CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S_veci~c Plan Reference to Streets It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Dennls, to adopt the Planning Comml~ion recommendation to modify page II-7, paragraph 3, to read as follows: "Specific Plan- All properties lying within the boundaries of a Specific Plan Area are subject to the land uses, densities, public improvements, and other requirements specified in the Specific Plan prepared for that area. The land uses, densities, and greet alignments shown on the General Plan Map within these areas are conceptual only and may change subject to the outcome of the Specific Plan (Figure H-6)." The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Conneilmembers - Dennis, Miehelotti, Mohr, Pieo, and Mayor Tarvet NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Urban Growth Boundary Ms. Mohr referred to the request of Mr. Spotomo regarding moving the Urban Growth Boundary line to follow the property line so that any annexation could include the entire property and to have the line go to the top of the ridge near the ostrich farm so it includes the entire viewshed. Mr. Rasmussen indicated if the line were moved, it could potentially allow development to the top of the ridge. Ms. Mohr felt development would only occur if Council allowed it, and moving the line would prevent the County from having control. Ms. Dennis did not think the urban growth boundary line had anything to do with annexation. It refers to City policies regarding development. If someone wished to develop property, the owner could annex the entire property and the City regulations would apply to those areas which were developable according to City policies. The urban growth boundary line is the line that demarcates the city's policies regarding development and has nothing to do with annexation or sphere of influence or any of the things that LAFCO considers. 07/01/96 -13-