projects and installing landscape areas between 500 and 5,000 square feet. Staff <br /> believes there is a benefit to having just a meter as opposed to a sub - meter, can assist users in <br /> saving water and in most cases, a savings will occur. However, the City is not able to track <br /> outdoor water usage with sub - rneters. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15 January 4, 2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.