Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Thorne believed there was a perception in the city that Council may be signing on to <br />the Kyoto Protocol, which he did not agree with. He did not believe this was the intent and <br />believed it was taking the standards of the Kyoto Protocol and applying it to the Agreement. If <br />Council wished to proceed, he wanted to know what the City would do differently if it agreed to <br />endorse the Agreement, what direct impact it would have on the City, and how would the City <br />meet these standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush believed Council should focus on whether there was support to agendize this <br />matter and if there was support, staff could return to Council with information. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne mentioned there was a laundry list of items in the Agreement some of which <br />he did not agree with; however, he believed Council had the option of choosing to achieve the <br />goals it wished to reach. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan supported agendizing this matter for discussion. As he understood it, by <br />endorsing the Agreement it is making a statement as a City that it believes global warming is an <br />important issue and that cities have a role in addressing it. The second part of the Agreement is <br />an action plan that cities create and can choose what it wants to do. Currently, the City is doing <br />several things to reduce global warming through its Green Building Ordinance for commercial <br />development, a green building policy for residential development, recycling and waste <br />management programs, and its energy plan which could all be part of the implementation plan. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern expressed concern with agendizing this matter as one of the 12 points <br />included in the Kyoto Protocol targets is related to an inventory of global warming emissions in <br />City operations and the community and to set reduction targets and create an action plan. She <br />pointed out that Council had established its priorities for the coming year and she was <br />concerned and uncertain how long it would take staff to prepare a staff report that would discuss <br />each of the 12 points, what the City is currently doing and whether or not it is economically <br />feasible to obtain the target of 7 percent. She was hopeful that the staff report would clearly <br />identify the impacts to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky concurred with Ms. McGovern's comments. He said if Council was really <br />concerned, it should address the coordination of its traffic signals. <br /> <br />A majority of the Council supported placing this item on a future Council agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky inquired about a report that would address the synchronization of the traffic <br /> <br />lights. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho mentioned staff had prepared a draft memo that it intends to circulate to <br />Council that described the rationale and methodology as to how the City's traffic signalization <br />was established. The memo will be used as a way for Council to engage in a conversation <br />related to traffic circulation as part of the General Plan Update process. Once Council has had <br />the opportunity to review the memo, Council could consider placing the item on a regular <br />agenda for public review or as part of a workshop as part of the General Plan update, which <br />would be subject to public comment. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />01/17/06 <br />