CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen indicated if the urban growth boundary line goes to the property line, it is possible to have a large amount of undevelopable open space property that is within a development area. Ms. Dennis asked for clarification of the language regarding minor adjustments to the urban growth boundary line. Who would grant the adjustments? Mr. Rasmussen indicated the City Council would grant adjustments and them would have to be an amendment to the General Plan map. Mr. Swift further explained that if Council approved the urban gwwth boundary line, the Council could make minor adjustments. If the UGB were approved by a vote, then adjustments would have to be approved by a vote of the people. He clarified that this is the urban growth boundary, not necessarily where City services end or the City limits. There are other uses that are not urban in character where the City might provide services, for instance if the ostrich farmer wanted City water instead of his well. The City could provide that if the property were annexed, but an agricultural use is not an urban use. A cemetery or golf course are also not urban growth uses and could be outside the urban growth boundary but within the City limit or the City's Sphere of Influence. It is not absolutely necessary that all of those lines match precisely. The urban growth boundary is a policy statement that says the City will not allow urban (residential/commercial) development to occur beyond a certain point. The City could annex property outside the urban growth line in order to provide municipal services for a non- urban use. Ms. Michelotti wanted to study this issue further before making her decision. Mr. Pico did not want to wait any longer. He approved of the Steering Committee wording and did not like the Planning Commission wording, which he felt removed the enforcement powers. It was moved by Mr. Pieo to adopt the Urban Growth Boundary language as recommended by the General Plan Steerinl~ Committee and the drawlnlg of the line as set forth in the draft presented by the Steering Committee. Ms. Dennis suggested moving the line slightly to include E1 Charro Road. Mr. Pico agreed. Ms. Michelotti then referred to the language of the Planning Commission for minor adjustments. She had a lot of respect for General Plan reviews and the motion seems to say the Urban Growth Boundary line is permanent and future General Plan reviews could not change it. 07/01/96 -15-