Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Sustainability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews public comments on EVs, water conservation and sustainability language
Summary
Staff summarized 60 days of public input on energy, electric vehicles, water conservation and sustainability definitions; committee members generally supported retaining EV and conservation language but asked staff to cite sources and consider changing 'develop' to 'study' for a regional EV plan.
City planning staff presented public comments from the 60‑day review and discussed possible changes to the draft general plan’s energy, transportation and sustainability sections. Tammy DeWitt, the community planner, said the comment period ran Sept. 23–Nov. 21 and that staff compiled comments by chapter into a spreadsheet for committee review.
On electric vehicles, staff flagged a comment that the plan "overstresses electric vehicles" and pointed to two related entries in the draft (pages 41–42). One commenter questioned an economic claim that "one EV station creates four jobs;" committee members asked staff to cite the Department of Energy source cited on page 41 to support such statements. Several members favored keeping EV infrastructure goals but recommended softening the language from "develop a regional EV infrastructure plan" to "study a regional EV infrastructure plan" pending regional coordination with SIMPO and available funding.
In the resiliency and sustainability chapter, a commenter urged adding a definition of "sustainability" similar to the 2015 plan’s glossary. Committee members and staff agreed that adding a brief definition or glossary entry would improve consistency. Staff also described existing local programs that promote xeriscaping, rainwater harvesting and green infrastructure; members said those items are already reflected in city code or programs and that the plan could include cross‑references to supporting web resources.
A comment recommending the city promote community choice energy prompted staff and committee discussion; members said that program-level advocacy is broader than a general plan directive and could be pursued later by the council if the Arizona Legislature advances enabling studies or statutes. Several members emphasized that citations and clear qualifying language would help avoid quickly outdated detail in the draft.
