Oak Grove Developers Have New Plan, City Recognized for Energy Reduction

PG&E representatives have recognized the city for not only meeting, but surpassing, its goal to reduce 1 megawatt of energy last year.

That 1.018 megawatt reduction is equivalent to 4.4 million kilowatt hours, or the same as taking 184 cars off the road or getting rid of 650 homes, said PG&E executive manager Greg Hoaglin.

"It's an outstanding achievement in and of itself, but I'm looking forward to it just being the start," Hoaglin told council members at their Tuesday night meeting. "The city of Pleasanton is really a model."

The idea began in early 2009, when the city approached PG&E about the idea. Several officials from both parties then began working together, reaching out to local businesses large and small to discuss their energy reduction plans.

"This is pretty amazing," Pleasanton mayor Jennifer Hosterman said of the award.

As part of its consent agenda that was passed unanimously, the council also extended funding for the Energy and Environment Committee for an additional two years.

Hosterman said the committee was an integral part of the city's Climate Action Plan.

Council members also adopted a resolution authorizing an application with the California Department of Transportation for $1 million in grant funding to reconstruct Foothill Road at the Interstate 580 interchange by adding signals to ramps and installing bike lanes.

If Caltrans awards Pleasanton the grant, the city would contribute $103,000 toward the $3.4 million project.

Officials also approved the annual budget for the Altamont Education Advisory Board, which funds grants to applicants for recycling and environmental awareness programs. It is a joint venture between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, the Northern California Recycling Association and Alameda County.

Funds are generated from a surcharge on waste dumped in the Altamont landfill near Livermore.

As part of the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department's Weed Abatement Program, council members adopted a resolution declaring plant overgrowth, dirt, rubbish and refuse in front of certain properties a public nuisance and fire hazard requiring abatement.

Property owners who are sent notices will have until May 31 to clean up before the city bills them for weed-abatement services.

The LPFD can also look forward to a video conferencing system at all 12 of its facilities, since the council approved the purchase of the equipment for $153,000.

Council members also met in closed session at 6 p.m. to discuss against the city by Oak Grove property owners Frederick and Jennifer Lin.

During the public comment period in open session, Kay Ayala asked the council whether city officials had recently met with the Lins regarding a new proposal to develop their more than 500 acres of property at the end of Hearst Drive in Kottinger Ranch.

She said city law bars them from resubmitting a development plan for one year following their loss in last year's June 8 election to build 51 luxury homes. She also said the Lins' new proposal comes just a few weeks after they lost a suit in Alameda County Superior Court contesting the referendum.

Ayala, a former councilmember, led the charge last year to defeat Measure D, a ballot measure that would have allowed the Lins to build the 51 homes and dedicate the rest of their 496 acres to parkland.

She got her answer after some back-and-forth argument with Hosterman, a Measure D supporter, who said she thought it was inappropriate for residents to ask questions to staff directly.

Council member Matt Sullivan said he received a call from the Lins informing him of their plans to build a 10-unit subdivision in Oak Grove, and City Manager Nelson Fialho said they had met with the two last week and are expecting a modified development application from them in the next several days.

City Attorney Jonathan Lowell said he will have to look carefully at elections and municipal law governing re-applications of development plans once they have been turned down but now include new details.

Find more on what the council approved on its agenda. The previously scheduled council meeting on April 5 has been cancelled.