CCMIN050305 - Laserfiche WebLink

be resubmitted to Council for approval, and at that point, Council would have the option to direct staff to hold community workshops in order to obtain input from residents before adoption. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Ms. Stern said staff has presented the energy element of the General Plan to the Economic Vitality Commission and the Chamber of Commeme. Staff will be looking at opportunities to take the various elements of the General Plan to the proper stakeholders or Commissions before it returns to Council for consideration. She believed staff had not planned to take the individual elements to the general public, as it would be time consuming to conduct public workshops on each element of the General Plan. Mr. Iserson clarified that staff would be presenting all of the various elements of the General Plan to the Planning Commission prior to presenting them to Council. Mr. Fialho mentioned that if staff brought each separate element of the General Plan to the community, he believed it would take longer to complete the General Plan update. He believed some efficiency could be derived by compiling all of the elements together and sharing these with the community as a whole document rather than a partial document. Mr. Brozosky noted that he had a discussion with several of the Planning Commissioners regarding the process they went through at their meeting. He pointed out that the Planning Commission has collected a significant amount of input from the community. He believed a vision statement is an executive summary and contains all of the input received from the community. He believed that trying to bring back a vision statement to the community would be a disservice to the people who attended previous meetings and provided input. He did not want the vision statement to be shelved as various elements of the General Plan could be worked with on a daily basis and any time there is a new proposed project, it could be evaluated against the current programs, goals and policies. He did not see the importance of a Vision Statement, as he believed it would be the page that people read the first time and after that, they will spend more time reading the individual elements of the General Plan. He pointed out that community workshops are not planned for each of the individual elements of the General Plan and he did not see the importance of singling out the Vision Statement to allow the community to reach general agreement. He believed the Planning Commission preferred the narrative version as proposed by Commissioner Roberts. He preferred the narrative version and the changes that Ms. McGovern proposed. Ms. McGovern reemphasized that she wanted the draft Vision and Principles Statements to be a first reading. She also wanted to allow Mayor Hosterman and the public an opportunity to review and comment prior to Council's adoption. Mr. Brozosky did not believe Council was accepting one particular General Plan Vision Statement. The General Plan Vision Statement would still be in draft format and would ultimately be approved by Council at a later date. Mr. Sullivan wanted to allow sufficient time in order for the community to provide input. He believed the Vision Statement was not an executive summary of the General Plan. It is a vision and defines the end result towards build out. The General Plan contains many elements and these elements are connected in some way. He believed that an overall vision statement is missing which connects all of the various elements of the General Plan together. He supported Mr. Fialho's recommendation; however he was not prepared to approve any particular General Plan Vision Statement this evening. Mr. Brozosky asked Mr. Sullivan if he believed the Vision Statement should drive the various elements of the General Plan. Pleasanton City Council 7 05/03/05 Minutes