01 - Laserfiche WebLink

The second local amendment is that staff is proposing to retain the City's current construction and demolition requirements at the Basic requirement which is 50% diversion instead of Tier 1 requirements for solid waste. If Tier 1 were adopted, the City would be increasing its requirement substantially. By doing so, the City will have requirements for soil and green debris for all new projects, which it does not currently have. The City also has a standard of $125,000 valuation of a project threshold before the ordinance applies. This threshold does not exist in CalGreen so all projects will be subject to the diversion requirement, and based on State law, the City will be more aggressive in this area, as well. Councilmember Sullivan questioned what additional Tier 1 requirements, in addition to those outlined, would be in place. Mr. Dolan noted it would simply be a greater diversion level from 50% to 65 %. Mr. Corbett added that the biggest difference is that the City's current ordinance requires a 90% diversion for concrete and asphalt and 50% for all other materials. CalGreen Basic states 50% and 65% for Tier 1 and no differentiation between the concrete /asphalt requirements. He stated the distinction between concrete /asphalt versus overall waste was important for all of Alameda County. Councilmember McGovern said she believed that a 75% diversion was recommended by Stopwaste.org for some of the approved projects, and Mr. Dolan said staff definitely had higher requirements for individual projects, but these had not been incorporated into the code. Mr. Fialho stated the City adopted a resolution committing the City to 75% diversion citywide overall and this is embedded in the City's General Plan as a policy. In this instance, it does not specifically go to construction and debris (C &D). The City has implemented a number of things citywide such as a source separated recycling program this past year, it moved away from the co- mingled program and also has curbside recycling. Early indications show they have been able to capture more recycled materials which will get them closer to 75% diversion. A number of other things are also being done in cooperation with Stopwaste.org to increase that number, and this is just one element of a host of tools available to the City. Councilmember Cook- Kallio confirmed with staff that there is nothing to stop the City from requiring more for particular projects. Mr. Dolan continued his presentation and referred to cost analysis of the water meter. He presented figures which are somewhat out of date as of January 1, 2011 by 4 % due to changes in Zone 7 fees, but for a single large meter, the connection fee is $114,000. If 2 small meters are done combined, it is $80,000. So, projects can be greener while also saving money. He noted there were many questions in the public outreach process about how much this is costing, and suspicion existed around the City imposing cost increases. However, staff believes that CalGreen Tier 1 will cost the same as what is currently being done under the City's current systems because they are very similar. Time was also spent with a local builder to detail costs for a single family home under today's CalGreen measures. Other costs have been increasing over time and are related, but green building requirements initially will cost about $13,000 more per home. Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed with Mr. Dolan that savings achieved for energy and water efficiency was analyzed over time, and while it varies by measure, the savings over time far exceed initial costs. Mr. Dolan also confirmed that the cities of Livermore and Fremont are similarly proposing the same measures as Pleasanton. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 January 4, 2011