CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

The r011 c~all vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Dennis, that page II-7, paragraph 4, to include wording that says the Urban Growth Boundary is intended to be permanent and "to def'me" .... The roll Call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Ms. Miehelotti, seconded by/VIs. Mohr, page II-7, paragraph 6, to add at the end "future comprehensive General Plan updates will review the adjustments." Mr. Pico felt that phrase could relate to the entire General Plan. If Council wanted to make it clear, it could be included in the overall introduction. Ms. Dennis was concerned about this modification, because minor adjustments can be made and this does not distinguish between minor adjustments already made by Council, which are permitted, and the major adjustments which could be contemplated. It is confusing. Ms. Michelotfi withdrew her motion. It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to include verbiage in the introduction "What is the General Plan; State Requirements and Guidelines" to create a paragraph that describes how the General Plan is periodically updated. The r011 Call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarvet NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Roush referred Council to page II-18, Program 11.3, and inquired if rather than have just the language about conforming to strict performance criteria as outlined in this element, if the wording should be more specific and incorporate items 1 through 5 on page II-7. Repeating the performance criteria would avoid ambiguity. 07/16/96 -3-