HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05042004 - SD.3 ............ .............................
RA
CONT
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COSTA
FROM: Jaen Sweeten, County Administrator � COUNTY
DATE: I'Vlay 4, 2004
SUBJECT: Oppose SB 1266 (Torlakson)—Mandatory Annexations
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDAT10NtS3:
OPPOSE SB 1266 (Torlakson) which would establish new criteria for mandatary LAFCO approval of city
annexation requests, thus contravening the County's voter-approved urban. Limit Line, as recommended by the
Community Development Department Director and the County Administrator
BAC1lCGROUNMM,A_SON(S)FOR RECOMI MENDATION(S)
'rhe Board of Supervisors 2004 State Legislative Platform includes the following policy position'.
SUPPORT efforts to promote economic incentives.for "Smart Growth, " including infill and transit-
oriented development.
SB 1266 (Tortakson) is not consistent with this overall policy to encourage smart growth. It is also contrary to
the purpose of-Measure C-1990: the 65/35 Centra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance.
State lave currently requires LAFCOs to approve city annexations if the unincorporated territory meets certain
conditions, including being `substantially surrounded." by the annexing city, the annexing city and a county
boundary; or the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean. Current law doesn't apply to a similar situation where the
unincorporated territory is substantially surrounded by the annexing city and another city. Also, current law does
not define"substantially surrounded."
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
... �,
" i
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENO ON OF BO#RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE —OTHER #
r
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON MAY 4. 2004 _ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X'
Voted unanimously to support Senate Bill 1266 (Torlakson) if it is amended as outlined in the
letter dated My 4, 2004 from Senator Tom Torlakson, and amended as proposer! by Senator Tom
Torlakson on February 13, 2004.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NCNE I TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT- ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact;Sara Hohn,335-1480
ATTESTED 4,, 2QLA _ -
cc. CAC? JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
Coawnunity Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LAFCO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
State Lobbyist(via CAO) a`
CSAC(via CAO)
UCC(via CAO) Z.,'a`�
BACKGROUND/RKASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONOSI:
Senate Bill 11466 changes the mandatory city annexation provisions in six ways:
(1) Recognizes the situation where unincorporated territory is surrounded by the annexing city and
another city.
(2) Requires that at least 51% of the exterior boundary of the unincorporated territory must be
surrounded by the annexing city, other cities, county boundaries, or the Pacific Ocean unless LAFCO
1 9
adopts a different definition for"substantially surrounded."
(3) Expands the current, unspecific requirement that the territory be"developed or developing" to include
"designated for urban growth by the city's general plan."
(4) Requires that sewers, fire protection, streets, and domestic water must be available from either the
city or special districts.
(5) Imposes a 1,000-acre limit.
(6)Does not permit annexation of territory within the sphere of influence of another city,
Senate Bill 1266 would undermine the Contra Costa County voter-approved Urban Limit Line(ULL)1, designed
to ensure preservation of identified non-urban land uses, such agricultural, open space and other related lands, by
establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the County's General
Plan and to facilitate enforcement of Measure Cs mandated land preservation standard of retaining 65 percent of
the County's land area for non-urban uses. SB 1266 is legislation specifically drafted to facilitate the
development of 800 acres of agricultural land into residential use by mandating that LAFCO annex this
unincorporated area into the City of Brentwood.
In 2000, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors modified the boundary of the Urban Limit Line (ULL)
placing this 800-acre land area, along with approximately 15,000 acres elsewhere in the County, outside the
ULL. The Board of Supervisors actions were unanimously reached after extensive study and environmental
review and lengthy public hearings before the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. In I I
hours of testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County residents strongly advocated for the ULL boundary
changes, including those in the location that would be affected by SB 1266, The cities of Brentwood and San
Ramon and several property interests unsuccessfully sued in an effort to invalidate the changes. The plaintiffs
were unsuccessful in the Superior Court, and while the cities did not pursue an appeal, the private property
interests who did appeal were unable to convince the appellate court to overturn the trial court decision.
Since the City of Brentwood and the property interests have been unable to reverse the Board of Supervisors
action in the courts, or to persuade Contra Costa LAFCO to repeal its own policy to honor the ULL, it appears
they are now seeking state legislation to fundamentally alter the mandatory annexation process for
unincorporated land. SB 1.266 is tailor-made to fit their specific interest to facilitate urban development on land
that the County General Plan identifies and designates for non-urban agricultural use. Passage of SB, 1266 would
likely set into motion the rapid annexation by other cities of similar land area that the Contra Costa County
General Plan identifies and designates for non-urban use. SB 1266 would usurp the County's legitimate interest
and responsibility for land use planning in unincorporated areas, which are intended for rural agricultural use, and
would instead promote urban sprawl by establishing a statutory preference for growth policies of a city General
Plan under the mandatory annexation process,
The following are specific objections to SB 1266:
1. Existing law relating to mandatory annexation requires the unincorporated territory to be "developed or
developing". It is claimed that this term is not well defined or unspecific. SB 1266 would direct LAFCO
to rely on a city:s General Plan designation for an unincorporated area where it is identified for urban
growth. This would preclude LAFCO from considering the county's adopted General Plan policies that
designate the land area in question for a non-urban use. This change would fundamentally alter the land
use planning relationship between a city and a county by giving primacy to a city's General Plan.
The existing term "developed or developing" is clearly intended to apply mandatory annexation to a
situation where the land has either developed or is developing. It was also intended to apply to situations
where there is an island of unincorporated area surrounded by city territory, and where urban services to
this island could be provided by a city. SB 1266 would expand and extend the mandatory annexation
process to unincorporated land area that a City has targeted for urban growth regardless of the County's
land use policies to retain non-urban uses for such land.
By expanding the"developed or developing" criteria to include area designated for urban growth under a
city General Plan, SB 1266 would potentially open thousands of acres of agricultural land in Contra
Measure C- 1990: the 65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance
2
Costa County to urban development. This legislation has the very real potential to set in motion the type
of sprawling urban development pattern that the reforms ender the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reform Act intended to curb.
2. The proposed legislation would set a 1,000-acre limit for the size of a mandatory annexation. However,
there is no provision in SB 1266 to prevent a series of linked or related mandatory annexations that could
total several thousand acres.
3. The cumulative impacts of a city initiated mandatory annexation decision at LAFCO, as proposed under
SB 1266, are potentially quite significant. Yet, as presently drafted, SB 1266 would potentially
circumvent the CEQA process which requires the disclosure of such information related to cumulative
impacts of a project prior to LAFCO making the decision. If a county were to consider an amendment to
its General Plan to re-designate land in the unincorporated area from an agricultural use to an urban use,
the county would have to comply with CEQA requirements to disclose the potential cumulative impacts
of such a decision. Cities should be held to the same standard on city initiated annexations.
4. Nkly establish a specific percentage standard or threshold to initiate a mandatory annexation? It is unclear
what problem the proposed threshold of 51% is attempting to address. Current law leaves it to the local
LAFCO to apply the statutory standard (ie., "substantially surrounded") based on local conditions and
circumstances. It is claimed that the term "substantially surrounded" is not well defined and does not
provide LAFCOs with proper guidance. Yet, no evidence has been cited of an actual problem where local
LAFCOs are arbitrarily and capriciously setting a standard or threshold for substantially surrounded.
Scuri v. Board of Supervisors [1982] 1.34 Cal. App. 3d 400, 407, is cited as an example of but in that
case the court noted the three affected parcels were 79.8%, 82.4%, and 89.13% surrounded by a city. In
this example the local LAFCO applied a reasonable and rationale range of 70-90% for the standard
relating to substantially surrounded. Furthermore, LAFCOs typically review multiple issues when
considering an annexation. This focus on percentage surrounded gives precedence to one of many
factors in a decision that, rightly, should be judged based on the particularities of each individual
annexation request.
5. The voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, the 1/2¢ sales tax measure, as part of a
comprehensive effort to control sprawl, reduce congestion and improve the quality of life. The Urban
Limit Zine is integral to that effort, and SB 1266 would violate that agreement, It would also jeopardize
efforts to reauthorize Measure C.
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 15, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2004
SENATE BILL No. 1266
Introduced by Senator Torlakson
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Maze)
February 13, 2004
An act to amend Seetieft 5637-5 Sections 56375 and 56375.3 of the
Government Code, relating to annexation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1266, as amended, Torlakson. Annexation.
Imide
(1) Under existing law, the local agency formation commission in
each county has specified powers and duties concerning the review and
approval and disapproval of proposals for changes of organization or
reorganization of cities and districts within the county. However, a
commission may not disapprove an annexation of contiguous territory
to a city initiated by resolution of the city governing body if the
commission finds that the territory meets any of a number of specified
conditions. One of these conditions is that the territory is surrounded or
substantially surrounded by the city or by the city and a county
boundary or the Pacific Ocean, is substantially developed or
developing, is not prime agricultural land, as defined, is designated for
urban,growth by the general plan of the city,and is not within the sphere
of influence of another city.
This bill would revise that condition under which the commission
may not disapprove the annexation to specify that: (4 (a) not less than
51 percent of the exterior boundary of the territory to be annexed is
97
' 1
Sly 1266 —2—
surrounded
-2----
surrounded by the annexing city,by that city and a county boundary or
the Pacific Ocean, or that city and another city, �2) unless the
commission adopts a different definition for "substantially
surrounded, " (b) the territory is either developed or designated for
urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city, (4) (c) sewer
service, structural fire protection service, streets and roads, and
domestic water service will be available upon annexation, and{+, (d)
the territory does not exceed 1,000 acres.
(2) Existing law requires the commission to approve island
annexations that meet certain requirements. One of those requirements
is that if it does not exceed 75 acres in area that area constitutes the
entire island, and that island does not constitute a part of an
unincorporated area that is more than 100 acres in area.
This bill would change the 75-acre requirement to 100 acres. The bill
would also require that when the territory proposed to be annexed is
substantially surrounded by a city and another city, the city that
initiated the proposal, prior to submitting the application to the
commission, shall notify the other city of its intention to initiate the
annexation proposal and would specify the contents and requirements
of that notification. The bill would also require the commission to
consider the effect of the proposal on any urban limit. The bill would
permit the commission to disapprove the proposal for annexation if the
other city objects in writing.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 56375 of the Government Code is
2 amended to read:
3 56375. The commission shall have all of the following
4 powers and duties subject to any limitations upon its jurisdiction
5 set forth in this part:
6 (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or without
7 amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for
8 changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with written
9 policies, procedures, and guidelines adopted by the commission.
10 The commission may initiate proposals for (1) consolidation of
I 1 districts, as defined in Section 56036, (2) dissolution, (3)merger,
12 or (4) establishment of a subsidiary district, or a reorganization
97
-3— SB 1.266
1 that includes any of these changes of organization. A commission
2 shall have the authority to initiate only a (1) consolidation of
3 districts, (2) dissolution, (3) merger, (4) establishment of a
4 subsidiary district, or (5) a reorganization that includes any of
5 these changes of organization, if that change of organization or
6 reorganization is consistent with a recommendation or conclusion
7 of a study prepared pursuant to Section. 56378, 56425, or 56430
8 and the commission makes the determinations specified in
9 subdivision (b) of Section 56881. However, a commission shall
10 not have the power to disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated
1 I by resolution,of contiguous territory that the commission finds is
12 any of the following:
13 (1) The territory to be annexed meets all of the following
14 criteria:
15
16
17 (A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to
18 which the annexation is proposed, by that city and a county
19 boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or that city and another city. In the
20 absence of a standard adopted by a commission, as used in this
21 paragraph, "substantially surrounded"means that not less than
22 SI percent of the exterior boundary of the territory proposed to be
23 annexed is surrounded by the city to ,hich the annexation is
24 proposed, l?y that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean,
25 or that city and another city. Nothing in this section shall preclude
26 a commission from adopting a higher standard that defines
27 "substantially surrounded.
28 (B) Is substantially developed, developing, or is designated for
29 urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city.
30 (C) Sewer service, structural fire protection service, streets and
31 reads, and domestic water service will be available to the affected
32 territory upon annexation from either the annexing city or special
33 districts.
34 (D) Is not prime agricultural land,as defined by Section 56064.
35 (F) Does not exceed 1,000 acres.
36 (F) Is not within the sphere of influence of another city.
37 (2) The territory to be annexed is located within an urban
38 service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission,
39 is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is
97
I
SB 1266 —4-
1
--4-
1 designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing
2 city.
3 (3) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands
4 meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.
5 In the situation where the affected territory is surrounded or
6 substantially surrounded by a city and another city, the city that
7 initiated the proposal shall,prior to submitting the application to
8 the commission, notify the other city regarding its intention to
9 initiate the proposal to annex the territory. The city's notice to the
10 other city shall describe in as much detail as is feasible the effects
11 of the proposal on traffic, school populations, agriculture and
12 open-space lands, land use policies, spheres of influence, urban
13 limit lines, economic development, and affordable housing. The
14 city's notice:shall also invite the comments of the other city.As soon
15 as the executive of issues a certificate of filing for that
16 proposal pursuant to Section 56658, the executive officer shall
17 promptly convene a meeting with the representatives of the city that
18 initiated the proposal, the other city, the county, and any affected
19 districts to discuss any issues related to the proposal.
20 Notwithstanding Section 56663, the commission shall give the
21 notices and conduct the hearing pursuant to Chapter 1
22 (commencing with :Section 566-50) of fart 3. At the hearing, in
23 addition to the other factors to be considered pursuant to Section
24 56668, the commission shall consider the effect of the proposal on
25 any urban limit line. Notwithstanding any other provision of'this
26 section, the commission may disapprove that proposal for
27 annexation to the city if the other city objects in writing.
28 As a condition to the annexation of an area that is surrounded,
29 or substantially surrounded,by the city to which the annexation is
30 proposed, the commission may require, where consistent with the
31 purposes of this division, that the annexation include the entire
32 island of surrounded, or substantially surrounded, territory.
33 A commission shall not impose any conditions that would
34 directly regulate land use density or intensity, property
35 development, or subdivision requirements. When the
36 development purposes are not made known to the annexing city,
37 the annexation shall be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans
38 and policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shall
39 require, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone the
40 territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory- to the
97
-5— SB 1266
1 commission that the existing development entitlements on the
2 territory are vested or are already at buildout, and are consistent
3 with the city's general plan. However, the commission shall not
4 specify how, or in what manner, the territory shall be prezoned.
5 The decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex
6 territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and
7 prezoning of the city.
8 (b) With regard to a proposal for annexation or detachment of
9 territory to, or from, a city or district or with regard to a proposal
10 for reorganization that includes annexation or detachment, to
1.1 determine whether territory proposed for annexation or
12 detachment, as described in its resolution approving the
13 annexation, detachment, or reorganization, is inhabited or
14 uninhabited.
15 (c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of two or more
16 cities or districts, to determine which city or district shall be the
17 consolidated, successor city or district.
18 (d) To approve the annexation of unincorporated,
1.9 noncontiguous territory, subject to the limitations of Section
20 56742, located in the same county as that in which the city is
21 located, and that is owned by a city and used for municipal
22 purposes and to authorize the annexation of the territory without
23 notice and hearing.
24 (e) To approve the annexation of unincorporated territory
25 consistent with the planned and probable use of the property based
26 upon the review of general plan and prezoning designations. No
27 subsequent change may be made to the general plan for the
28 annexed territory or zoning that is not in conformance to the
29 prezoning designations for a period of two years after the
30 completion of the annexation, unless the legislative body for the
31 city males a finding at a public hearing that a substantial change
32 has occurred in circumstances that necessitate a departure from the
33 prezoning in the application to the commission.
34 (f) With respect to the incorporation of a new city or the
35 formation of a new special district, to determine the number of
36 registered voters residing within the proposed city or special
37 district or, for a landowner-voter special district, the number of
38 owners of land and the assessed value of their land within the
39 territory proposed to be included in the new special district. The
40 number of registered voters shall be calculated as of the time of the
97
i
SB 1266 —6-
1
6---
1 last report of voter registration by the county elections official to
2 the Secretary of State prior to the date the first signature was
3 affixed to the petition. The executive officer shall notify the
4 petitioners of the number of registered voters resulting from this
5 calculation.. The assessed value of the land within the territory
6 proposed to be included in a new landowner-voter special district
7 shall be calculated as shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
8 (g) To adopt written.procedures for the evaluation of proposals,
9 including written definitions not inconsistent with existing state
10 law. The commission may adapt standards for any of the factors
ll enumerated in Section 56668. Any standards adapted by the
12 commission shall be written.
13 (h) To adopt standards and procedures for the evaluation of
14 service plans submitted pursuant to Section 56653 and the
15 initiation of a change of organization or reorganization pursuant
16 to subdivision(a).
17 (i) To make and enforce regulations for the orderly and fair
18 conduct of hearings by the commission.
19 0) To incur usual and necessary expenses for the
20 accomplishment of its functions.
21 (k) To appoint and assign staff personnel and to employ or
22 contract for professional or consulting services to carry out and
23 effect the functions of the commission..
24 (1) To review the boundaries of the territory involved in any
25 proposal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of those
26 boundaries, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with
27 lines of assessment or ownership, and other similar matters
28 affecting the proposed boundaries.
29 (in) To waive the restrictions of Section 56744 if it finds that
30 the application of the restrictions would be detrimental to the
31 orderly development of the community and that the area that
32 would be enclosed by the annexation or incorporation is so located
33 that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or
34 incorporated as a new city.
35 (n) To waive the application of Section 25210.90 or Section
36 22613 of the Streets and Highways Code if it finds the application
37 would deprive an area of a service needed to ensure the health,
38 safety,or welfare of the residents of the area and if it finds that the
39 waiver would not affect the ability of a city to provide any service.
40 However, within 60 days of the inclusion of the territory within the
97
-7— SB 1266
1 city, the legislative body may adopt a resolution nullifying the
2 waiver.
3 (o) If the proposal includes the incorporation of a city, as
4 defined in Section 56043, or the formation of a district, as defined
5 in Section 2215 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the
6 commission shall determine the property tax revenue to be
7 exchanged by the affected local agencies pursuant to Section
8 56810.
9 (p) To authorize a city or district to provide new or extended
10 services outside its jurisdictional boundaries pursuant to Section
11 56133.
12 (q) To enter into an agreement with the commission for an
13 adjoining county for the purpose of determining procedures for the
14 consideration of proposals that may affect the adjoining;county or
15 where the jurisdiction of an affected agency crosses the boundary
16 of the adjoining county.
17 S C Z. Section 56375.3 oj'the Government Fade is amended
18 to read:
19 56375.3. (a) In addition to those powers enumerated in
20 Section 56375, a commission shall do either of the following:
21 (1) Approve, after notice and hearing, the annexation to a city,
22 and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing
23 with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following; are true:
24 (A) The annexation is initiated on or after January 1, 2000,anti
25 before January 1, 2007.
26 (B) The annexation is proposed by resolution adopted by the
27 affected city.
28 (C) The commission finds that the territory contained in the
29 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
30 subdivision (b).
31 (2) Approve, after notice and hearing, the annexation to a city,
32 subject to subdivision(a)of Section 57080, if all of the following
33 are true:
34 (A) The annexation is initiated on or after January 1, 2007.
35 (B) The annexation. is proposed by resolution adopted by the
36 affected city.
37 (C) The commission. finds that the territory contained in the
38 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
39 subdivision (b).
97
i
SB 1266 —8-
1
8-
1 (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all of the
2 following requirements:
3 (1) It does not exceed=7-S 100 acres in area,that area constitutes
4 the entire island, and that island does not constitute a part of an
5 unincorporated area that is more than 100 acres in area.
6 (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island
3 located within the limits of a city, or constitutes a reorganization
8 containing a number of individual unincorporated islands.
9 (3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
10 (A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to
I I which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary
12 or the Pacific Ocean.
13 (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed
14 and adjacent cities.
15 (C) This subdivision shall not be construed to apply to any
16 unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community
17 where services are currently provided by a community services
18 district.
19 (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at the option
20 of either the city or the county, a separate property tax transfer
21 agreement may be agreed to between a city and a county pursuant
22 to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code regarding an
23 annexation subject to this subdivision without affecting any
24 existing master tax sharing a&geement between the city and county.
25 (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding
26 required by this subparagraph shall be based upon one or more
27 factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
28 (A) The availability of public utility services.
29 (B) The presence of public improvements.
30 (C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or
31 parcels within the area.
32 (5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section
33 56064.
34 (6) It will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits
35 from the annexing city.
36 (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision,
37 this subdivision shall not apply to all or any part of that portion of
38 the development project area referenced in subdivision (e) of
39 Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Mode that as of January
40 1, 2000,meets all of the following requirements:
97
-9— SB 12661
1 (1) Is unincorporated territory.
2 (2) Contains at least 100 acres.
3 (3) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by incorporated
4 territory.
5 (4) Contains at least 100 acres zoned for commercial or
6 industrial uses or is designated on the applicable county general
7 plan for commercial or industrial uses.
8 SEC. 3. In enacting Section I of this act to amend Section
9 56375 of the Government Code, the Legislaturefands and declarer
10 that there is no change to the requirement in Section 56375.5 that
II requires changes of organization or reorganizations to be
12 consistent with the spheres of influence of the local agencies
13 affected by those proposals, and no changes to the requirements of
14 the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
15 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
0
97
S$ 1266 Assembly Bill - Status Page 1 of 1
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 1-266
AUTHOR(S) . Torlakson (Coauthor: Assembly Member Maze) .
TOPIC . Annexation..
HOUSE LOCATION SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE 04/15/2004
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Nor.-State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Fiscal
Non-Tax Lewy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/15/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION From committee with author's amendments. Read second
time. Amended. Re-referred to committee.
COMM. LOCATION SEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HEARING DATE 05/05/2004
TITLE An act to amend Sections 56375 and 56375.3 of the
Government Code, relating to annexation.
http://www.leginfo.ca. ov/pub/bill/sen/sb 1251-1300/sb 1266 bili 20040423 status.htini 4/28/04
AMENDMENTS To SENATE BILL 1266 Cvy�e. r A
AS AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 15, 2004
Amendment 1
On page 4, line 8, after "city" insert:
and the county
Amendment 2
On page 4, line 10, after "city„ insert:
and the county
Amendment 3
On page 4, lines 12 and 13, strike out "limit lines, " and
insert:
growth boundaries
Amendment 4
Can page 4, line 14, strike out "city. As soon" strike out
lines 15 to 19, inclusive, and insert:
city and the county. Upon submission of the proposal to the
executive officer, the executive officer shall convene a meeting
to discuss any issues related to the proposal and shall invite
representatives of the city that initiated the proposal, the
other city, the county, and any affected districts. This
meeting shall take place no later than 21 days subsequent to the
submission of the proposal to the executive officer. The
executive officer shall not issue a certificate of filing
pursuant to Section 56658 prior to this meeting.
Amendment 5
on page 4, line 25, strike out "limit line. " and insert:
growth boundary.
Amendment 6
On page 4, line 27, after the period, insert:
2
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
commission shall not approve more than one annexation of
affected territory that is surrounded or substantially
surrounded by a city and another city. For the purposes of this
section, territory shall not be deemed to be surrounded or
substantially surrounded by a city and another city because of a
previous annexation of territory that was surrounded or
substantially surrounded by a city and another city and that was
approved pursuant to this section.
Amendment 7
On page 8, line 3, strike out "100" and insert:
150
Amendment 8
On page 8, line 3, after the comma, insert:
and
Amendment 9
On page 8, strike out lines 4 and 5, and insert:
the entire island.
Amendment 10
On page 9, strike out lines 10 to 15, inclusive, and
insert:
that there is no change to:
(a) The requirement in Section 56375. 5 that requires
changes of organization or reorganizations to be consistent with
the spheres of influence of the local agencies affected by those
proposals.
(b) The requirements of the California Environment Quality
Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000 ) of the Public
Resources Code.
(c) The requirement of Section 99 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code that requires an exchange of property tax
revenues.
0 -
Senate Lotal Government Committee
April 27,2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIIL 29,2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 15,2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APIA:, 12,2404
SENATE BILL No. 1266
Introduced by Senator` orlakson
(Coauthor:Assembly Member Maze)
February 13,2004
An act to amend 56375.3 of the Government
Cade,relating to annexation.
r.Wrsr AME COUwsWs DIOESr
SE 1256, as amended, Torlakson.. Annexation.
(1) Under existing law, the local agency formation commission in
each county has specified powers and duties concerning the review and
approval and disapproval of proposals for changes of organization or
reorganization of cities and districts within the county. However, a
commission may not disapprove an annexation of contiguous territory
to a city initiated by resolution of the city governing 'body if the
commission finds that the territory meets any of a number of specified
conditions.One of these conditions is that the territory is sunuunded or
substantially surrounded by the city or by the city and a county
boundary or the Pacific Ocean, is substantially developed or
developing,is not prime agricultural laird,as defined,is designated for
urban growth by the general plan of city,and is not within the sphere
of influence of another city.
This bill would revise that condition under which the commission
may riot disapprove the annexation to specify that.(a)not less than 51
percent of the exterior boundary of the territory to be annexed is
9G
169<d 101tElf d £ZZ-1 88ZD ZZE 9t8 33111MOO 1N31N A00 1dOO1 LVN3S-01a
SB 1266 —2—
surrounded
---2--
surrounded by the annexing city,by that city and a county boundary or
the Pacific Ocean,or that city and another city,unless the commission
adopts a different definition for "substantially surrounded," (b) the
territory is either developed or designated for urban growth by the
general plan of the annexing city, (c) sewer service, structural fire
protection service,streets and roads,and domestic water service will be
available upon annexation,and(d)the territory does not exceed 1,000
acres.
(2) Existing law requires the commission to approve island
annexations that meet certain.requirements. One of those requirements
is that if;it does not exceed 75 acres in area that area constitutes the entire
island, and that island does not constitute a part of an unincorporated
area that is more than 100 acres in area.
This bill would change the 75-acre requitement to 400150 acres and
delete the moriction that the island does not constitute a part of an
unincorporated territory that is more than 100 acres in area. The bill
would also require that when the territory proposed to be annexed is
substantially surrounded by a city and another city,the city that initiated
the proposal, prior to submitting the application to the commission,
shall notify the other city of its intention to initiate the annexation
proposal and would specify the contents and requirements of that
notification.The bill would also require the commission to consider the
effect of the proposal on any urban-limit growth boundary. The bill
would permit the commission to disapprove the proposal for annexation
if the other city objects in writing.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Z ended to read:
3 5 The commission shall have all e following
4 powers an ` subject to any litni ' s upon its jurisdiction
5 set forth in this p s4-"ke_
6 (a) To review a or disapprove with or without
7 amendment, y, partially, o itionally, proposals for
8 chang organization or reorganization,c ' gent with written
9 les,procedures, and guidelines adopted by the ssion.
f
96
189-1 OIO/ZOO'd NZ-1 8820 US Vs 3311MA00 IMNUA00 1V001 31VN3S-WJJ ��t+5 8O YOOZ-�O-h�W
-3— SB 1266
2 0 (4) establishment of a subsidiary district, or a reorganiz " n
3 the ludes any of these changes of organization.A commi ion
4 steal ave the authority to initiate only a (1) consolida ' n of
5 distri (2) dissolution, (3) merge, (4) establislun t of a
6 subs%di district, or (5) a reorganization that incl any of
7 these c ges of organization, if that change of org tion or
8 reorganize n is consistent with a recommendation conclusion
9 of a'study p pared pursuant to Section 56378, 5 25, or 56430
10 and time co ssion makes the deterrninatio specified in
11 subdivision (b) f Section-568'81. However, a ommission shall
12 not have the pow to disapprove an annexa to a city,initiated.
13 by resolution,of tiguous territory that commission finds is
14 any of the fallowing.
15 (1) The territory be annexed ets all of the following
16 criteria:
17 (A.) Surrounded or s stantiall surrounded by the city to
18 which the-amexatioze is epos , by that city and a county
19 boundary or the Pacific Oce that city and another city.Ju the
20 absence of a standard adopte y a commission, as used in this
21 paragraphs, "substantially su ded"means that not less than..51
22 percent of the exterior bo dary the territory proposed to be
23 annexed is surrounded the ci to which the annexation is
24 proposed,by that city a county bo defy or the Pacific Ocean,
25 or that city and snot city.Nothing ' section shall preclude
26 a commission fro adapting a highs standard that defines
27 "substantially s ounded."
28 (13) Is subs lly developed,develonin or is designated for
29 urban growth y the general plan of the anise ing city.
30 (C) Sew service,structural fie protection ice,streets and
31 roads,and omestic water service:will be availab to the affected
32 territrary n annexation from either the anne city or special
33 district
34 (D s not prime agricultinal laud,as defined by 'on.56064.
35 (` Does not exceed 1,000 acres.
36 Is not within the sphere of influence of another c
37 2) The territory to be annexed is located within an an
38 ice srea that has been delineated and adopted by a cornrni on,
39
96
289-1 0[0/900'd eta-1 8820 229 ata 331iINN5 1NBANHAOS 1V301 31YO-Mij
SB 1266 —4—
U;
-4-.._
1
2 c
3 An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated isl
4 tnee ' g the requirements of Section 56375.3.
5 b a situation where the affected territory is surruu ed or
6 subst 'ally surrounded by a. city and another city, the ity that
7 initiated a proposal shall,prior to submitting the ap cation to
8 the co sion,notify the other city and the county r garding its
9 intention t initiate the proposal,to annex the terrrit The city's
10 notice to the Cher city and the county shall desc in as much
11 detail as is fe ible the effects of the proposal traffic, school
12 populations, ag 'culture and open-space lands and use policies,
13 spheres of infl nce, urban --mea- wth boundaries,
14 econornmuc develop ent,and affordable hou . g.The city's notice
15 shall also invite the ominents of the othems« _e�-as-tke
16
17
18
19
20 . city and the county,
21 Upon submission of the prop l to the executive officer, the �' ! Gl��
22 executive officer shall conven meeting to discuss any issues
23 related to the proposal and s 11i vite representatives of the city
24 that initiated the proposal, a of r city, the county, and any
25 affected districts. This me ting shal lte place no later than 21
26 days subsequent to the mission oft mensal to the executive
27 officer The executive icer shall not ' e a certificate offiling
28 pursuant to Section S t55S prior to this M , Notwithstand"usg
29 Section 56663,the . sign shall give th notices and conduct
30 the hearing pars t to Chapter 1 (coram e ing with Section
31 56650) of Part 3 At the hearing,in addition to a other factors to
32 be considered ursuant to Section 56668, the cremission shall
33 consider the ffect of the proposal on any urban ' . growth
34 boundary, otwithstanding any other provision of section,the
35 commis ' may disapprove that proposal for anne tion to the
36 city if a other city objects in writing.Notwithstand, any other
37 prov` ion of this section, the,cwminission shall not aper ve more
38 tha one annexation of affected territory tha; is surrou dor
39 si stantially surrounded by a city and another city. F the
40 , be
ss
169-� Ot MO'd 222-1 98ZO US 918 3311lWV100 1N3ANN3AO8 1VOOI 31VN3S_wOJd weks:aO 1tOOZ- -Keay
-5— SB 1266
1
2 b arse of`a previous annexation of tett itory that was surmund
3 or stantially surrounded by a city and another city and that as
4 app ved pursuant to this section.
5 As condition to the annexation of an area that is s'urrro ded,
6 or subs tially surrounded,by the city to which the ann tion is
7 proposed, a commission may require,where cdnsisto with the
8 purposes'o tlai.s division, that the annexation inclu "Ie entire
9 island of s ended, or substantially surrounded, 'tory.
10 A commis; n shall not impose any conditio that would
11 directly regula land use density or int ,that
12 development, o subdivision n quiremeWhen the
13 development purpo are net made known t alae annexing city.:
14 the dnnexation shall reviewed on the Basi_ of the adopted plans
15 and policies of the arm g city or conn A commission shall
16 require, as a condition annexation, , at a city prezone the
17 territory to be annexed o present ev' cc satisfactory to the
18 commission that the exis develo ent entitlements on the
19 territory are vested or are dy a. uildout, and are consistent .1 Owl-
20 with the city's general plan. w er, the commission shell not
21 specify how: or in what manner a territory shall be prezoned.
22 The decision of the comrnissi regard to a proposal to annex
23 territory to a city shall be ase upon the general plan and
24 prezoning of the city.
25 (b) With regard to;a p oral for exation or detachment of
26 territory to,or horn,a c' or district or ith regard to a proposal
27 for reorganization includes annexa n or detachment, to
28 determine whether territory proposed or annexation or
29 detachment, as scribed in its resole n approving the
30 annexation, de hrrnent, or reorganization, is inhabited or
31 unithabited.
32 (c) With r aid to a proposal for consolidation f two or more
33 cities or dis cts, to determine which city or distri shall be the
34 consolida successor city or district.
35 (d) T approve the annexation of uninc rated,
36 nonco crus territory, subject to for limitations of ection
37 567 , located in the carne county as that in which the ` is
38 low ed, and that is owned by a city and used for muni c al
39 p uses and to authorize the annexation of the territory witho
40
96
189-1 O101500'd HZZ-1 8HZ0 US US 3311lMOO 1NBANN3AOJ 1V001 31VN35-tuojd weV9,80 tr00Z-t'0-xap
5$ 1266 —6-
2
....6-
2 c sistent with the planned and probable use of the property bas
3 upo the review of general plan and prezoning designations "o
4 subse cent change may be made to the general plan f the
5 a=nnex territory or, zoning that is not in conformance o the
6 prezo ' design=ations for a period of two years er the
7 completi of the annexation,unless the legislative y for the
8 city makes funding at a public.hearing that a subs tial change
9 has occurr 'n circumstances that necessitate a dep from the
10 prezoning in a application to the com=missio=n.
11 (f) With res ect to the incorporation of a ew city or the
12 formation of a n special district, to det a the number of
13 registered voters siding within the prop ed city or special
14 district or, for a Ian owner-voter special strict, the number of
15 owners of land and a assessed value their land within the
16 territory proposed to b included in the ew special district. The
17 number of registered vot shall be ca ated as of the time of the
18 Iast report of voter regis 'on by county elections official to
19 the Secretary of State pri to tin da=te the first signature was
20 affixed to the petition. The x utive officer shall notify the
21 petitioners of the number of re stared voters resulting from this 7C , ....
22 calculation. The assessed va e f the land within the territory
23 proposed to be incl=uded in iewdowner:voter special district
24 shall be calculated as sho on the I t equalized assessment roll.
25 (g) To a=dopt written p ed.ures for evaluation of proposals,
26 including written del' ions n=ot ianco ' tent with existing state
27 law. The ccmrnissio ay adopt standa for any of the factors
28 enumerated. in Sec on 56668. Any star ds adopted by the
29 commission shall a written.
30 (h) To adopt opt
and procedures for e evaluation of
31 service plans u witted pursuant to Section 6653 and the
32 in=itiation of change of organization or reorgan' ion pursuant
33 to subdivis' n (a).
34 (i) To ake and enforce regulations for the order and fair
35 conduct fhearings by the commission.
36 6) o incur usual and necessary expenses f the
37 acco plishmcnt of its fannctions.
38 To appoint and assign staff''personnel and to emplo or
39 c tract for professional or consulting services to carry out
44 dlf�et the
96
i
185- Qftli9ti0 d EZZ-1 8820 ZZE Ole 331i1NA00 1NIN33A09 1Y001 31YN3s-+ojwe
3 55:E0 tiGOZ-VB-AeyY
..........................
........................................................ ...
-7— Sly 1266
1
2 csal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of se
3 bo daries, the nonconformance of proposed bouii ar' , 'th
4 lines f assessment or ownership, and other similar attters
5 affec the proposed boundaries.
6 (in) waive the restrictions of Section 56744 if finds that ` e ow--
7 the applic 'on of the restrictions would be de ental to the
8 orderly dev oprnennt of the community and t ° the area that
9 would be enc by the ati excation or ineorp u is so located
10 that it carrot reasonably be annexed t another city or
11 incorporated as a ew city.
12 (n) To waive theapplication of Seccti 25210.90 or Section
13 22613 of the Streets Highways Co if it finds the application
14 would deprive ars area f a service tided to ensure the health,
15 safety,or welfare of the dents o e area and if it finds that the
16 waiver would not affect the ili df a city to provide any service.
17 However,within 60 days of dr Iusion of the territory within the
18 city, the legislative body rn dopt a resolution nullifying the
19 waiver.
20 (o) If the proposal i hides th incorporation of a city, as
21 defined in Section 560 ,or the f on of district,as defined
22 in Section 2215 the revenue d Taxation Code, the
23 commission shat determine the prope tax revenue to be
24 exchanged by a affected local agencies ursuant to Section
25 56810.
26 (p) To a orae a city or district to provide w or extended
27 services o ide its jurisdictional boundaries purl t to Section
28 56133.
29 (q) o eroer into an agreement with the commis for an
30 adjo' i g county for the purpose of determining procedur forthe
31 co ideration.of proposals that may affect the adjoining co or
32 ere the jurisdiction of an affected agency crosses the brnm
33
34 -SEC—gr Section 56375.3 of"the Government Code is mended
35 to read: C+rlON 1,
36 56:375.3. (a) .1n addition to those powers enumerated in
37 Section 56375, a commission shall old either of the following:
38 (1) Approve,after notice and Dearing,the annexation to a city,
39 and'waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing
40 with Section 57000) entirely,if all of the following are true.
9s
I 1
183-1 010/1OO'd UN BUD ZZE M 3311M00 1N 'iMMOD 1V001 31MS-sojd HILISS-80 tOOZ-tQ-AIA
SB 1266 ..-. .._.
1 (A) The annexation is initiated on or after January 1,2000,and
2 before January 1,2007.
3 (B) The annexation is proposed by resolution adopted by the
4 affected city.
5 (C) The commission finds that the territory contained in the
6 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
7 subdivision (b).
8 (2) Approve, after notice and hearing,the annexation to a city,
9 subject to subdivision(a)of Section 57080,if all of the following
10 are true.
11 (A.) The annexation is initiated on or after.January 1, 2007.
12 (B) The annexation is proposed by resolution adopted by the
13 affected city.
14 (C) The commission finds that the territory contained in the
15 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
16 subdivision(b).
17 (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all of the
18 following requirements;
19 (1) it does not exceed -150 acres in area, and that area
210 constitute ,
31 pe&t-e se 1—gaind L 4i+'is tiet]1U }Z[Titi LTiH,if iKl
0 iteress
22 the entire island.
23 (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island.
24 located within the limits of a city, or constitutes a reorganization
25 containing a number of individual unincorporated islands.
25 (3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
27 (A) Suawtmded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to
28 which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary
29 or the pacific Ocean,
30 (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexations is proposed
31 and adjacent cities,
32 (C) This subdivision shall not be construed to apply to any
33 unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community
34 where services are currently provided by a community services
35 district
36 (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of taw, at the option
37 of either the city or the county, a separate property tax transfer
38 agreement may be agreed to between a city and a county pursuant
39 to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code regarding an
96
(rW M,n jt$ 0n
1B£-d Old/BSD"d £ZZ-1 96Z� Zt£ 91B 333.tiWWO� 1N�YNb3A09 1d�0'} 31�'N35-woad ��9£�BO �C1QZ-pC_xeW
-9— SB 1266
1 annexation subject to this subdivision without affecting any
2 existing master tax sharing agreement between the city and county.
3 (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding
4 required by this subparagraph shall be based upon one or more
5 factors,including,but not limited to,any of the followitig factors:
6 (A) The availability of public utility services.
7 (B) The presence of public improvements.
8 (C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or
9 parcels within the area.
10 (5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section
11 56064.
12 (6) It will benefit.from the annexation or is receiving benefits
13 from the annexing city.
14 (c) Notwithstanding any ether provision of this subdivision,
15 this subdivision shall not apply to all or any part of that portion of
16 the development project area referenced in. subdivision (e) of
17 Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Code that as of January
18 1,2000,meets all of the following requirements:
19 (1) Is unincorporated territory.
20 (2) Contains at least 100 acres.
21 (3) .Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by incorporated
22 territory.
23 (4) Contains at least 100 acres zoned for commercial or
24 industrial uses or is designated on the applicable county general
25 planfor commercial or industrial uses.
26
27 5;65A_9_ ofihe Government Code,the Legislature finds and ares
28 'Uh-0 I'm --eh Imse to the feqtt�emew jA ee-1-- - 45.5 that
29 erg&niftfieft be
30
31 tele PMr rem!
32 the 94ifftf 5 ke,
33
34 that there is no ch �ent
any of the faX
35 (a)insetzentuwi;
Section 56375.5 o Government
36 Code es changes of organization or reo tions to
37 be c' th the sphere,:of'inftuence of the Zocrxl its
38
9s
163-1 010t800'd NZ-d. 8820 US sis 33111MOO 1NMNS3A00 1Y001 31YN3S-waft a�33 80 1100���0.�telry
SH 1266
1
2 Ac7t(r�D—ITV isron ncing with Section 2100WPublic ,.
3 Resources Code.
(c) The o ectian 99 of fhe nd Taxation
5
d
96
E�
I
ass- oiaiata d €tZ—� esan aa€ eta 33111Wd'tflfl 1N lN�3A09 1Vflfl1 31dN3s-mo1� ass sa aaa— a-��
............
CAPITOL OFFICE DISTRICT OFFICE
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 5061 2801 CONCCRD BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814
y� y}-yy g� CONCORD.CA 945?9
TEL(916)445-6083 V-41ifarnia � atr Sron to TEL(925)602-6593
Fax(946)445-2527 j -j� +*li✓� Fax 1925)502-6598
JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER
SENATOR 420 WEST 3RD STREET
ANTIOCH'CA 94509
STANDING COMMITTEE -f� �r �A
OM 1 ORLA SON TEL(925)754-7464
LOCAL GOVER'Jt� NT [�. Fax(925)778-5174
CHAR SEVENTH SENATE DISTRICT WEST COUNTY SATELLITE OFFICE
SELECT COMMITTEE 1 1 f CIVIC DRIVE
BAY AREA INFRASTRUCTURE `Y`'' l_ HERCULES,CA 94547 TEL(800)859-9900
CHAIR d
S
May 4,2004
The Honorable Federal Glover
Chair of Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez,California 94553
Dear Supervisor Glover:
I am writing this letter to update you and the Board of Supervisors on the status of Senate Bill
1266,a bill regarding LAFCO and annexations.
I have appreciated the recent conversations I have had with you and other members of the
Board of Supervisors about Senate Bill 1266. I think this exchange of information and ideas is
important,and I know we can continue to work together to meet our shared objectives.
I am writing to convey my concerns about the staff report,and to indicate an approach that I
believe will give us the time needed to resolve those concerns.
Yesterday morning I reviewed the staff report from County Administrator John Sweeten on
Senate Bill 1266. I am concerned the recommendations are based,at least in part,on several
inaccuracies about the bill's provisions and misunderstandings about the bill's purpose and
likely results.These findings are included within the Board Order provided to my office on May
3, 2004. They include:
1) The bill does not"open thousands of acres of agricultural land in Contra Costa County to
urban development." Senate Bill 1266 does not change the existing requirement that island
or notch annexations must be consistent with a city's sphere of influence. The responsibility
for determining a city's future boundary and service area remains with LAFCO. This bill
also does not affect thousands of acres by its provision dealing with the definition of
„substantially surrounded." LAFCO now could receive applications for mandatory
annexation from a single city that surrounded over 50 percent of a parcel. It could then
proceed to annex those parcels.
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 2
2) Item.2 in the analysis says that"there is no provision in SB 1266 to prevent a series of linked
or related mandatory annexations that could total several thousand acres." That assertion
fails to recognize the language on page 4,line 36 to page 5,line 4 which quite clearly
prevents the sequential use of the bill's procedures. That language was amended into the
bill in response to the comments received from city,county,and LAFCO officials. I shared
my decision with county officials and representatives at an April 22 meeting.
3) Item 3 in the analysis says that"SB 1266 would potentially circumvent the CEQA process.
That assertion fails to cite any provision of the bill. And,further,it fails to recognize the
language on page 9,line 26 to page 10,line 5(and particularly page 10,lines 1 to 3)which
make it clear that the bill does not affect any existing CEQA requirements. Similar language
has been in Senate Bill 1266 since the April 15 amendments.
4) Item 4 in the analysis implies that the bill somehow erodes a LAFCO's ability to set a
standard that defines"substantially surrounded." The specific language of the bill makes it
plain that a LAFCO can pick a local standard.On page 3,lines 19 and 20 and then lines 25 to
27 provide ample local authority for those standards.Without any changes in the law,
numerous parcels that are notches surrounded by more than 50 percent by a single city can
be subject to a mandatory annexation following a city's application.Present law allows a
LAFCO,either on an individual application basis or on a broader policy basis,to establish
what standards it wishes to set.
Let's work together to clear up the confusion that exists about these provisions of Senate Bill
1266.As you know,my staff and I are always willing to work with you and county staff to clear
up any misunderstandings that may be created by legislation under consideration in
Sacramento.
In light of these concerns,and pursuant to my discussions with you.,other members of the
board,and city officials over the past several days,I have decided to modify Senate Bill 1.266.
I understand that sensitive negotiations and deliberations are going on at this time over the
urban limit line and the new Measure C for transportation.I do not want Senate Bill 1266,or
questions over its provisions,to detract from these negotiations.Therefore,I will make the
following changes:
I will delete those features of Senate Bill 1266 relating to annexing islands or notches
surrounded by one or more cities.
• I will continue with the bill's other provision,which seems to enjoy broader support.
Current law tells LAFCOs that they must waive the usual protest hearings for island
annexations that are 75 acres or smaller (Government Code§56375.3). By waving the
protest hearing,current law also avoids the need for an annexation election.This current
provision in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act exists because cities asked legislators to help
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 3
them erase these enclaves of unincorporated.territory. As I have listened to LAFCOs and
city officials talk about island annexations,they have convinced me that the Legislature
should raise the island's maximum size from 75 acres to 154 acres. The April 29
amendments to Senate Bill 1.266 have already accomplished that change (page 8,line 19) and
it will remain:in the bill.
My decision to modify Senate Bill 1266 does not change my belief that strong positive policy
merits exist for my proposal regarding the annexation of notches and islands substantially
surrounded by two cities.I plan to pursue this idea in the future after we all have had more
time to study its policy impacts and the best ways to implement it.
I remain interested in receiving responses from the county and cities to my April 15th letter
requesting information on the specific potential impacts of the provisions I have subsequently
decided to hold over for now. I encourage you to ask county staff to inform my office about
these specific impacts so we all have a more complete understanding of these issues.
I am encouraged that the Board of Supervisors is examining my concerns about the urban limit
line.Specifically,I have received positive feedback regarding the need to ensure that the land
within the urban limit line includes clear plans to meet the guideline and goal of a 20-year
housing supply.
I have also discussed the need to have a 5-year review and careful analysis to evaluate whether
the 20-year supply goal is being met. Obviously,how we evaluate the inventory's readiness
and trueness is critically important. I believe we must ensure that all jurisdictions are meeting
their housing goals so that the collective goal,therefore,is attainable.
I urge you to consider and adopt rigorous standards that reflect the true availability of the
designated lands for housing—not just paper-approved inventory in general plans and zoning.
For instance,if currently business zoned property is in a business park or being occupied by
other office uses,is the owner really willing or likely to convert the property to a residential use
if the city's general plan is changed to residential?Or,what if the land is burdened by a hazard
or a brownfield—is it really available to meet the housing needs and needs?If the city rezones
to residential,what are honest prospects of the property overcoming these obstacles in a 20-year
period?
I believe we need to ensure we can reconcile current state law on LAFCO and housing element
law with the increasing use of urban growth boundaries in California.To avoid leapfrog sprawl
growth out of one county into neighboring counties W-and to provide the ample supply of
housing required to enable jabs growth and economic vitality in an increasingly global
economy,we need to ask hour we can plan cooperatively for the housing inventory needed and
deal with urban limit lines when they are not working.
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 4
Given the fact that state taxpayers and the state budget are picking up the financial and
economic consequences of such multi-county sprawl development,I believe the state has a very
direct interest in the outcome of this debate.
Finally,I appreciate the interest in pursuing an alliance for housing and for urban infill--to
assist in an ongoing way in finding solutions to the housing crisis we face in our county and the
state.
As you know,I have a long track record of supporting more housing supply--in the right
locations and with proper mitigations--to deal with the price crisis and to restore the California
dream of owning a home.If we fail to create the right inventory of land for housing,rents and
mortgages will continue to shoot through the roof. This would create a situation that,as the
Contra Costa Times noted in a March 31st editorial,"drive[s]corporations away from the Bay
Area.. and drive[s]job-producing companies from locating here,"
I also look forward to developing further the concepts we have discussed in an effort to
establish a housing support team.in Contra Costa County.I believe such a coalition effort will
help all of us achieve our extremely important housing goals.
Thank you again for all of your feedback.I appreciate your efforts and look forward to
continuing to work with you to meet the needs of our shared constituents.
Sincerely,
Torn.Torlakson
CA11TCL OFFICE
D$5 T, rJF-PiCE
STATE CAR;T Cu. ROOM 505"f 2801 CONCORD BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 g �+�r} �y ,y���'r*j/� ^g$'_�-y �y �y CONCORD.CA 945!9
TAX l916)445-2083 %" atatr TEL 1925)602-6593
=AX(9'.6)445-2527 FAx(9257 602-6^98
JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER
SENATOR 420 WES-. ORD STitE-ET
sTAno:Nc cc>nnu;:i�EE � TC��i ANT i0CH.CA 94509
�P4 � TEL(325)754.1467
LOCAL GOVERNMENTTOM (925)778-5174
CHAIR SEVENTH SENATE DIS,.RICT
WEST COUNTY SATELLITE OF'r"ICE
SELECT CCMM:TYEE i 9 S CMC DRIVE
9AY AREA;NFRASTRUCTURE
HERCULES,CA 94547 CHASR TEL 18007 858-9900
yR�h;_
r � r
3
May 4,2004
The Honorable Federal Glover
Chair of Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez,California 94553
Dear Supervisor Glover:
I am writing this letter to update you and the Board of Supervisors on the status of Senate Bill
1266,a bill regarding LAFCO and annexations.
I have appreciated the recent conversations I have had with you and other members of the
Board of Supervisors about Senate Bill 1266. I think this exchange of information and ideas is
important,and I know we can continue to work together to meet our shared objectives.
I am writing to convey my concerns about the staff report,and to indicate an approach that I
believe will give us the time needed to resolve those concerns.
Yesterday morning I reviewed the staff report from County Administrator John Sweeten on
Senate Bill 1266.I am concerned the recommendations are based,at least in part,on several
inaccuracies about the bill's provisions and misunderstandings about the bill's purpose and
likely results.These findings are included within the Board Carder provided to my office on May
3,2004. They include:
1) The bill does not"open thousands of acres of agricultural land in Contra Costa County to
urban.development." Senate Bill 1266 does not change the existing requirement that island
or notch annexations:must be consistent with a city's sphere of influence. The responsibility
for determining a city's future boundary and service area remains with LAFCO.This bill
also does not affect thousands of acres by its provision dealing with the definition of
"substantially surrounded." LAFCO now could receive applications for mandatory
annexation from a single city that surrounded over 50 percent of a parcel. It could then
proceed to annex those parcels.
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 2
2) Item 2 in the analysis says that"there is no provision in SB 1266 to prevent a series of linked
or related mandatory annexations that could total several thousand acres." That assertion
fails to recognize the language on page 4,line 36 to page 5,line 4 which quite clearly
prevents the sequential use of the bill's procedures.That language was amended into the
bill in response to the comments received from city,county,and LAFCO officials.I shared
my decision with county officials and representatives at an April 22 meeting.
3) Item 3 in the analysis says that"SB 1.266 would potentially circumvent the CEQA process."
That assertion fails to cite any provision of the bill. And,further,it fails to recognize the
language on page 9,line 26 to page 10,lime 5 (and particularly page 10,lines 1 to 3) which
make it clear that the bill does not affect any existing CEQA requirements. Similar language
has been in Senate Bill 1266 since the April 15 amendments.
4) Item 4 in the analysis implies that the bill somehow erodes a LAFCO's ability to set a
standard that defines "substantially surrounded." The specific language of the bill makes it
plain that a LAFCO can pick a local standard. On page 3,lines 19 and 20 and then lines 25 to
27 provide ample local authority for those standards. Without any changes in the law,
numerous parcels that are notches surrounded by more than 50 percent by a single city can
be subject to a mandatory annexation following a city's application. Present law allows a
LAFCO,either on an individual application basis or on a broader policy basis,to establish
what standards it wishes to set.
Let's work together to clear up the confusion that exists about these provisions of Senate Bill
1266.As you know,my staff and I are always willing to work with you and county staff to clear
up any misunderstandings that may be created by legislation under consideration in
Sacramento.
In light of these concerns,and pursuant to my discussions with you,other members of the
board,and city officials over the past several days,I have decided to modify Senate Bill 1266.
I understand that sensitive negotiations and deliberations are going on at this time over the
urban limit line and the new Measure C for transportation.I do not want Senate Bill 1266,or
questions over its provisions,to detract from these negotiations. Therefore,I will make the
following changes:
I will delete those features of Senate Bill 1266 relating to annexing islands or notches
surrounded by two cities.
+ I will continue with the bill's other provision,which seems to enjoy broader support.
Current law tells LAFCOs that they must waive the usual protest hearings for island
annexations that are 75 acres or smaller(Government Code§56375.3). By waving the
protest hearing,current law also avoids the need for an annexation election.This current
provision in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act exists because cities asked legislators to help
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 3
there erase these enclaves of unincorporated territory. As I have listened to LAFCOs and
city officials talk about island annexations,they have convinced me that the Legislature
should raise the island's maximum size from 75 acres to 150 acres. The April 29
amendments to Senate Bill 1266 have already accomplished that change (page 8,line 19) and
it will remain in the bill.
My decision to modify Senate Bill 1266 does not change my belief that strong positive policy
merits exist for my proposal regarding the annexation of notches and islands substantially
surrounded by two cities. I plan to pursue this idea in the future after we all have had more
time to study its policy impacts and the best ways to implement it.
I remain interested in receiving responses from the county and cities to my April 15th letter
requesting information on the specific potential impacts of the provisions I have subsequently
decided to hold over for now. I encourage you to ask county staff to inform my office about
these specific impacts so we all have a more complete understanding of these issues.
I am encouraged that the Board of Supervisors is examining my concerns about the urban limit
line.Specifically,I have received positive feedback regarding the need to ensure that the land
within the urban limit line includes clear plans to meet the guideline and goal of a 20-year
housing supply.
I have also discussed the need to have a 5-year review and careful analysis to evaluate whether
the 20-year supply goal is being met. Obviously,how we evaluate the inventory's readiness
and trueness is critically important. I believe we must ensure that all jurisdictions are meeting
their housing goals so that the collective goal,therefore,is attainable.
I urge you to consider and adapt rigorous standards that reflect the true availability of the
designated lands for housing—not just paper-approved inventory in general plans and zoning.
For instance,if currently business zoned property is in a business park or being occupied by
other office uses,is the owner really willing or likely to convert the property to a residential use
if the city's general plan is changed to residential?Or,what if the land is burdened by a hazard
or a brownfield—is it really available to meet the housing needs and needs?If the city rezones
to residential,what are honest prospects of the property overcoming these obstacles in a 20-year
period?
I believe we need to ensure we can reconcile current state law on LAFCO and housing element
law with the increasing use of urban growth boundaries in California.To avoid leapfrog sprawl
growth out of one county into neighboring counties- and to provide the ample supply of
housing required to enable jobs growth and economic vitality in an increasingly global
economy,we need to ask how we can plan cooperatively for the housing inventory needed and
deal with urban limit lines when they are not working.
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 4
Given the fact that state taxpayers and the state budget are picking up the financial and
economic consequences of such multi-county sprawl development,I believe the state has a very
direct interest in the outcome of this debate.
Finally,I appreciate the interest in pursuing an alliance for housing and for urban infill—to
assist in an ongoing way in finding solutions to the housing crisis we face in our county and the
state.
As you know,I have a long track record of supporting more housing supply--in the right
locations and with proper mitigations—to deal with the price crisis and to restore the California
dream of owning a home.If we fail to create the right inventory of land for housing,rents and
mortgages will continue to shoot through the roof. This would create a situation that,as the
Contra Costa'dimes noted in a March 31st editorial,"'drive[s]corporations away from the bay
Area...and drive[s]job-producing companies from locating here."
I also look forward to developing further the concepts we have discussed in an effort to
establish a housing support team in Contra Costa County. I believe such a coalition effort will
help all of us achieve our extremely important housing goals.
Thank you again for all of your feedback. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to
continuing to work with you to meet the needs of our shared constituents.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
A.MI NDED IN SENATE APRIL 2t},2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 15,2004
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12,20034
SENATE BELE No. 126+6
Introduced by Senator Torlakson
(Coauthor:Assembly Member Maze)
February 13,20034
m471an
An act to amend F56375.3 of the Government,
Code,relating to annexation.
LEQISLMVG COUNSFUS Drop-ST
SB 1266, as amended,Torlakson. Annexation.
(1) Under existing law, the local agency foetation commission in
each county has specified powers and duties concerning the review and
approval and disapproval of proposals for changes of organization or
reorganization of cities and districts within the county, However, a
commission may not disapprove an annexation of contiguous territory
to a city initiated by resolution of the city governing body if the
commission ends that the territory meets any of a number of specified
conditions. One of these conditions is that the territory is surrounded or
substantially surrounded by the city or by the city and a county
boundary or the Pacific Ocean, is substantially developed or
developing,is not grime agricultural land,as defined,is designated for
urban growth by the general plan of the city,and is not within the sphere
of influence of another city.
This bill would revise that condition under which the commission
may not disapprove the annexation to specify that:(a)not less than 51
percent of the exterior boundary of the territory to be annexed is
9G
13- 0#C!#OQ d EZZ-i 8820 ZZE 9t6 331ilM03 iG1htHAOD IV301 31YO-wai j ws$9:8D
SB 1266 —2—
surrounded by the annexing city,by that city and a county boundary or
the Pacific Ocean,or that city and another city,unless the commission
adapts a different defsnition for "substantially surrou»ded,
territory is either developed or designated for urban grow
th by the
' ) the
general plan of the annexing city, (c) sewer service, structural fire
protection service,streets and roads,and domestic water service will be
acres.
available upon,annexation,and(d)the territory does not exceed 1000
(2) Existing law requires the commission to approve island
annexations that meet certain,requirements. One of those requirements
is that if it does not exceed 75 acres in area that area co stitutes the entire
island, and that island does not constitute a part of an unincorporated
area that is more than 100 acres in area.
This bill would change the 75-acre requirement to 4301.50 acres and
delete the restriction that the island dues not constitute a part of an
unincorporated territory that is more than 100 acres in area. The bill
would also require that when the territory proposed to be annexed is
substantially surrounded by a city,and another city,the city that initiated
the proposal, prior to submitting the application to the commission,
shall notify the other city of its intention to initiate the annexation
proposal and would specify the contents and requirements of that
notification. The bill would also require the commission to consider the
effect of the proposal on any urban 44rAt growth boundary. The bill
would permit the commission to disapprove the proposal for annexation
if the other city objects in writing.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the state of California dry enact as follo ws:
2 ended to read:
3 5 The commission shall have alla following
4 powers an s subject to any limi ' s upon its jurisdiction
5 set forth in this p .
6 (a) To review an e or disapprove with or without S4-n
7 amendment, y, partially, o"`s itionaIly, proposals for
8 chang organization or reorganization,c ent with written
9 les,procedures, and guidelines adopted by the scion.
f
96
18r,-d Oltl/ZOO d EZZ-1 8620 ZZE eta
�311lkVViO� 1N3NtNa3R0� 1V�01 3lVN3S-u►a�d u��yr,:Bp yaQZ_p�_,Cey�
-3— 5B 1266
1 , E✓ , 6
o (4) establishment of a subsidiary district, or a reorganiza n
3 the includes any of these changes cif organiZadon.A conurii ion
4 steal ave the authority to initiate only a (1) consolida ° n of
5 distr , (2) dissolution, (3) merger, (4) establishrne t of a
6 subsiddistrict, or (5) a reorganization that incl u any of
7 these ch ges of organization, if that change of org tion or
8 reorganize 'on is consistent with a.recommendation . conclusion
9 of a study p pared pursuant to Section 56378, 5 25, or 56430
10 and the c cion makes the determinatio specified in
11 subdivision (b) f Section 56881. However, a ornmission shall
12 not have the paw to disapprove an annexa to a city,initiated
13 by resolution,of c tiguc rus territory that commission finds is
14 any of the following,
15 (1) The territory be annexed is all of the following
16 criteria:
17 (A) Surrounded ors stantiall surrounded by the city to
18 which the-annexation is opus by that city and a county
19 boundary or the Pacific Oce that city and another city:in the
20 absence of a standard adopte a commission, as used in this
21 paragraph, "substantially sit deo"means that not less than 51 $ Yj P *U-r-
22 percent of the exterior b Bary the territory proposed to be
23 annexed is surrounded the c' which the annexation is
24 proposed,by that city a county bo dary or the Pacific Ocean,
25 or that city and snot city.Nothing ' section shall preclude
26 a commission fro adopting a highs standard that defines
27 "substantially s ounded."
28 (B) Ys subs y developed,develop' or is designated for
29 urban growth y the general plan.of the anne %rig city.
30 (C) Sew service, structural fire protection ryice,streets and
31 roads, and amestic water service will be availab to the affected
32 territory on annexation from either the anne city or special
33 district
34 (D) s not prime agricultural land,as defined by S 'on 56064.
35 ( Does not exceed 1,000 acres.
36 is not within the sphere of influence of another ci -
37 2) The territory to be annexed is located wit}tin art an
38 ice area that has been delineated and adopted by a co on,
39
96
lag- O10/800'd EZZ-1 8620 ZZB eta 3311IM103 iN3t"1NHAOS IV301 BIVUS-woad RVS-80 MZ-VO-ABA
SB 1266 4
1
2 0
3 An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated is ds
4 mee ` g the requirements Of Section 56375.3.
5 In a situation where the affected territory is surrou ded or
6 subs 'ally surrounded by a city and another city, the ity that
7 initiated a proposal shall,prior to submitting the ap cation to
8 the co sion,.notify the other city and the county gardmg its
9 intention t ' 'tiate the proposal to annex the tem't The city's
10 notice to the ther city and the county shall des c a in as rnuch
11 detail as is Fe ible the effects of the proposal traffic, school
12 populations, a 'culture and open-space lands and use policies,
13 spheres of in . nee, urban lii� ,-- wth boundaries,
14 economic develop ent,and af-ordable hou ` g.The city's notice
15 shall also invite the om2mnts of the otll
16
17
18 '
19
20 '
{ . city and the county,
21 Upon submission of the pro t to the execrative officer, the
22 executive officer shall convert muting to discuss any issues ?
23 related to the proposal and s it i vite representatives of the city
24 that initiated the proposal, a of r city, the county, and any
25 affected districts. This me ting shat ke place no later than 21
26 clays subsequent to the mission ofosal to the executive
27 officer. The executive cer shall not ' e a certificate offiling
ZS pursuant to Section S d58 prior to this mng. Notwithstanding
29 Section 56663,the rrunission shall give th notices and conduct
30 the hearing pars t to Chapter 1 (comm ting with Section
31 56650)of Part 3 At the hearing,in addition to a ether factors to
32 be cmisidered ursuant to Section 56668, the c mmission shall
33 consider the ffect of the proposal on any urban i growth
34 boundary, otwithstanding any other provision of ' section,the
35 commis 'orz may ,disapprove that proposal for anne tion to the
36 city if a other city objects in writing,xotwithstandin ny other
37 prov` ion of this section, the comanission shall not ajfpr ve more
38 tha one annexation of affected territory that' is surrou ed or
39 sa stantially surrounded by a city and another city. F the
40
tA
96
185-d GlG/trGG d EZZ-i BUD ZZ£ SIB 3311lMOO iUANHA03 1V001 31VNBS-ula1 ute
......................
d tr£ 8G trGGZ_trG-��69
-- --- B 1266
2 b ause of a previcncs annexation of tenitoty that was sound
3 or bstandally surrounded by a city and another city and that as
4 app ved pursuant to this section.
5 As condition to the annexation of an area that is s'urro ded,
6 or sub tially surrounded,by the city to which the anne anon is
7 proposed, a commission may require,where consiste with the
8 purposes o this division, that the annexation includ the entire
9 island of s ended,or substantially surrounded,t `tory.
10 A commissx n shall not impose any conditio s that would
11 directly ,21 la land use density or int sity, property
12 development, o subdivision requite . When the
13 development purpo s are not made known t the annexing city
14 the annexation shall b reviewed on the Basi trfthe adapted platin
15 and policies of the arm ing city or coon . A commission shall
16 require, as a condition annexation, at a city prezone the
17 territory to be annexed o present cv' ence satisfactory to the
18 commission that the exi develo ent entitlements on the
19 territory are vested or are al dy a `Idout,and are consistent
20 with the city's general plan. w er, the commission shall not 11 tx.
21 specify how'; or in what manner ' e territory shall be prezoned.
22 The decision of the commissirn regard to a proposal to annex
23 territory to a city shall be as an the general plan and
24 prezoning of the city.
25 (b) With regard to a pr osal for exation or detachment of
26 territory to,or fxorn,a c' or district or ith regard to a.proposal
27 for reorganization includes annexa ' n or detachment, to
28 determine vtrhether territory proposed or annexation or
29 detachment, as scribed in its resole n approving the
30 annexation, de ent, or reorganization, is inhabited or
31 uninhabited.
32 (c) With r and to a proposal for consolidation f two or more
33 cities err cts, to determine which city or distric shall be the
34 consoltda d, successor city or district.
35 (d) I approve the annexation of mine rated,
36 nc neo ous territoM subject to the limitations of ection
37 567 , located in the same county as that in which the ' is
38 lac d, and that is owned by a city and used for muni c al
39 P uses and to authorize the annexation of the territory witho
40
96
16�-d Q#II19Q�'d EtZ-Z 88ZQ ZZE 9t6 33flINM10� 1N36VN83Ag3 1Y�0"I 31VN�5-moat ��tiB�80 VDOZ-pQ-fi�4Y
LXU
1266 .�
1
2 c sistent with the planned and probable use of the property ba
3 upo the review of general plan and pre= designations c�
4 subse cent change may be made to the general plan f the
5 annex territory or zoning that is ,not in conformance o the
5 prezo ' designations for a period of two years er the
7 comp et,
of the annexation,unless the legislative b y for the
8 city makes finding at a public hearing that a subs tial change
9 has occurr n circumstances that necessitate a dep from the
10 prezoning in a application to the cornmission.
11 (f) With re ect to the incozporatiorl of a ew city or the
12 formation of a n w special district, to dee a the number of
13 registered voters siding within the prop ed city or special
14 district or, for a Ian owner-voter special strict, the number of
15 owners of land and a assessed value their land within, the
16 territory proposed to b included in the ew special district. The
17 number of registered vot s shall be ca ated as of the time of the
18 last report of voter regis -on by county elections official to
19 the Secretary of State prio to th date the first signature was
20 affixed to the petition. The utive officer shall notify the
21 petitioners of the number of re stored voters resulting from this
2.2 calculation. The assessed va e f the land within the territory .IT7 ke cu-
23 proposed to be included in lew idowner-voter special district
24 shall be calculated asshove on the l t equalized assessment roll.
25 (g) To adopt written p edures for a evaluation of proposals,
26 including written def ions not jaco . tent with existing state
27 law. The commi,ssio ay adopt standar for any of the factors
228 enumerated in Sec on 56658. Any stag ds adopted by the
29 commission shall a written.
30 (h) Toadopt tandards quid procedures for a evaluation of
31 service plans iubmitted pursuant to Section 6653 and the
32 initiation of change of orrganization,or reorgan* ion pursuant
33 to subdivis` n(a.).
34 (i) To ake and enforce regulations for the order and fair
35 conduct fhearings by the commission.
36 (j) o incur usual and necessary expenses f the
37 acco plishment of its functions.
38 To appoint and assign staff personnel and to empl or
39 c tract for professional or consulting services to carry out a
40
ss
165-� Dl0/90t} d EZZ-! BBZB ZZE 918 33111MOO 1N94yN�3Ap9 'IdaO1 31dN3S-+�� we a
-7— SB 1266
1
2 nasal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of ° se
3 bo daries, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries th
4 lines f assessment or ownership, and other similar hers
5 affec' the proposed boundaries.
6 (rn) waive the restrictions of Section 56744 if fids that
7 the app
lic on of the restrictions would be de ental to the
5 orderly deo opmenz of the community and the area that
9 would be enc ed by the annexation or incorpa on is so located
10 that it cannot reasonably be annexed another city or
11 incorporated as a ew city.
12 (n) To waive th application of Secti 25210.90 or Section
13 22613 of the Streets Highways Co if It finds the application
14 would deprive an area f a service tided to ensure the health,
15 safety, or welfare of the , 'dents o e area and if it finds that the
16 waiver would riot affect the iii a a city to provide:any service.
17 However,within 60 days of th lusion of the territory within the
18 city, the legislative body m dopt a resolution nullifying the
19 waiver.:
20 (o) If the proposal i hides th incorporation of a cityr as
21 defined in Section 5601 ,or the f , `cin of a district,as defined
22 in Section 2215 the Revenue Taxation Code, the
23 commission shal determine the proper tax revenue to be
24 exchanged by a affected local agencies ursuant to Section
25 56510.
26 (p) To a orize a.city or district to provide w or extended
27 services o ide its jurisdictional boundaries puts t to Section
25 56133.
29 (q) o enter into an agreement with the commiss for an
30 adjo I county for the purpose of determining procedur for the
31 co ideration ofproposals that may affect the acitoining cot or
32 re the jurisdiction of an affected agency crasser the Noun
33
34 -f4 :-2- Seetion 56375.3 of the Government Code is amended
35 to read: A.....�...
36 5£375.3, (a) In addition to those powers enumerated in
37 Section 56375,a commission shall do either of the following:
38 (1) Approve,-after notice and hearing,the anrtcxation to a city,
39 and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing
40 with Section 57000)entirely, if all of the following are true:
96
185-1 CIO/ZH*d £ZZ-1 a8Zo ZZE 9t8 33111 6D 1N3AWAOD 1Y301 31YUS_Mi as93 8Q VC7QZ-��-xe4y
SB 1266 ---8--
1 (A) The annexation is initiated on or after January 1,2000,and
2 before January 1.,2007.
3 (B) The annexation is proposed by resolution adopted by the
4 affected city:
5 (C) The commission finds that the territory contained in the
6 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
7 subdivision (b).
8 (2) Approve, after notice and hearing,the annexation to a city,
9 subject to subdivision(a)of Section 57080,if all of the following
10 are true:
I I (A) The annexation is initiated on or after January 1, 2007.
12 (B) The annexation is proposed by resolution adapted by the
13 affected city.
14 (C) The commission finds that the territory contained in the
15 annexation proposal meets all of the requirements set forth in
16 subdivision(b).
17 (b) Subdivision: (a) applies to territory that meets all of the
18 following requirements:
19 (1) It does not exceed 440-150 acres in area, and that area
20 constitute ,
21 .
22 the entire island.
23 (2) The territory constitutes an entire un corporated island
24 located within the limits of a city,or constitutes a reorganization
25 containing a number of individual unincorporated islands.
26 (3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
27 (A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to
28 which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary
29 or the Pacific Ocean.
30 (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed
31 and adjacent cities.
32 (C) This subdivision shall not be construed to apply to any
33 unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community
34 where services are currently provided by a communityservices
35 district.
36 (l3) Notwithstanding any other prevision of law, at the option
37 of either the city or the county, a separate property tax transfer
38 agreement may be agreed to between a city and a county pursuant
39 to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Cade regarding an
�s
I
E ltl C', a*LJtS 0n " P(��!
159-1 010f800*d EZZ-1 8BZ0 ZZE ale 33111MOD 1MMA00 IV001 31dNB-M� ��39 80 t00Z-�0-R��
-9— SR 1266
1 annexation subject to this subdivision without affecting any
2 existing master tax sharing agreement between the city and county.
3 (4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding
4 required by this subparagraph shall be Rased upon one or more
5 factors, including,but not limited to,any of the following factors;
6 (A) The availability of public utility services.
7 (D) The,presence of public improvements.
8 (C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or
9 parcels within the area.
10 (5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section
11 56064.
12 (6) it will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits
13 from the annexing city.
14 (c) Notwithstanding ,any other provision of this subdivision,
15 this subdivision shall not apply to all or any part of that portion of
16 the development project area referenced in subdivision (e) of
17 Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Code that as of January
18 1,2000,meets all of the fallowing requirements:
19 (1) Is unincorporated territory.
20 (2) Contains at least 100 acres.
21 (3) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by incorporated
22 territory.
23 (4) Contains at least 100 acres zoned for commercial or
24 industrial uses or is designated on the applicable county general
25 plan for commercial or industrial uses.
26
27 56 of tlxe ao;;ntnent Code,the Legislature fmds ii� ares
28 ift
29
30
31 afteOed
ke-
33Tik
34 that there is no ch a to any o,f tie fo
35 (d) There ement in Section 56'375.5 o Government
36 Codetharescliangwoforganizatioicofreorg Berns tv
37 be c Mth the sphems of influence f Iuence of the local a ies
38
189-4 90/899'd EZZ-1 8620 ZZE SO 33111MOO IN3193AOD 1YO01 MUS-011 �egg:8p tr992-�9-fi�yl
S$ 1266 ---
1
2 Act(Div-ion encing with Section 21 �'ul�tic
3 Resources Code,
4 (c) The aecton 99 ref the nd Trrxcation '
s
0
96
189-� �tl1/DiB d EZZ-1 88ZU ZZE Bl8 3411iWU(Q� 1N314Na4AQJ 1V�01 41VN4S-�aa use
s
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADMIN ISTRATOR ' S OFFICE r
651 PINE STREET , 11TH FLOOR Cc f5
MARTINEZ , CA 94553 fr
( 925) 335 - 1080
( 925 ) 335 - 1098 - FAX
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM: John Sweeten
Cathy �� County Administrator
COMPANY: DATE:
5/4/04
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
PTIONE NUMBER SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE; YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
SB 1266
El URGENT El FOR REVIEW El PLEASE COMMENT Cl PLEASE REPLY El PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
Attached are:
1. Final draft of letter to Federal Glover
2. Copy of bill with promised amendments indicated.
Board today agreed to"Support if amended"as shown on the copy
CAPITOL OFFtCE DISTRICT O1"FICE
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 5061 2801 CONCORD BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO.CA 55314 ///,���'''``` }- y'q¢� ^}+fig$'fig- 'p('' g9, }-+ CONCORD,CA 94519
TEL(916)445TEL(925)6072.6593
FAX(916)445..25272527
FAX(925)502-6598
JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER
SENATOR 4.2ANTIOCH,CA 94509
+0 WEST 3RD STREET
STANDING COMMITTEE ,�,,,OM „�„��� � TEL(925)754-1461
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ;'AX(925)778-5174
CHAIR SEVENTH SENATE DISTRICT 'WEST COUNT'SATELLITE OFFICE
SELECT COMMITTEE 1 1 1 CIVIC DRIVE
BAY AREA INFRASTRUCTURE HERCULES,CA 54547
CHAIR �b �I TEL(800)859.9900
�r 2y�(yU
i �✓�� dS„Y 4 �f
May 4,2004
The Honorable Federal Glover
Chair of Board of Supervisors
Centra Costa County
651 fine Street
Martinez,California 94553
Dear Supervisor Glover.
I am writing this letter to update you and the hoard of Supervisors on the status of Senate Bill
1266,a hill regarding LAFCO and annexations.
I have appreciated the recent conversations I have had with you and other members of the
Board of Supervisors about Senate Bill 1266. I think this exchange of information and ideas is
important,and I know we can continue to work together to meet our shared objectives.
I am writing to convey my concerns about the staff report, and to indicate an approach that I
believewill give us the time needed to resolve Mose concerns.
Yesterday morning I reviewed the staff report from County Administrator John Sweeten on
Senate Bill 1266.I am concerned the recommendations are based,at least in part,on several
inaccuracies about the bill's provisions and misunderstandings about the bill's purpose and
likely results.These findings are included within the Board Order provided to my office on May
3,2004. They include:
1) The bill does not"open}thousands of acres of agricultural land in Contra Costa County to
urban development." Senate Bill 1266 does not change the existing requirement that island
or notch annexations must be consistent with a city's sphere of influence. The responsibility
for determining a city's future boundary and service area remains with LAFCO. This bill
also does not affect thousands of acres by its provision dealing with the definition of
"substantially surrounded." LAFCO now could receive applications for mandatory
annexation from a'single city that surrounded over 50 percent of a parcel. It could then
proceed to annex those parcels.
Board of Supervisors
May 4, 2004
Page 2
2) Item 2 in the analysis says that"there is no provision in SB 1266 to prevent a series of linked
or related mandatory annexations that could total several thousand acres." That assertion
fails to recognize the language on page 4,line 36 to page 5, line 4 which quite clearly
prevents the sequential use of the bill's procedures.That language was amended into the
bill in response to the comments received from city,county,and LAFCO officials. I shared
my decision with county officials and representatives at an April 22 meeting.
3) Item 3 in the analysis says that"SB 1266 would potentially circumvent the CEQA process."
That assertion fails to cite any provision of the bill. And,further,it fails to recognize the
language on page 9,line 26 to page 10,line 5 (and particularly page 10,lines 1 to 3)which
make it clear that the bill does not affect any existing CEQA requirements. Similar;language
has been in Senate Bill 1266 since the April 15 amendments.
4) Item 4 in the analysis implies that the bill somehow erodes a LAFCO's ability to set a
standard that defines"substantially surrounded." The specific language of the bill makes it
plain that a LAFCO can pick a local standard.On page 3,lines 19 and 20 and then lines 25 to
27 provide ample local authority for those standards. Without any changes in the law,
numerous parcels that are notches surrounded by more than 50 percent by a single city can
be subject to a mandatory annexation following a city's application.Present law allows a
LAFCO,either on an individual application basis or on a broader policy basis,to establish
what standards it wishes to set.
Let's work together to clear up the confusion that exists about these provisions of Senate Bill
1266. As you know,my staff and I are always willing to work with you and county staff to clear
up any misunderstandings that may be created by legislation under consideration in
Sacramento.
In light of these concerns,and pursuant to my discussions with you,other members of the
board,and city officials over the past several days,I have decided to modify Senate Bill 1266.
I understand that sensitive negotiations and deliberations are going on at this time over the
urban limit line and the new Measure C for transportation.I do not want Senate Bill 1266,or
questions over its provisions,to detract from these negotiations.Therefore,I will make the
following changes:
• I will delete those features of Senate Bill 1266 relating to annexing islands or notches
surrounded by one or more cities.
• I will continue with the bill's other provision.,which seems to enjoy broader support.
Current law tells LAFCOs that they must waive the usual protest hearings for island
annexations that are 75 acres or smaller(Government Code§56375.3). By waving the
protest hearing,current law also avoids the need for an annexation election.This current
provision in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act exists because cities asked legislators to help
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 8
them erase these enclaves of unincorporated territory. As I have listened to LAFCOs and
city officials talk about island annexations,they have convinced me that the Legislature
should raise the island's maximum size from 75 acres to 150 acres. The April 29
amendments to Senate Bill 1266 have already accomplished that change(page 8,line 19) and
it will remain in the bill.
My decision to modify Senate Bill 1266 does not change my belief that strong positive policy
merits exist for my proposal regarding the annexation of notches and islands substantially
surrounded by two cities. I plan to pursue this idea in the future after we all have had more
time to study its policy impacts and the best ways to implement it.
I remain interested in receiving responses from the county and cities to my April 15th letter
requesting information on the specific potential impacts of the provisions I have subsequently
decided to hold over for now. I encourage you to ask county staff to inform my office about
these specific impacts so we all have a more complete understanding of these issues.
I am encouraged that the Board of Supervisors is examining my concerns about the urban limit
line. Specifically,I have received positive feedback regarding the need to ensure that the land
within the urban limit line includes clear plans to meet the guideline and goal of a 20-year
housing supply.
I have also discussed the need to have a 5-year review and careful analysis to evaluate whether
the 20-year supply goal is being met. Obviously,how we evaluate the inventory's readiness
and trueness is critically important. i believe we must ensure that all jurisdictions are meeting
their housing goals so that the collective goal,therefore,is attainable.
I urge you to consider and adopt rigorous standards that reflect the true availability of the
designated lands for housing—not just paper-approved inventory in general plans and zoning.
For instance,if currently business zoned property is in a business park or being occupied by
other office uses,is the owner really willing or likely to convert the property to a residential use
if the city's general plan is changed to residential?Or,what if the land is burdened by a hazard
or a brownfield—is it really available to meet the housing needs and needs?If the city rezones
to residential,what are honest prospects of the property overcoming these obstacles in a 20-year
period?
I believe we need to ensure we can reconcile current state law on LAFCO and housing element
law with the increasing use of urban growth boundaries in California. To avoid leapfrog sprawl
growth out of one county into neighboring counties—and to provide the ample supply of
housing required to enable jobs growth and economic vitality in an increasingly global
economy,we need to ask how we can plan cooperatively for the housing inventory needed and
deal with urban limit lines when they are not working.
Board of Supervisors
May 4,2004
Page 4
Given the fact that state taxpayers and the state budget are picking up the financial and
economic consequences of such multi-county sprawl development,I believe the state has a very
direct interest in the outcome of this debate.
Finally,I appreciate the interest in pursuing an alliance for housing and for urban infill—to
assist in an ongoing way in finding solutions to the housing crisis we face in our county and the
state.
As you know,I have a long track record of supporting more housing supply--in the right
locations and with proper mitigations—to deal with the price crisis and to restore the California
dream of owning a home. If we fail to create the right inventory of land for housing,rents and
mortgages will continue to shoot through the roof. This would create a situation that,as the
Contra Costa Times noted in a March 31st editorial,"drive[s]corporations away from the Bay
Area...and drive[s]job-producing companies from locating here."
I also look forward to developing further the concepts we have discussed in an effort to
establish a housing support team in Contra Costa County. I believe such a coalition effort will
help all of us achieve our extremely important housing goals.
Thank you again for all of your feedback. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to
continuing to work with you to meet the needs of our shared constituents.
Sincerely,
/ X�
Tom Torlakson