My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092210 Special Meeting
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 092210 Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/19/2011 3:28:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mrs. Rondash explained that in the LEED scorecard for commercial and public <br />buildings, there is no category minimum; just a total point minimum, which is currently <br />40 points. She noted that when basic measures are calculated, 15 points are achieved; <br />however, in CALGreen basic measures plus Tier 1 measures, 46 points is achieved, <br />which is equivalent to the City’s current system. She then displayed an example of <br />achieving the total minimum points but not all category minimums. <br />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 <br />99 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 approximately 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 /> Has a green building ordinance; will amend their green ordinance to <br />o <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 /> Going with CALGreen basic for now. After next year they will be looking at <br />o <br />offering an option for developers to go with a tier as an alternative to using <br />the third party system. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 16 of 23 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.