My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 3:03:53 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 3:42:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 1,4,6,9
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
206
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
DRAFT <br /> Chair Blank provided some background information for Commissioner Posson and <br /> stated that the Commission has been putting this pre-wiring condition in for projects <br /> probably for seven or eight years now. <br /> Commissioner Posson replied that he is familiar with that background but noted that <br /> Program 6.3 of the General Plan Energy Element talks about requiring Green Building <br /> practices to be used in all projects including those not covered by mandatory Green <br /> Building ordinances if feasible. He questioned why a retrofit later on would be more <br /> economical for the developer than putting those in now. <br /> Mr. Regonini replied that if the structure is designed to support any panels at some point <br /> in the future and if the conduits necessary are installed, the actual PV irstallation at <br /> some point in the future is really not that difficult and would just be a simple economic <br /> question then. <br /> Commissioner Posson asked Mr. Regonini if they would you accept a condition <br /> requiring installation of the PV panels at this point. <br /> Mr. Regonini said no. <br /> Commissioner Posson noted that Condition No. 61 states that energy-efficient lighting <br /> would be installed for the retail buildings and inquired what their intent was for the other <br /> elements of the project. <br /> Mr. Regonini replied that they would be looking at clearly meeting or exceeding Title 24 <br /> standards and that they have not yet begun to do any analyses on Title 24 to see what <br /> type of lighting would be appropriate. He indicated that it makes sense to have as much <br /> energy-efficient lighting as possible. <br /> Commissioner Posson further noted that Condition No. 64 indicates installing a <br /> minimum of one appliance or system in each apartment unit that meets Energy Star <br /> standards and inquired why not have all appliances meet Energy Star standards. <br /> Mr. Regonini replied that some appliances actually do not come with an Energy Star <br /> rating, for example, a gas range. He indicated that he believes only electrical <br /> appliances have Energy Star rating, and therefore, when looking at an Energy Star <br /> kitchen, not every single appliance actually has that rating; it would just be some key <br /> appliances, typically the dishwasher and a refrigerator. <br /> Commissioner Posson inquired if they would be willing to accept a condition that Energy <br /> Star appliances would be installed if available. <br /> Mr. Regonini replied that he thinks that would be appropriate. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 3/27/2013 Page 10 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.