HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06032003 - D5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Silvano B, Marchesi, County Counsel ' Costa
DATE: .lune 3, 2003
SUBJECT: Urban Limit line Ballot Proposal U County
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Direct staff to prepare a draft initiative for submittal to the voters at the March 2, 2004
election, which would prohibit modification of the Urban Limit Line outward without voter
approval.
2. Direct staff to explore means by which the initiative could be made binding on the cities and
on LAFCO, including legislation.
3. Establish an ad hoc committee, consisting of Supervisors DeSaulnier and Clover, to
oversee the preparation of the above documents and to present drafts to the Board of
Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
At its muting of May 13, 2003, during its discussion of the Shaping Our Future Summit, the Board
of Supervisors requested information regarding the options and mechanisms for strengthening the
existing Urban Limit Line.
The Board may sponsor an initiative for inclusion in the March 2, 2004 primary election. We have
been advised that a ballot measure should be submitted to the County Clerk by November 18,
2003, and that the cost of presenting it in the primary election is minimal. If, on the other hand, a
special election were needed, the cost to the County probably would exceed $2 million.
We are also advised that, when an initiative is presented by petition, currently the cost is divided: all
the costs of obtaining signatures and processing it to the Board of Supervisors are borne by the
proponents. Once the Board decides to include a measure on the ballot, all the costs through the
election are borne by the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE-
---------- -- - ------- -- — -----..---_._-----��f�ct� __
---------------------- --------- - .� _ .._
_, �3 COMMENDATION OF COUNTYADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
M �'APPRC?VI�� OTHER
A-
SIGNATURE S : f �
ACTION OF 1394ON June 3, 2003 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
i
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
} AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
DISTRICT III SEAT VACANT ATTESTED June 3, 2003
CONTACT: Silvano Marchesi(335-1810) JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTYADMINISTRATOR
CC: County Administrator
Community Development Department
BY Z441r""r DEPUTY
AAULL Bd Mem--.,Vd
As indicated earlier, the Urban Limit Line is binding on the County in accordance with the existing
ordinance (Ord. Code, chap. 82-1). However, it does not prevent a city from submitting an application for
annexation or amendment of a sphere of influence outside the Urban Limit Line, and it does not prevent
LAFCO from approving such an annexation or sphere amendment. LAFCO currently has a policy by
which it generally denies annexations ,and sphere of influence amendments outside the Urban Limit Line
unless the proponent presents evidence demonstrating that the need for the annexation or sphere
amendment compellingly outweighs the public interest in limiting growth to areas within the Urban Limit
Line.
It is likely that legislation would be needed to ensure that the Urban Limit Line could not be undermined
by a LAFCO action approving an annexation, and placing the cost of processing a developer-initiated
ballot measure on the proponent. Further research is be needed for a determination of these issues.
At the Board's May 13, 2003 meeting, Board members expressed several potential directions to staff,
which the Board may wish to consider at this time:
• Prepare a draft initiative for consideration by the Board for placement on the ballot for the March 2,
2004 election.
• The initiative would contain the following provisions:
• Prohibit modification of the Urban Limit Line outward without voter approval by majority vote.
• Exception for minor modifications (e.g., fewer than 10 acres in area).
• Explore methods for ensuring that a ballot measure proposed by a property owner to modify the
Urban Limit Line outward does not result in County expense.
• Explore strategies for making a voter-approved Urban Limit Line initiative legally binding on the cities
of the County and on LAFCO, including legislation.
The Board also indicated its intent to work with the cities on this matter and to establish an ad hoc
committee consisting of Supervisors DeSaulnier and Glover to direct and oversee the preparation and
processing of the draft initiative and any necessary draft legislation for presentation to the Board of
Supervisors.