CCMIN022001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Francisco and to review the plan to see if any of its objectives have been met. She felt if Pleasanton staff took four years to draft a plan, the City will be at buildout. Mayor Pico invited public testimony on both items. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, repeated the definition of a sustainability plan and felt that whatever a person's world view or politics, he could not believe there would be a problem with the statement. Councils need to think beyond buildout and take the next steps. There are hundreds of cities that have gone through this process, e.g. San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Monica. All natural systems and services that provide clean air and clean water are in decline. There is scientific consensus for that. The question is what can we do about this as a City. He acknowledged that some things have been included in the General Plan process as well as other measures like the urban growth boundary, housing cap, growth management, financial planning and discussions of "green building" and energy plans. However, there has not been a comprehensive approach to sustainability nor the establishment of a baseline. There are no goals of where the city wants to go or methods of getting feedback on its progress. That is what a sustainability plan provides. Ms. Hosterman raised this idea as part of formation of an environmental commission and he felt either could come first. He believed this was a logical next step for the City. He cares about the kind of world his children and grandchildren will inhabit and he urged Council to make this a high priority. Regarding the energy issue, he quoted from the public facilities element of the general plan which states "Pleasanton is provided with gas and electric service from Pacific Gas and Electric Company." In 1996, that was true, but he did not feel it was tree today and in that regard he felt the General Plan was out of date. PG&E will not solve the energy problems and he felt the current crises is an opportunity for the City to solve many problems. He suggested aggregate purchasing of electricity, the City owning its own generation assets or in cooperation with other municipalities, demand-side management programs, etc. The goal should be to develop energy solutions that are accessible, affordable and kind to the environment. He clarified that this is not a program that would invade private residences and force people to make changes, but rather programs that would be available to residents and businesses to help this problem. He felt there should be a community process with broad based participation of residents, businesses, representatives from the energy industry, advocacy groups and environmentalists to help develop the strategy. He believed an integrated approach was necessary. It requires more energy generation in a highly efficient, clean method; distributed generation at a site where the energy is used; review of renewable resources; as well as conservation programs. He did not think we could rely on supply-side solutions only at this time. Power plans take a long time to plan, design and build. The Calpine plant would take three to four years to build and a nuclear plant takes about ten years to build. There has not been one proposed in the United States for 25 years. In addition, there is a 20,000 year legacy of the waste that he did not think anyone wanted to deal with. He felt there was urgency to get started on this and asked Council to make a decision tonight and not wait until the priorities workshop. If programs are to be in place by summer, he did not want to wait another month and a half for the workshop. He felt Pleasanton City Council 16 02/20/01 Minutes