CCMIN080796 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Mohr indicated there was discussion at the ABAG regional planning meeting she attended that suggested that if cities adopted urban limit lines, then as the state population grows, there would be more pressure for new communities such as Mountain House to be formed. Mr. Weinberger indicated there is a wide range of complex impacts and effects from all land use decisions. Mountain House was formed long before many of these decisions had been made. With the economy of California, it is possible that there are numerous factors that affect development patterns. Ms. Michelotti indicated the Napa case involved a citizen sponsored initiative rather than a Council sponsored initiative. She asked if there were cases involving Council sponsored initiatives and would that make a difference in the court decision. Mr. Weinberger replied that cases testing the validity of land use initiatives have all been citizen sponsored initiatives. There have been no cases directly on the question of the validity of council sponsored initiatives. However, the Elections Cede specifically authorizes City Councils to place matters on the ballot. The question might be, does the voter approval provisions apply to a Council sponsored initiative. He felt the courts would say it does apply. The act of the voters in validating a Council decision is the equivalent of having a petition brought through the Council and adopted by the electorate. In both cases, the court would probably agree the voter approval provisions are effective. Ms. Michelotti asked what the effect would be if the ballot question were in two parts: would you approve an urban growth boundary or housing cap and would you like to vote on changes in the future. Mr. Weinberger indicated Council has adopted the housing cap and the urban growth boundary and those issues are part of the General Plan. The action of the voters in reaffirming is simply an extra validation of the Council action. Mr. Roush felt the reaffirmation portion could be taken out of the ballot question or simply asked as an advisory measure, since it is already part of the General Plan. Mr. Weinberger's recommendation is that it is a safer approach to combine the question rather than separate them. Mr. Tarver said there could be a situation where there is a General Plan with a 29,000 unit buildout and the voters don't want that number. They are also asking to change it. Council then has to decide how to deal with the vote. Ms. Michelotti asked if you can go to the people and ask if they want to vote on an item in the future. Is that a legislative action? 08/07/96 4