PC 052505 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. Local control: community choice aggregation; developing photovoltaic power 7. Land use planning: the energy costs of land use decisions grid the use of sniari growth ideas to reduce energy costs <such as mixed use and developing housing around transit stations; 8. Regional alliances for energy conservation; and 9. Transportation: reducing traffic related to schools, reducing imbalance of_jobs and housing, promoting walking and bilcing_ Staff developed soiree recoiriiriendations, included as Attachment 3 in the packet It did not change the substance of the element but addressed the level of detail needed for a General Ylan_ Staff suggested a new heading for City leadership in energy sustainability, and some items were recommended to be relocated to the Noise and Transportation Elements. Staff sought out public comment on this document; the Pleasanton Chamber of G'ommerce was supportive of the draft when it considered it in April The Chamber was pleased with the policies that encouraged cooperation and that the document did not introduce many new mandates. The representative from the Pleasanton Unified School District stated that there was already a success+„1 Go Green initiative being conducted in the schools. The representative doubted that school bussing would happen because of the cost, and other means of traffic reduction would be explored- Ms. Stern advised that the document was brought to the Economic Vitality Committee, and a two-person subcommittee was appointed to provide feedback. The subcommittee suggested. that the document be organized by stakeholder, such as City, business, and residential stakeholders; that the priorities be on reliability and quality of power, which was a major business issue as that this section be strengthened; that the programs be prioritized, which was not the practice in the General Plan; however the City Council will probably take the time every year to select the policies it wished to see advanced in the following year. The subcommittee expressed concern that the policies that "encouraged" the application of sustainable energy technologies could slow down the approval process, although these were not to andates_ It also disagreed with the retrofit for resale policy, believing it was too much to take on at this time, and suggested. that it be soRened_ The subcommittee would like someone to educate the public about the questions that applicants will have and to help them through the process- Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the Draft Energy Element and provide direction to staff for any amendments prior to it moving forward to the City Council- Recommendations for amendments were included in Attachment 3. Commissioner Fox advised that she would recuse herself from discussion regarding Policy 1 3 and Policy 18 Pleasanton Unified School Districts because the District has initiated litigation against a family member- In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blar~ac whether there were any mandates or requirements in the document, Ms. Stern conRrmed that Policy 3 called for "new regulations, guidelines, or incentives to reduce demand for electricity and natural gas." Mr_ Baker summarized the history and makeup o£the Pleasanton Energy Committee, which sunsetted aRer its two-year charter; it continues as the Energy Advisory Group. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2005 Page 3 of 23