PC 092910 - Laserfiche WebLink

CALGreen to the points listed in the City’s current programs. She then presented a table which was established to indicate categories evaluated and the minimum points for the current system as well as minimum total points. Staff listed CALGreen basic measures in the first column, CALGreen basic measures plus Tier 1 requirements in the second column, and CALGreen basic measures plus Tier 2 in the third column. Staff then assigned points which were already being required to evaluate how the points for each measure compared to the City’s current system. Mrs. Rondash explained that in the LEED scorecard for commercial and public buildings, there is no category minimum; just a total point minimum, which is currently 40 points. She noted that when basic measures are calculated, 15 points are achieved; however, in CALGreen basic measures plus Tier 1 measures, 46 points is achieved, which is equivalent to the City’s current system. She then displayed an example of achieving the total minimum points but not all category minimums. Mrs. Rondash stated that only “must haves” are considered for total points; however, there are also 66 electives from which to choose in the residential categories, and 99 electives in the commercial category. She then described a scenario to meet current standards for the single-family residential and repeated the scenario for multi-family residences. Mrs. Rondash stated that staff’s recommended action is consistent with Pleasanton’s existing requirements, with a few minor changes to meet the State’s new mandatory minimum requirements. She added that staff believes the developer cost to implement the CALGreen Tier 1 is equivalent to the cost to implement the City’s existing green building ordinance, and that taking the action is likely to help developers save time and money while working on construction drawings. Ms Rondash then presented a cost analysis based on standard construction versus the Tier 1 measures in effect. She stated that Tier 1 would be equivalent to the City’s current standards and would have a no cost impact. She added that the cost analysis does not include savings from reduced energy, water, medical bills, or existing incentive programs such as tax credits or rebates which would also reduce the payback projection from the approximately 10-15 years. Mrs. Rondash also described the cost effectiveness study and payback projection prepared for the City’s climate zone, which states incremental improvements in overall annual energy performance of buildings exceeded Title 24 by 15 percent. She added that the study further notes that the building’s overall design, occupancy type, and specific design choices may allow for a larger range of incremental first cost and payback projections. She noted that the study did not consider the tax credit or rebates. Mrs. Rondash presented what other jurisdictions have in place, as follows: City of Livermore Has a green building ordinance; will amend their green ordinance to o default to the CALGreen. They are looking to enact something that is not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 29, 2010 Page 7 of 21