Laserfiche WebLink
emergency. He expressed his concern that the ordinance would dictate what appliances <br /> could be used in a home. <br /> Peter Evans explained that the proposed ordinance requirements were based on Title 24 <br /> requirements. It would not define what appliances were required; the ratings are for <br /> informational purposes only. <br /> Phyllis Carmichael, Baleri Ranch Road, explained that the 6,000 square foot home being <br /> referenced for discussion was in reality a 4,800 foot home. In her opinion, this was not a <br /> large home but a standard size home, so the ordinance would impact all new construction. <br /> She noted that the costs per square foot that were being discussed were in addition to all <br /> of the other building costs and fees. Carmichael believed the proposal was moving <br /> forward too quickly and more information was needed. She suggested that Council wait <br /> to see what the new Title 24 requirements were. <br /> CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> Council discussion ensued. Council noted that this was their first opportunity to hear the <br /> Committee's proposal and they would appreciate more time to assimilate the information <br /> presented. It was suggested that more information be gathered on the energy use of the <br /> Town and the practical application of the proposed requirements. It was offered that the <br /> size of the home where the ordinance was applicable be reviewed and possibly adapted to <br /> 6,000 square feet of living space or to all new homes regardless of size. It was suggested <br /> that the requirement of 25% energy improvement be reviewed and that 15% also be <br /> • considered. Councilmember Jones suggested that he would be amenable to a trial period <br /> of one year for the ordinance where compliance was voluntary and after it was deemed <br /> practical, the ordinance could be mandatory. He would require the test simulation <br /> measure for 25% for new residences. Councilmember Warshawsky thanked the <br /> Committee for their presentation and residents for their comments and noted that he <br /> would need more information on the subject. He concurred that energy conservation was <br /> an important issue but questioned if the requirements should be mandatory or offer <br /> incentives. Mayor Kerr suggested that the requirements might be mandatory for Fast <br /> Track approvals only and that new homes still be required to run the simulations. This <br /> would permit time to evaluate the practicality of the ordinance and to make any necessary <br /> adjustments. Councilmember O'Malley commented that there was a nexus for adopting <br /> this type of ordinance. He suggested that the applicable costs were fair and reasonable. <br /> He noted that it was incumbent on local governments to set limits on natural resources. <br /> O'Malley could not support an ordinance that required photo voltaic but could support an <br /> energy efficiency ordinance. Councilmember Mordo commented that the Committee's <br /> suggestions were good intentions. He questioned the practicality and jurisdiction of the <br /> Town in regulating energy consumption. Mordo requested more information on other <br /> jurisdictions that had adopted similar ordinances. He suggested that Council should <br /> proceed carefully and reasonably. <br /> Mayor Kerr suggested that 1) Fast Track applications be required to be Energy Star <br /> certified (PG&E program-15% improvement over Title 24); 2) all new construction be <br /> required to undertake the simulation test and reporting requirements as defined by the <br /> 4 <br /> City Council Meeting Minutes <br /> September 15,2005 <br />