CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico felt Mr. Butler had been the only landowner that has voiced a strong objection to being included within the Urban Growth Boundary. Others have voiced objections about not having more of their property included within the line. Ms. Mohr did not want to make that decision without giving Mr. Butler an opportunity to hear what Council is proposing and to respond. Ms. Dennis believed that a letter should be sent to Mr. Butler to fully explain the situation and ask if he still wants his property to be removed from within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Tarver did not think there was substantial evidence to make the modification to the Growth Management Program that either the Steering Committee or the Planning Commission suggested. He felt it very discomforting to expose the Growth Management Program to legal challenge without making the proper findings. He recommended not amending the Growth Management Program, but to include a Program that indicates Council will do a study to determine if the findings could be made for the target recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the majority of the Council. Ms. Dennis believed it was safer to make findings and either way it sets Council's intent to do what the community wants. Mr. Roush indicated Council could require a study to determine if the maximum number of housing units which could be constructed on an annual basis could be reduced, taking into account a description of the city' s appropriate share of the regional housing needs, a description of how public health, safety and welfare could be promoted by the adoption of a smaller number, the fiscal resources available to the city as well as the other things mentioned, such as housing needs, employment growth, availability of infrastructure, etc. If this were added as a Program 14.4, for example, and delete the midpoint language for now, it would address the Mayor' s concerns. Ms. Dennis agreed the safer approach was preferable. Ms. Michelotti wanted to know if the proposal was to keep the language as is if the study determines it is okay? Mr. Tarver indicated Council is at the point of decision and must adopt a General Plan. Staffs opinion is that the necessary findings have not been made to follow the Steering Committee's recommendation. Modification of the General Plan growth management program could expose it to legal challenge. Staff should be directed to undertake a study to determine if the findings could be made that would support the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the majority of the Council (that wanted a target of 350 units) in the Growth Management Program. 07/16/96 -5-