|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The City Council approved a broad-based Climate Action Plan (CAP) Tuesday night that could make Pleasanton “one of the greenest cities in California” in the coming years.
Nearly three years in the planning stage, the new plan is aimed at creating a structure of regulations and goals on environmental issues to conform to a new state law, called AB 32, which requires that cities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The Pleasanton CAP approved last night also is being submitted in draft form to the state Attorney General’s office to make sure it meets a court-ordered directive to show that the city is complying with greenhouse gas emission requirements earlier imposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, when he was attorney general.
But council members, in their 5-0 vote in support of the CAP, said the plan also moves Pleasanton toward sustainability in the years to come as climate change and environmental concerns increasingly affect the quality of life for both businesses and residents here.
To reduce emissions and improve water resources, the CAP includes provisions that will encourage the installation of charging stations in the city for battery-powered cars, bicycle racks downtown, free visits to homes by experts to discuss energy improvements, free water-saving devices, lighting upgrades to more energy efficient bulbs, solar panels on municipal buildings and irrigation audits of residential and business water customers in the city.
Several more onerous suggestions, including parking meters and required energy upgrades for those selling their homes, are not included in the plan, although they appear to be still on the table if state energy requirements stiffen.
The CAP, several hundred pages in length, was prepared by Daniel Smith, director of Operations Services; Laura Ryan, energy and sustainability manager, and consultant Jeff Caton.
“Years ago, the city of Pleasanton made a commitment to protect our environment and make this the greenest city in the state,” Smith said. “Back then, the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘carbon footprint’ weren’t commonplace for most cities and states, or even for most people. We are pleased to say that the city of Pleasanton was an early adopter of climate-friendly, sustainable management.”
Since embarking on a formal CAP, Smith and his team, including a citizens’ Committee on Energy and Environment established by the City Council last year, have held public meetings in neighborhoods, with businesses and public workshops at the Civic Center to solicit ideas for environmental and energy efficiency improvements.
“We learned a great deal from the public that we were able to incorporate into this plan, “Smith said.
Some “heavy lifting” will have to be done by residents, businesses and the local government to achieve the plan’s goals, which will require significant modifications in lifestyles involving water use and energy consumption.
One speaker at last night’s meeting, David Stark, said he tore out his lawn at his Pleasanton home and replaced it with a an attractive yard, designed by a land use architect, that requires no watering.
“What a great idea,” said Mayor Jennifer Hosterman. “Let’s see if we can develop a list of homeowners that people can contact to consider for their own improvements.”
Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio said the job of meeting tougher environmental standard may not be as difficult as it sounds.
“Kids today are already thinking of the environment in almost everything they do,” Cook-Kallio, a teacher, said.
More anti growth government regulations. You can bet the city will be hiring more employees to administer all the new regulations. A huge cost to make a few people feel good. Just what impact will this have on anything other than the cost of living here.
The government needs to stop creating new programs and spending more money. There is no more money. More important priorities like education and social programs are already coming up short.
It amazes me that we are pummeled with admonitions to save water yet this City wastes a lot of it. Every once in a while, a City Water Dept truck appears on my street, opens a manhole cover, hooks a hose to a water valve, runs the hose over to the sewer and turns on the water and let’s it run for 20 to 30 minutes. In addition, how often do we see poorly monitored and maintained sprinkler systems in various parks and rights of way around town leaking water or flooding roads and watering where there are no plants. “Doctor” Pleasanton: Heal thyself! I could go on but I have to go pay my water bill which is more about services and hookups and improvements than it is about my water use….
….”required energy upgrades for those selling their homes….”
Really? And people wonder why the state has no money and businesses flee because of overburdening paperwork, regulations and fees. The whacked out people really do run this state. (And this city.)
This is what we get for electing Democrats and a RINO as our city council. Enjoy the limitations on your liberty. By saving water, Pleasanton will have the necessary water for more high density, high crime housing. We will also get the increased traffic congestion and delays that many in Pleasanton desire. Your votes have consequences.
“Some “heavy lifting” will have to be done by residents, businesses and the local government to achieve the plan’s goals, which will require significant modifications in lifestyles involving water use and energy consumption.
One speaker at last night’s meeting, David Stark, said he tore out his lawn at his Pleasanton home and replaced it with a an attractive yard, designed by a land use architect, that requires no watering.
“What a great idea,” said Mayor Jennifer Hosterman. “Let’s see if we can develop a list of homeowners that people can contact to consider for their own improvements.””
What if we’re not in a financial position to make expensive home improvements?
It was scary to watch the meeting last night. The little green guy that wanted to ram thru a range of scary laws, requirements,and standards was really VERY ALARMING ! He said several groups like realtors wanted to hang him for ideas he wanted implement….certainly understandable !
It was ONLY because we have had SO many foreclosure that he couldn’t REQUIRE all of us to carry out so of the excrement he wanted to dump on us.
The Climate Action Plan process is required by state law. Our mayor and council were doing the right thing by establishing this committee of dedicated citizens, consultants and employees. I attended the workshops and was impressed with the creativity, the knowledge and the willingness to be proactive that I saw from everyone.
I support this CAP and look forward to the incremental implementation here in Pleasanton and hope that the whiners here on this thread will someday understand its value to the community.
It is a huge mistake for our council to get involved in cliamte change, the cost of this is beyond our means.
A Neighbor likes the incremental implementation of various climate programs. Incremental, I think that is called the “boiled frog” method…..just drop him in water and slowly turn up the heat as you boil him,
AB 32 was a major contributor to the demise of NUMMI. Achieving 1990 levels by 2020 would have required billions of dollars in investment even if the technology was available not to mention there was no exception for increases in volumes. As an example, NUMMI only produced 190,000 in 1990 and when it closed was producing 430,000 and the projection for 2020 was 500,000 so the state expected them to go back to 1990 levels. AB32’s impact on Pleasanton is far greater than anyone realizes. What was Pleasanton’s population in 1990? Maybe 40,000 or so? What are we projected to be in 2020 with all of these low income/high density projects coming on board? 85,000+? so with double the population we are going to be expected to use the same amount of water, electricity, gas, etc. as we did in 1990? I would like to see on paper A) how we do it and B) how much it costs and C) how it is going to be paid for. Folks this is huge.
Read the bill.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf
Alarmed —
I would have pointed out that peculiarity in the response if you hadn’t. Progressives love incrementalism.
As an aside, why is Muirwood Park always like a swamp, when I can barely afford to keep my lawn a greenish yellow?
I see sprinklers watering the entire park twice a day even when it rains. I’ve heard that it’s known as Mushwood Park by soccer players. Yet our City Council does nothing about it? Matt Sullivan lives down the street from Muirwood Park too, yet the sprinklers keep going…
Of course, water is a renewable resource anyway. You can’t “waste” water. It’s the energy and resources necessary to clean the water for our use that is “wasted”. And much of the resources in that respect is jobs for the treatment plant workers, right? So in this era where we want to create jobs, shouldn’t we be using more water???
This bill allows the same stupid idots who caused the California energy crisis of 2001-2002 to not only control electricity and natural gas, but all forms of energy.
During this crisis, which was not a crisis but market manipulation by Enron, electricity rates shot up 800% from April 2000 to December 2000. If PG&E could not even figure out they were being taken, how easy would it be for the public to be hoodwinked by some do-gooder agency that is trying to put us all back into caves illuminated with candles.
Why in the world do we elect dummies like Hostermann as major and other dummies like Kallio and Sullivan to the council? Absolutely zero capability nor depth. Genius! obviously Kallio by her comments does not even understand what is in the bill. On the other hand, Hostermann is just a swinging environmental hippie chick with an IQ the size of roger the rabbit.
To all the posters opposed to the process and the law: What are your specific objections and exact complaints to energy conservation and efficiency programs? And don’t give me that tired, old (tea party) line about government interference and over-regulation of your lives. That is not a valid point of opposition any more than saying requiring CFLs are an infringement on your rights especially if you sat there mute during the approval process.
I wish some of you had engaged in the process before now, long long before now. Opposition to legislation is your right, but whining from the sidelines long after the fact is pathetic.
Make it real, people. What are your exact complaints, and back it up with facts, not name calling, please.
Thank you Einstein for the AB32 link… AB32 should have been suspended in the last election…until CA UNemployment drops from 12% to 6%…we have other issues ! !
Our idiot legislators in Sacto called this bill the “Global Warming SOLUTION Act”, what a joke, but WHAT ARROGANCE. Solution ???The earth has been continuing to warm after every ICE AGE in our Billions of years. Legis sound like madmen. with visions of powers beyond mortal men, sort of like Caligula, ‘RISE, I tell you RISE’ (to a dead man)…these clowns think they have the power to hold Mother Nature’s process in check. real zealots. They are so scary with their dreams of grandure,,OR….the only other explanation is the greed of all the whores in line for their piece of public patronage …feeding at the public trough ??? Naw, couldn’t be that,… could it ??
Actually, Alarmed, it’s both.
But, they always know what’s best for us—after all, most of our elected officials have Phd’s in electrical engineering, environmental science, economics and meterology. That’s why they are not afraid to tell us how to live our lives and at the same time enrich their donors.
A Neighbor,
First off I do not know you put people in categories (tea party) and then talk about others name calling but hey that is up to you. Related to your second question or comments about what the specific complaints are and engagement in the process this is what I have to say and these are only my opinions but everyone has an opinion.
AB32 is a terrible piece of legislation and is typical of the problem in american/california politics today in that you pass legislation knowing you will not be around to deal with the outcome nor the financial obligations but helps you get re elected. AB32 basically says (the specifics of the bill are attached above) that by the year 2020 companies and cities must be emitting the same level as we used in 1990. Pollution, water, electricity, gas etc must be at 1990 levels regardless of company size, products offered, population growth, changes in city size et al. I cited the case of NUMMI because I read their challenges or rebuttals to the law before it was passed and also the City of Fremont position on the matter at the time. So the bills impact on Pleasanton and its residents will be huge and I think it is a mistake for us to submit our plan to the state in advance. Can you imagine us achieving 1990 levels of usage in pollution, electricity, water, gas with 2020 levels of population? 80,000 people use a lot more water, electricity, gas, than 40,000 people not to mention the growth of businesses in this city since 1990. A prudent mayor and city council would ask for and consider the economic and monetary impact of this on Pleasanton before making any decisions. What capital investments are required? Infrastructure changes and costs?, traffic impacts?, impact and cost to taxpayers?, impact on real estate?, property tax valuation? How many people the city will need to hire? These are things which should be considered PRIOR to deciding what to do.
Regarding your second comment or question about involvement or engagement. I was completely unaware that the city was considering doing this at all and none of my neighbors I spoke with were aware either. We should be asking citizens of this city with a background of running business to be engaged in these decisions and not environmental groups with a vested interest in promoting their cause on others. If the Tea Party is for fiscal common sense and accountability I think we need more of them in this city. I wouldn’t personally insult the members of our council nor the mayor but I very much believe we need to change our mayor and council with people with more substantial backgrounds if these types of decisions are going to be considered.
apologizes for the poor grammar but in a hurry and just typing.
Yet one more reason to move out of Pleasanton and California. Texas, here we come! These idiots are contributing to the destruction of the California dream….oh sorry, that was gone years ago.
Since no one on the City Council has a technical background that would allow them to understand the utter BS hypothesis behind bills like AB32 we are absolutely doomed. Hosterman and the rest of the gang have to go. Let’s all work to make sure they don’t win any future elections.
I would have at least expected Jerry Thorne to vote against this nonsense but maybe he has lost his mind as well.
Don’t you love the fact that our parks are soggy and overwatered along with our water hogging traffic medians, while our school grounds go with a complete lack of maintenance. Oh, I forgot, different bucket of Government money.
I thought the housing cap passed by the voters was addressing sustainability, resources, environmental impact, clean water/air, etc. The smart citizens of this city realized that you cannot keep building more and more without affecting the quality of life.
The biggest complaint about this bill is that it does not put limits on anything that this enforcement agency can do other then it cannot touch other state agencies. That means that this agency will have unlimited enforcement power over any rules and regulations that it mandates on any private business or citizen.