Staff to review climate plan

More than semantics prompted the City Council to delay a decision on whether to “accept” or to “approve” the Climate Protection Action Plan proposed by the Environmental Committee.

The council voted unanimously Tuesday to table the vote while City Manager Ken Frank reviews the plan for consistency with city policies and calculates estimated costs.

“When you say approve, that means to me approval of everything, but some of [the plan] does not comport with current city policies,” Frank advised the council. “Ninety percent of it is not a problem, but some things I really think you do not want to adopt.

“Just as an example, the report says to shorten times for parking meters in the downtown. The council recently increased the time from two to three hours at the request of the downtown business people. We will be meeting with them on how the city can help them so I don’t see us reducing the time.”

Frank also pointed out that he will not be recommending the addition of new staff, which would be needed to implement the plan, in this economic climate. In fact he is hoping not to reduce staff.

He recommended tying the plan to the budget.

Environmental Committee member Max Isles said budget limitations should be overcome.

“The money spent now is a fraction of the money we will need to spend if we take no action,” Isles said.

Councilwoman Toni Iseman suggested that the downturn in housing sales and construction might free up time for some development department staff member, who could take on tasks recommended in the plan.

“There is a body, but there is no funding for it,” Frank said. “If we have less fees, we will have to have less staff.”

Planning Commissioner Norm Grossman, Councilwoman Jane Egly and Environmental Committee member Chris Prelitz were named to consult with Frank, who was instructed to report back to the council at a public hearing prior to the 2009-10 budget workshop in May.

“We have to be realistic,” said Councilwoman Verna Rollinger, who made the motion to continue the item for review. “I hear what the city manager said, but I think we have to move forward.”

She asked Frank to specify the problems he foresaw in the proposed action plan, with a goal to adopt, not just accept, the plan.

The delay was not well-received by the audience, but Iseman deftly quelled the opposition with a quiet reminder that supporters of the action plan want the proposal treated wisely.

Former Environmental Committee member Tom Osborne had urged the council to approve the six initial implementation recommendations and direct the city manager to make the necessary budget accommodations. He also wanted the council to give conditional approval to the Climate Protection Action Plan.

“Staff is concerned that some of the plan is beyond the council’s purvue,” Osborne said. “But conditional approval sends a message that the council is strongly behind the action plan.”

Frank said 90% of the action plan poses no problems for the staff, which supported the six initial implementation measures recommended by the committee with slight tweaking.

“The committee did a lot of work on it and they did a good job,” Frank said “The proposals are reasonable, but they are expensive and probably not feasible at this time.”

The complete text of the agenda item, which includes the six implementation measures and the 58-page action plan is posted at www.lagunabeachcity.net, for Tuesday’s agenda.

BARBARA DIAMOND can be reached at (949) 494-4321 or coastlinepilot@latimes.com.