23 ATTACHMENT 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT Energy Element of the General Plan Review and provide comments on a Draft Energy Element of the General Plan. Ms. Stern summarized the staff report and introduced Scott Baker, Acting Public Works Director. She noted that a formal approval would not be sought at this meeting and that detailed comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission would be invited. The City Council would examine this item on July 19, 2005 and conduct the same kind of preliminary review. Staff will take the Commission's comments to Council and return at the end of 2005 or early 2006 with a draft plan that would incorporate those comments. She noted that the overriding goal of the Element is to guide Pleasanton toward a sustainable energy future and is divided into several sections: 1. Reducing demand through education, incentives, and green building regulations; 2. Increasing supply through renewable energy and implementing demonstration projects; 3. Financial impacts relating to energy rates and the energy cost component of City programs; 4. Reliable power and better meeting energy needs; 5. City facilities and equipment: the City's role as an energy user and a model for energy conservation; 6. Local control: community choice aggregation; developing photovoltaic power; 7. Land use planning: the energy costs of land use decisions and the use of smart 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 biking. Staff developed some recommendations, 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 Plan. 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 Commerce 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 successful 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 mandates. 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 EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 25, 2005 Page 1 of 6