CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked if the recommendation of the Steering Committee were adopted, could Council also put an amendment to the General Plan to the voters that would indicated anything besides minor adjustments would require a vote of the people. Mr. Roush felt that would be acceptable. Even though it is a minor wording change, there is substance to it and therefore it would be an amendment to what the Council had adopted. The voters would have something different to act on. Mr. Pico asked if Council added to the language recommended by the General Plan Steering Committee an additional sentence that anything other than a minor adjustment would have to be approved by a vote of the citizens, and that was adopted by Council but not approved by the people, could that be changed or removed by a subsequent Council. Mr. Roush indicated that was correct. Ms. Michelotti asked if the urban growth line were adopted as permanent, why would you ever have a General Plan review regarding this? Mr. Roush thought it were possible that five or ten years in the future urban development outside the line might make sense. If it were adopted by the voters, you would have to take the concept back to them to change it. Ms. Michelotti could support an urban growth boundary as proposed, but felt the Planning Commission wording regarding adjustments in future comprehensive General Plan updates allowed flexibility for the future. She felt she would have to vote against the pwposal because it did not allow flexibility for future review. Mr. Tarver indicated there are two statements under consideration. One is the concept of the boundary the next is for adjustments to the Urban Growth Boundary. The first vote is only on the line, then we can discuss how it can be modified. Nothing in either statement says there can never be a change to the line. He felt the question is, do we want to tell the public this is a permanent line? Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Pico to make separate motions. Ms. Mohr felt that whether it is permanent or long-term, as long as it allows minor (free tuning) adjustments she could support it. This Council is not omniscient and should not preclude citizens at a future date to have the same right to exercise their best judgment. It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennln, tO adopt the General Phn Steering Commlttee recommendation as follows: Modify page 11-7, paragraph 4, last sentence, to read as follows: 'The UGB is intended to be permanent and defme the line beyond which urban devdopment will not occur~ and to amend the boundary of the General Phn map draft dated 1/31/96 to include the realignment of E1 Charro Road and the hnd to the west of it. 07/01/96 -17-