Milpitas, California, Extension of Expiring Urban Grown Boundary, Measure I (November 2016)
| Measure I: Milpitas Extension of Expiring Urban Grown Boundary |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local zoning, land use and development |
| Related articles |
| Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Santa Clara County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Milpitas, California |
A measure to extend an expiring Urban Growth Boundary restriction was on the ballot for Milpitas voters in Santa Clara County, California, on November 8, 2016. The measure was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending an expiring Urban Growth Boundary near the base of the Milpitas foothills until December 31, 2038, limiting development within Milpitas to the valley floor and the base of the foothills. |
| A no vote was a vote against this proposal to extend an expiring Urban Growth Boundary near the base of the Milpitas foothills until December 31, 2038, limiting development within Milpitas to the valley floor and the base of the foothills. |
Election results
| Measure I | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 14,811 | 72.77% | ||
| No | 5,542 | 27.23% | ||
- Election results from Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall an ordinance that amends the Milpitas General Plan Land Use Element to extend until December 31, 2038 an Urban Growth Boundary near the base of the Milpitas foothills, that would limit development within Milpitas to the valley floor and the base of the foothills by prohibiting Milpitas from providing city services to new land use developments in the hillside area, be adopted? [2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Milpitas City Attorney:
| “ |
The City of Milpitas General Plan governs the direction of future land use and development within the City of Milpitas. The General Plan Land Use Element, Section 2.6, Land Use Implementing Policies 2.a I-2.1 and 2.a I-2.2 prohibit the construction or provision of any City service or City service extension to any property or people in the area located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and outside of the City of Milpitas city limits, except under limited circumstances listed in Policy 2.a I-2.1, and require the City to take necessary actions to apply to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission to relocate the City's Urban Service Area boundary to be coterminous with the City's Urban Growth Boundary. On November 3, 1998, a majority of the eligible voters voting on the ballot measure approved Ordinance No. 38.742 to, among other things, amend the City of Milpitas General Plan Land Use Element, Section 2.6, Policy No. 2.a I-2.1 to provide that, until December 31, 2018, any amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary require voter approval except under limited circumstances provided in Policy No. 2.a I-2.1, and to add Policy No. 2.a I-2.2. On June 22, 2016, the Milpitas City Council approved the placement of Measure I on the ballot for consideration by the voters. If approved, Measure I would amend the Milpitas General Plan as follows: • Policy No. 2.a I-2.1 would be amended to provide that, until December 31, 2038, any amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary would require voter approval except under limited circumstances provided in Policy No. 2.a I-2.1. • Repeal Policy No. 2.a I-2.2. If Measure I is not approved, the current General Plan provision requiring that any amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary be subject to voter approval would expire on December 31, 2018. After December 31, 2018, the Urban Growth Boundary may be amended at any time by the City Council or the voters by initiative measure. Measure I requires simple majority approval of the voters to pass.[2] |
” |
| —Milpitas City Attorney[3] | ||
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Carmen Montano, Vice Mayor
- Marsha Grilli, Councilmember
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
A Yes vote on Measure I, the Milpitas Urban Growth Boundary, will continue to protect the hillsides and allow Milpitas citizens to determine the future on hillside development. In 1998, Milpitas citizens voted to adopt the Milpitas Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) limiting urban expansion into the hills. A Yes vote will continue the UGB and protect the hillsides in two ways: (1) it will place another 20-year freeze on annexation of Santa Clara County lands into the City, and (2) it will maintain a line that designates the limits of urban growth into the hills by restricting extension of City services beyond that Boundary. Without the UGB, Milpitas residents must subsidize costly City services required by hillside development such as police and fire protection, streets, sewer lines, storm drains, and waterlines as well as their ongoing repairs and maintenance. A Yes vote will continue to protect Milpitas hillsides from overdevelopment for another 20 years and avoid costly taxpayer funding to improve and replace water lines, sewer lines and roads estimated in the millions of dollars. There are three verified earthquake faults in the hillsides making any future development and the infrastructure to support that development prone to destruction should an earthquake occur. Rebuilding of this infrastructure as well as providing additional police and fire services will add to the tax payer burden. Adopting the UGB won't take the property rights of hillside landowners. They can still develop at very low densities balancing their property rights with the rights of Milpitas citizens to protect the hillsides and maintain our quality of life. The Urban Growth Boundary costs Milpitas taxpayers absolutely nothing and prevents further subsidies. Vote Yes on Measure I![2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Richard Ruth, Resident, Retired
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
Zoning laws have been in the judicial system for over 100 years. Throughout zoning history, amendments, clarifications and rewrites have been made because of issues such as undue hardship, practical difficulties, special conditions, spirit of the law, service to public interest. Even variances are allowed to permit more profitable use, effect of adjacent uses, effect of size, shape and grade of a lot or the existence of natural resources unusable because of zoning restrictions or changes when the zoning law is ambiguous. For most of those 100 years applicants have been able to work with professional zoning and planning public officials to change or modify a zoning law directly. This is helpful because the effects of any change can be balanced against public interest and is not costly to the city or the applicant. But what this ordinance does is drive the cost of modification up substantially and takes the outcome out of the hands of the professional. The applicant now has to gather signatures and form a proposal for a ballot measure then the city has to schedule the ballot election and pay the election cost, which in Milpitas can be upwards of $100,000. It takes away from the applicant any opportunity to get relief by putting the solution to a zoning problem in the hands of a non-professional public determination. In the event of a negative result at the ballot box the applicant loses valuable time and money and is obliged to try again. It is not a fair and equitable to modify a zoning law for a hillside property denying city services that no other property owner in Milpitas is subject to therefore a "NO" vote is required If this ordinance is approved by the voters it will be effective for 22 years.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Milpitas, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Milpitas Local zoning, land use and development. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Santa Clara County, "List of Local Measures Presidential General Election November 8, 2016," accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Santa Clara County, "E110-Measure I," accessed October 21, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
