01 - Laserfiche WebLink

CAP equaled 326,000 metric tons. Total reductions in the revised document equal 311,000 metric tons, meeting the AB 32 goal of 306,000 tons with a 5,000-ton buffer. Mr. Smith stated that the Committee on Energy and the Environment reviewed the final plan on January 25th and unanimously recommended approval adoption by the Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the document on January 11th and also unanimously recommended approval to the Council. Going forward, staff will continue the community outreach process and begin an extensive list of implementation, monitoring and inventory items outlined in the plan. Councilmember Thorne asked whether the CAP would overlap with OneBayArea in any way. Mr. Smith said his understanding of OneBayArea, which is limited, is that the most significant portion is the Sustainable Communities Strategy initiative related to SB 375, which relates more to housing and transportation. He explained that transportation is more regional in nature, and something the City has very little control over. Councilmember Sullivan asked staff to discuss the significant of receiving a "qualified" CAP status. His understanding is that new project applicants are not required to demonstrate how their projects will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and can instead rely on the assumption that the mandates of this plan will be implemented. Mr. Smith confirmed that the qualified status means that developments are not required to prepare a greenhouse gas analysis, provided the development meets certain guidelines contained within the CAP. It will ultimately be incumbent upon the City to develop these guidelines for the purpose of qualification but the bonus in terms of development is that developers will hopefully redirect the dollars that would otherwise have been spent on greenhouse gas studies into efficiencies that will meet the goals of the CAP. Councilmember Sullivan asked how the City plans to evaluate specific development proposals against the CAP as well as to verify that certain policies have been implemented. Mr. Smith said the details have yet to be worked out. He said it would be on a case by case basis, especially initially, that staff and the Council would have to analyze a project in terms of how it meets the strategies of the CAP. His department would be responsible for monitoring and reporting out on the success of the overall program. Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 57 of the draft document, and confirmed with staff that there are plans to update the existing Green Building Ordinance in 2012. Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 62 and said he was glad to see there is still intent to revisit community choice aggregation. Councilmember McGovern asked how staff envisions addressing the topic of greenhouse gas emissions with businesses looking to move to Pleasanton. Mr. Smith explained that the plan includes a certain amount of flexibility. For businesses that cannot meet some of the obligations of the CAP, there are mitigation measures allowing them to contribute to renewable energy efforts within the City. Mr. Dolan suggested it would be a matter of staff identifying which of the implementations to apply to a project in order to achieve compliance. He said it would essentially involve an analysis within each staff report to discuss where a project does and does not comply, as well as certain conditions of approval that directs the appropriate mitigations. Councilmember McGovern said it would be helpful for the Council to see the process under which staff analyzed the project and determined its compliance with the CAP, particularly in justifying any exceptions to the plan. Mr. Dolan said staff would likely prepare a checklist, supplemented by a narrative form demonstrating how a project does or does not meet the goals of the CAP. Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 13, 2012