PC 062205 - Laserfiche WebLink

6_ PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a_ Ener~v Element of the General Plan Review and provide comments on a Draft Energy Element of the General Plan. Ms_ Janice Stern summarized the staff report and introduced Mr_ John Deakin, an energy consultaizt to local government and nonprofit agencies- Mr_ Deakin worked. very closely with the Energy Committee to draft the Energy Element. She reviewed the last discussion of the Commission which led to changes in the text (Version 3J. ] . The "Purpose" section was edited to make the language less "flowery" and to clearly state why Pleasanton is addressing the energy issue. 'fhe definition of sustainability was discussed, and staff provided a definition from the California Planning Roundtable~ Guidelines from the State of California publication were also provided, and the definition o£ sustainability in the Energy Element was supported~ 2_ The Commission had not been comfortable with the idea of making this a high priority for future Councils as well as having an Energy Manager. The Commission had noted that there were not corresponding managers for other elements o£ the General Plan. Policy 1 and its associated programs were eliminated from Version 3. 3_ Several references to specific energy technologies had been eliminated because the Commission stated that technologies constantly evolved. The Commission believed that references to newer technologies should he more general~ 4. Keferences to new regulations had been eliminated while language relating to education had been retained. The exception to that was in terms of the Residential Green Building Ordinance because work on that has begun to move forward~ 5_ The Commission wished to reword Program 7.8 and 7.9. Version 3 did not reflect those changes; Program 7.8 will be eliminated, and Program 7.9 would be rewritten to refer specifically to new construction~ 6. The Commission. had mentioned some confusing language in Policy 9 and Policy 7 7 _ Staff rewrote Policy 9 and eliminated Policy 1 1 because it was not clear what issue it was trying to address- 7. Programs related to the implementation of C7ommunity Choice Aggregation <CCA~ were eliminated. The program relating to studying the feasibility of CCA was retained_ Commissioner Arkin recalled that the Commission did not vote on the elimination of any items but that it had expressed concern about their lack of cl arity_ He inquired how those concerns led to the elimination o£ those items- Ms_ Stern advised that staff followed the ir~inutes closely and believed there was consensus or agreement. She noted that staff would revisit those items if that were not the case. Ms. Stern noted that Version 3 includes both the original Energy Commission work and the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council. She added that the Commission would see this again when the entire General Plan document is presented in early 2006. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank why Program 7.8 was eliminated, Ms_ Stern replied that it was in response to Commissioner Fox's concerns. PLANNING CJOMMIS SION MINUTES June 22, 2005 Page 3 of 20