Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dolan replied that the language that addresses that subject gives guidance, but it is <br />not crystal clear; the UGB was adopted, and then the language was incorporated into <br />the General Plan such that very similar language appears in both places. He indicated <br />that it essentially says that minor adjustments may be made, but it does not define what <br />a minor adjustment is. He added that the General Plan talks a lot about the fact that <br />adjustments will be explored, and the Task Force talked a lot about this, although there <br />has been no resolution. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the evolution of his thinking is to determine if the adjustment is <br />minor relative to the immediate plan area or as a percentage of the entire acreage <br />within the UGB, which affects the perspective on whether the adjustment is minor or <br />major. He indicated that his opinion is that under any scenario, this decision will <br />probably ultimately fall to the Council regarding what approach to take. He noted that <br />he believes moving El Charro Road over a little bit to catch a little more area would not <br />be anything more than a minor adjustment of the UGB. He further noted that the Task <br />Force has been pretty consistent, and there is a general consensus, to go all the way <br />out to the edge of the planning area, with the primary reason being to generate enough <br />revenue in the development to fund the improvements; whether or not that expansion is <br />still minor is the question, and staff does not have any answer. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Dolan if he is referring to the actual development <br />where the industrial area is on the map. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. <br />Chair Blank inquired what the process would be if it were decided that it is a major <br />adjustment. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it would then have to go to the voters. <br />Chair Blank inquired if it would be in a general election or any election. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he was not sure it specified the type of election. <br />Commissioner Posson noted that the slide on the structural element showed a grid <br />system, but the Alternatives deviated from a true grid system. He inquired if there is <br />any advantage to looking at that grid system from the standpoint of optimizing the <br />developable land or accommodating the property lines, or what is easier for the property <br />owners to develop or even for circulation as a third element. <br />Mr. Rasmussen replied that this does make it easier for the property owners to develop, <br />and it is a matter of working out whether a grid or a curvilinear system would be the <br />most efficient way to organize the plan area to keep costs down. He indicated that a <br />curvilinear system requires a bit more land because the geometry is not as efficient, <br />probably by not a whole lot, but that is a consideration. He added that there has been a <br />lot of discussion lately with regard to sustainability and some of the newer mixed -use <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 22, 2013 Page 12 of 41 <br />