CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver indicated that was taken into consideration by the Steering Committee recommendation and minor adjustments would be allowed under certain conditions. Ms. Michelotti felt the Planning Commission also made allowances for future General Plan reviews, but the Steering Committee did not. Mr. Pico asked if Council adopts the language of the General Plan Steering Committee, then would a future Council in a future General Plan review still modify the language? Mr. Roush indicated that if Council adopts the language and it is not submitted to the voters, then the language can be changed by a future Council. Ms. Michelotti indicated the current Council has the right to change the General Plan adopted in 1986. There was respect for the fact that a future Council could make changes as it felt necessary. She respects that process and does not want to change it. Mr. Tarver was less enamored with that process, given all the times Council has amended the General Plan. It usually occurs at the same time we are hearing a PUD application and he did not feel that was good. He felt the Urban Growth Boundary should be permanent. Council needs to convince the public that Council's decisions of today will not be undone tomorrow. The public is becoming jaded and does not have confidence in Council's ability to maintain its commitments. He shared some of his survey results: 1,100 surveys were returned; 88% wanted to adopt an urban limit line; 77% wanted to vote on it if it were to be changed. He respected people taking their time to respond and he will do what he can to see that their opinions are heard. Ms. Mohr indicated that State law requires a General Plan to be reviewed every five years. The General Plan is not written like the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution has been changed 26 times in 200 years. The General Plan is designed to be a living, growing document that reflects the people and the times. It is not meant for us to lock in what our children will have to live with 20-30 years from now. Change will happen; it was never intended to be a permanent document, which is why five year reviews are required. Mr. Tarvet felt that if the voters approved the General Plan, it could still be reviewed every five years. Mr. Roush indicated the California Supreme Court has upheld the validity of voter approved General Plan amendments as being consistent with the review process. If a court found, in a particular case, that the overall scheme were being defeated by virtue of something not being able to be changed, then that might be a problem. On their face, however, voter approved amendments do not violate State law. 07/01/96 -16-