23 ATTACHMENT 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ener~y 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 consultant 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 3): 1. The "Purpose" section was edited to make the language less "flowery" and to clearly state why Pleasanton is addressing the energy issue. The 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 of 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 of 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 be more general. 4. References 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 11. Staff rewrote Policy 9 and eliminated Policy 11 because it was not clear what issue it was trying to address. 7. Programs related to the implementation of Community 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 clarity. He inquired how those concerns led to the elimination of those items. Ms. Stern advised that staff followed the minutes 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. Commissioner Fox stated that she was encouraging more education and advocacy in the Energy Plan rather than a requirement to encourage property owners to install PV panels when reproofing a house. She believed it would be better to talk about new construction and to EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 22, 2005 Page 1 of 4