CCMIN120302 - Laserfiche WebLink

semi-permanent basis would provide better stewardship and provide better input to the City Council. He felt the committee needed some structure from the Council on how to get consensus to move along with actions. He recognized the committee members present. Judy Symcox, 1450 Groth Circle, said she was not enthused with the proposed energy plan. It refers repeatedly to demand side management, which means monitoring the use. She thought Pleasanton was a freedom loving community and objected to this regulation of personal use of energy. She referred to various portions of the plan which recommended a decrease of consumption of energy. She also referred to the energy audit at home building or home resale and asked if the real estate agents had been consulted. She urged the residents to get involved and informed on this subject. She felt people should beware of words like "require" "control" and "restrict". Overall, she objected to having "power police" in Pleasanton. She urged homeowners to pay attention to the details on how this will alter their lives, and to participate and monitor this plan. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, member of the Planning Commission and Energy Advisory Group, thanked Council for establishing the EAG and supporting the process over the past year and a half. He supported adopting the energy plan. He felt it was a great opportunity grounded in local control, sustainability, and local economic opportunity. It changes the paradigm of the old electric system model of a centrally owned and controlled power system and enhances it with a distributed network of an environmentally sensitive supply and demand-side opportunities that puts decision mak'mg and benefits in the hands of local businesses, residents and government. These are opportunities, not mandatory "power police" actions. This is happening all over the state and country. Pleasanton is not breaking new ground, but taking advantage of something that is already happening and moving forward in a proactive way instead of waiting for the next crisis to hit and trying to react. When the Council approved development of the plan, there was skepticism that local communities could do something to solve the energy crisis. It was felt it was up to the state and federal government. A year and a half later, the eounla3' is straggling with bankrupt utilities, immense public debt, a huge state budget deficit, rising electric and gas rates and the fallout from energy corporation greed and manipulation of the system. We have to face the fact that the good old days of PG&E are gone forever and the state and federal government will probably put foFth conflicting plans that will add to the confusion. The energy crisis may seem benign because there are no longer rolling blackouts. This plan contains 34 separate projects that can be accomplished locally to minimize the crises that are still being experienced. The plan was developed by a group with representatives including residents, environmentalists, local business leaders, people from the energy industry and from PG&E and the Public Utilities Commission. He and Ms. Hosterman have attended meetings at the state level, where they shared ideas of other localities and learned that Pleasanton was not alone in this endeavor. In his professional life, he has seen where these types of programs help communities and the environment. He noted there are letters of endorsement from two state Energy Commissioners, from the Depaxhnent of Energy, and from Lynn Woolsey, member of Congress from Sonoma County. The plan is not perfect, but is a consensus plan developed by a very diverse group. Some of the group is still not completely happy with the outcome. He felt consensus meant agreeing to common ground and moving forward, even if one doesn't get everything one wants. The vote of the EAG is 80% to move the plan forward. The ad hoc format of the group worked well to brainstorm and refine ideas. As it moves into the Pleasanton City Council 22 12/03/02 Minutes