CCMIN060507 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Thorne echoed everything said regarding staff’s response to the program. He referred to page 10-1, he agreed with the blue line additions and asked that the “sustainable” word was defined throughout the general plan the same way. He agreed with page 10-5 changes, agreed with what has been said about CCA, and agreed with lighting comments and additional verbiage. Mayor Hosterman felt many things would happen quickly; with the membership through ICLEI, once the City measures its carbon footprint and strategize ways to reduce emissions, it will move forward. Councilmember McGovern referred to page 10-15, Program 1.1, felt the wording was not only the results of the feasibility study, but also what is mentioned at the top of page 10-7 which states, “The city needs to fully asses the cost benefits and potential risk of this program before proceeding.” She felt this needed to be done before any decision is made about CCA, as well as the cost benefit analysis. Staff suggested restating that sentence in Program 1.1 on page 10-15 and Councilmember McGovern agreed. Mayor Hosterman said she was thrilled with the element and discussed participating on a panel concerning climate change. MOTION: It was m/s Sullivan/Hosterman to incorporate feedback into the Draft Energy Element of the General Plan (as shown in Attachments 1 and 2), as amended. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None 24. Pulled from the agenda - Review and consider the Draft Sub regional Planning Element of the General Plan MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL Councilmember McGovern referred to the recently submitted Initiative and questioned when the fiscal analysis would be done. City Attorney Roush said the elections code provides for an opportunity that the staff can provide a report and have the Council consider this before the decision is made to adopt the Initiative as proposed or put it to the vote of the people. He felt that practically, if it appears the Initiative is likely to gather enough signatures, staff would begin the analysis ahead of time in order for the information to be prepared in terms of what the impacts of the Initiative might be. He said staff could certainly do it earlier to provide for information to those considering supporting the Initiative, but staff should spend the next 30 days assessing where we need to be so as to make a better informed decision. Councilmember Sullivan said he would be cautious in moving ahead and was not sure doing an economic analysis which may influence someone to sign or not sign a petition was not truly staff’s role. Also, one might say an analysis might be needed regarding the benefits of maintaining open space, so he felt staff should not tinker with the process. City Manager Fialho felt the time was not now, and felt the Council would have a better sense in another 45 days as to what questions should be pursued, such as fiscal, economic, housing, open space, etc. City Council Minutes 14 June 5, 2007