CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the people, any recommended major change will also go to a vote of the people. She felt it was important that the text include wording that a review is part of the normal process. Mr. Pico said one might as well include a preamble to the entire General Plan that says anything and everything is subject to review and update on a five year basis. It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to amend the text to say since the Urban Growth Boundary is considered to be permanent, future adjustments are discouraged, but the UGB will be reviewed in subsequent comprehensive General Plan reviews. Th~ r~ll call v~,e was as follows.' AYES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarver ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 7. MATFERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL Mr. Tarver commented about the sound system in the Council Chambers. He suggested staff review the system. Ms. Acosta indicate staff has budgeted for that. Mr. Tarvet also wanted to reexamine the Fair Board issues. He did not feel the Liaison Committee was doing anything. Mr. Tarvet also referred to the In-lieu Park Fee Committee formed by the Park and Recreation Commission. He did not like the makeup of the committee being one developer, one Chamber member, and one Economic Development Advisory Committee member, because no citizens were included. He felt the point of view was biased. He believed the in-lieu park fee was an important issue for people who live in the community. Ms. Acosta indicated this ad hoe committee was focussed to review the appraisal process. We want to make sure everyone is clear on how the process works and what the best approach to figuring out land value is. Ms. Michelotti indicated there were also two Park and Recreation Commissioners on the committee. She did not understand the problem. These are people with the most expertise in the area. 8. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR 07/09/96 -44-