HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - December 4, 2007 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2007
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
December 4, 2007, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hansen, Hitchcock, Katzakian, Mounce, and Mayor Johnson
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl
B. TOPIC(S)
B-1 "Presentation by Jim Glaser, Interim Director of the San Joaquin County Local Agency
Formation Commission, Regarding Area of Interest and Sphere of Influence"
City Manager King briefly introduced the subject matter of an area of interest and a sphere
of influence.
San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (AFCO) Interim Executive
Officer, Jim Glaser, provided a presentation regarding the policies and procedures, spheres
of influence, service reviews, and annexation. Specific topics of discussion included what
LAFCO is, the history of the organization, the San Joaquin County area LAFCO,
membership make-up and issues, areas of interest policy and sphere of influence plan,
municipal review policies, Stockton policies that are relative to the same, annexations,
approval of policies that are not in conflict with other agencies through memorandum of
understanding, community separator addressed through an area of interest, and service
provided through sphere of influence only and not an area of interest.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated there are many types of districts
and they could include fire districts and irrigation districts among others.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated all LAFCO's have city
representation on a rotation basis. City Attorney Schwabauer stated the membership is set
by statute. City Manager King added that some cities have membership selection
committees. Mr. Glaser stated all LAFCO members are required to act on behalf of LAFCO
and not individual cities.
In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Glaser stated there is some opportunity for infill;
although, it is difficult with time and ownerships by various parties. Mr. Glaser stated infill
policies are referenced on pages 2, 3, and 13 to 14. He stated the language requires an
effort to address infill before open space land is utilized.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated that, if a city had no growth
control, historical numbers and related information from the San Joaquin Council of
Governments would likely be used to determine the needs. He stated that, while LAFCO
does not have land use authority, the Commission is entitled to make decisions after
receiving recommendations. He stated the process is objective because a random number
cannot be chosen since the data must be based on historical numbers.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated the State growth control
numbers are given some consideration indirectly, but because LAFCO is not a planning
agency, there is no direct affect on growth rate or demand.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Glaser stated the authority for an area of
interest and sphere of influence POI) is given by statute. He stated a SOI is not supposed
to have open space unless there is a plan to annex, but an area of interest can preserve
land that is unique to a city.
Continued December 4, 2007
In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Glaser stated he is not aware of the specifics regarding
the septic requirements for the Armstrong Road parcels, but a SOI will likely be needed and
concentration will be a factor.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser and Mr. Vogel confirmed that two acres
can have their own septic system and one acre or less can link to the District or City for
services.
Discussion ensued between City Manager King and Mr. Glaser regarding the (bunty's
ability to provide service review and zone outside of any review by LAFCO if the vote
requirement is met for an annexation.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated LAFCO is in the process of
recruiting for the permanent director position.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Glaser confirmed that he is applying for the
position.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Glaser stated that, regardless of the particular
director, the policies and procedures must be consistent as the Commission is committed
philosophically to the same for continuity purposes.
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisor Ken Vogel briefly discussed the County's position
on the policy, committee work on policy adoption based on state legislation, setting rules
and procedures for cities as a non -land use authority, general direction for good planning
purposes to direct reasonable growth, the need for balance with the General Plan, review of
the AL -5 cluster zoning, and working on the long-term concerns regarding septic tank
usage.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Vogel stated in his opinion the growth figures
are overstated and there needs to be a balance between growth and infrastructure such as
roads. He stated the County should develop services for areas that will never be a part of a
City while the City should provide services to predominantly residential based areas.
Discussion ensued between Council Member Hansen and Mr. Vogel regarding the natural
growth area between Stockton and Lodi, the path of development, rights of affected
landowners, the preservation of a community separator through AL -5 designation, and the
criteria associated with AL -5 and AG -40 as it relates to he General Plan and a SOI.
Mr. Vogel stated the County General Plan will take approximately three years after the
consultant is hired in January 2008.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Glaser stated only one city can be in an
area of interest at one time and it is generally based on first come first serve.
Mr. Schwabauer confirmed based on his interpretation of Section 10(b) of the policy.
Mr. King stated staff is awaiting a formal request from the Gbunty regarding financial
participation from the City to bring the matter back to the City Council for consideration. Mr.
Vogel stated he will speak to the CAO and the Board regarding the same. Mr. Vogel
stated, if the zoning is addressed now through an environmental review, it would cost
between $300,000 to $400,000. He stated that, if it is addressed through the General Plan,
it would cost $100,000, but it would take up to three years.
C. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
D. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
2
AGENDA ITEM B-01
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
iM
AGENDATITLE: Presentation by Jim Glaser, Interim Director of the San Joaquin County Local
Agency Formation Commission, Regarding Area of Interest and Sphere of
Influence
MEETING DATE: December4,2007 (Shirtsleeve Session)
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider report provided by Jim Glaser, Interim Director of
San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its regular meeting of November 7, 2007, Council requested that
the Interim Director of LAFCO be invited to a Shirtsleeve Session to
discuss the area cf interest and sphere of influence. Mr. Glaser will
be at the meeting to discuss the topic with Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: NIA
FUNDING AVAILABLE: NIA
Blair King
City Manager
BK/JMP
Attachment
cc: Jim Glaser, Interim Directorof LAFCO
Ken Vogel, San Joaquin County Supervisor
APPROVED: e-� ^}
BlCit,KAg, City Manager
N:1AdministrationlCLERK1CouncillCOUNCOM1AreaOflnterest.DOC
SAN J OAQU I N
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE,
SERVICE REVIEWS, AND
ANNEXATION
Office (209)468-3198
Fax (209)468-3199
www.sjgov.org/lafco
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Spheres of Influence
Spheres of Influence 1
A. Procedural Guidelinesfor Determining Spheres of Influence 2
B. Sphere of Influence Plan 4
C. Amendments and Updates of Spheres 5
II. Service Review Policies
A. General Standards 7
B. Specific Municipal Service Review Requirements 8
C. Public Participation and Public Hearings 11
D. CEQA Requirements 11
Ili. Annexation Policies and Procedures (Including Reorganizations)
General Standards for Annexation and Detachment 12
City Annexations 14
IV. Administration
A. Waiver 16
B. Challenges to Procedures 16
I. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
The San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission is required to adopt a sphere
of influence for each local governmental agency within its jurisdiction. A sphere of
influence is defined as a "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area
of a local agency as determined by the Commission" (Government Code Section
56076). A sphere is primarily a planning tool that provides guidance in reviewing
individual proposals. Inclusion within an agency's sphere does not indicate that an
affected area automatically will be annexed; an adopted sphere of influence is only
one of several factors the Commission must consider in reviewing individual
proposals (Government Code Section 56668).
The sphere of influence process is perhaps the most important planning function
given to LAFCo by the State Legislature. San Joaquin LAFCo shall use Spheres of
Influenceto:
1. Promote orderly growth and urban development,
2. Promote cooperative planning efforts among cities, the county and special
districts to address concerns regarding land use and development
-' standards, premature conversion of agriculture and open space lands,
efficient provision of services, and discouragement of urban sprawl.
3. Serve as a master plan for future local government reorganization by
providing long range guidelines for efficient provision of public services.
4. Guide consideration of proposals and studies for changes of organization
or reorganization.
While LAFCo encourages the participation and cooperation of the subject agencies,
Sphere of Influence Plans are a LAFCo responsibility and the Commission is the
sole authority as to the sufficiency of the documentation and the Plan's consistency
with law and LAFCo policy.
In determining a sphere of influence, the Commission is required to consider and
make written determinations with respect to the following factors (Government Code
Section 56425):
The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and
open space lands.
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the
area.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services
that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the
area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
A. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SPHERES OF
INFLUENCE
1. Timeframe: Territory that is currently receiving services from a local
agency, or territory that is projected to need a local agency's services
within a 0-30 year timeframe may be considered for inclusion within an
agency sphere. "Sphere horizons" or planning increments should depict
the agency's logical boundary at a time period of between 5 and 10 years
and at the end of the 30 -year time period.
2. Consistency Required: Territory will not be considered for inclusion within
a City's sphere of influence unless the area is included within the city's
general plan land use element. The adopted sphere of influence shall
also consider City and County general plans, growth management
policies, annexation policies, resource management policies, and any
other policies related to ultimate boundary area of an affected agency
unless those plan or policies conflict with the legislative intent of the
Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.).
Where inconsistencies between plans exist, LAFCo shall rely upon that
plan which most closely follows the legislature's directive to discourage
urban sprawl and encourage the orderly formation and development of
local governmental agencies based upon local conditions and
circumstances.
3. General Plan A1212roach: LAFCo would prefer a sphere of influence
proposal where the city has adopted general plan policies, implementing
ordinances and programs that address: smart growth principles; infill and
redevelopment strategies to minimize conversion of open
space/agricultural land; mixed use and increased densities; job
development centers; community buffers; and habitat, agriculture and
open space preservation strategies.
4. Open Space and Rural Lands: Territory not in need of urban services,
including open space, agriculture, recreational, rural lands, or residential
rural areas shall not be assigned to an agency's sphere of influence
unless the area's exclusion would impede the planned, orderly and
efficient development of the area. Open space and agriculturally
Adopted by the Commission
September 21, 2007 2
designated lands as designated by the applying agency may be
considered for inclusion within a sphere if the agency can demonstrate
that a preservation plan can effectively preserve such lands within the
agency's sphere.
5. Communitv Separators: Sphere of influence boundaries shall, to the
extent feasible, maintain a separation between existing communities to
protect open space and agricultural lands and the identity of an individual
community.
6. Reqional Housing Needs: The sphere of influence plans for cities should
consider the agency's policies and approaches to meet its fair share of
regional housing needs.
7. Districts and Cities: t.AFCo shall encourage districts and cities to develop
plans for the orderly detachment, merger/dissolution of a district when
districts have significant territory within a proposed city's sphere of
influence.
8. Types of Spheres: In addition to a traditional sphere, the following other
types of spheres may be considered by the Commission:
a. A special district that provides services, which ultimately will be
provided by another agency, will be assigned a zero sphere.
b. If additional information is necessary to determine a sphere
boundary, but is currently unavailable, a partial sphere may be
approved and a special study area may be designated.
c. A local agency may be allocated a coterminous sphere if there is no
anticipated need for the agency's services outside its existing
boundaries, or if there is insufficient information to support inclusion
of areas outside the agency's boundaries in the sphere of influence.
9. SQhere Hierarchy: Where an area could be assigned to the sphere of
influence of more than one agency providing needed service, the following
hierarchy shall apply dependent upon ability to serve, unless an agency or
district has specialized capacity to provide such service:
a. Inclusion within a municipality sphere of influence.
b. Inclusion within a multipurpose district sphere of influence.
C. Inclusion within a single -purpose district sphere of influence.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 3
10. Areas of Interest: LAFCo may, at its discretion, designate a geographic
area beyond the sphere of influence as an Area of Interest to any local
agency.
a. Areas of Interest is a geographic area beyond the sphere of influence
in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of one
local agency (the "Acting Agency") impact directly or indirectly upon
another local agency ("the Concerned Agency").
b. Within each Area of Interestthere is to be no more than one city.
C. LAFCo will notify any Concerned Agency when LAFCo receives
notice of a proposal of another agency in the Area of Interest and will
give great weight to its comments.
d. LAFCo encourages agencies to provide advance notice to other
agencies of any action or project being considered within the Area of
Interest and commit to considering any comments made by the other
agency. Agencies may formalize agreements through
Memorandums of Understanding(M.O.U.s.)
11. Adoption and Revision: LAFCo will adopt a sphere of influence after a
public hearing and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 56427
of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. Sphere actions are subject to the
provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. A sphere of
influence shall be updated every five years or more often if deemed
necessary by the Commission. Whenever possible, city sphere updates
shall be scheduled to coincide with City General Plan updates.
B. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN
The Sphere of Influence Plan for each governmental agency within San
Joaquin LAFCo jurisdiction shall contain each of the following:
Present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open
space lands.
a. A map defining the probable 30 -year boundary of its service area and
defining the agency's sphere horizons at the end of the 5-10 and 30
year time period coordinated with the Municipal Service Review.
b. Maps and explanatory text delineating the following:
(1.) Present land uses including improved and unimproved
development, agricultural lands and open space areas.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21, 2007 4
�J
(2.) Propose future use of the area.
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services (i.e.,
water, sewer, drainage, police and fire) for the sphere including the need
of all types of major facilities notjust those provided by the agency.
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services
that the agency provides or it's authorized to provide.
4. Identification of any social or economic communities of interest.
5. A phasing plan for annexation of territoly in the sphere of influencethat is
time -coordinated (5-10 and 30 year time period) and consistent with the
Municipal Service Review.
6. Existing and projected population at the various sphere horizons.
7. In determining the 0-30 year timeframe, LAFCo shall consider and accord
reasonable deference to each local agency's policies with respect to the
rate of residential and non-residential growth, anticipated absorption of
land, and the agency's policies and strategies for economic and
employment growth.
C. AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES OF SPHERES
1. Amendments and Updates Defined: Amendments generally involve
changes to a Sphere of Influence Map or Plan that are proposed by an
agency or individual to accommodate a specific proposal. An amendment
may or may not involve changes to the Municipal Service Review of the
agency.
Updates generally involve a comprehensive review of the entire sphere of
influence, including the map and Municipal Service Review.
2. Amendments Required: An amendment to the Sphere of Influence Plan
will be required in the following circumstances:
a. When an agency seeks to add new territory or remove territory from its
sphere.
b. When an agency seeks to move territory already within its sphere from
one sphere horizon to another.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 5
c. When a district seeks to provide a new or different function or class of
service.
d. When an agency proposes a significant change in its plans for service
which makes the current Municipal Service Review inaccurate.
3. Precedence of Amendments over Annexations: Sphere of influence
amendments shall precede consideration of proposals for changes of
organization or reorganization. Proposals may be considered at the same
meeting.
4. Consistency Required: Amendment proposals must be consistent with an
updated Municipal Service Review.
5. Demonstrated Need Required: An application for amendment to a sphere
of influence must demonstrate a probable need or (in the case of
reduction of the sphere) lack of need or capacity to provide service.
6. Sphere of Influence Amendment and Update Procedures: As required by
Government Code Section 56425, each request for sphere amendment or
update must be heard in a public hearing and is subject to the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 6
if. SERVICE REVIEW POLICIES
The Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
requires LAFCo to conduct service reviews prior to establishing or updating spheres
of influence. A service review is a comprehensive review of services within a
designated geographic area intended to obtain information about municipal or
agency services. Its purpose is to evaluate the provision of services from a
comprehensive perspective and recommend actions, when necessary, to promote
the efficient provision of those services. The service reviews are intended to serve
as a tool to help LAFCo, the public and other agencies better understand the public
service structure and evaluate options for the provision of efficient and effective
public services. LAFCo must have a current Municipal Service Review (MSR) that
demonstrates that the agency can provide adequate and efficient services to the
areas included within the agency's sphere.
A. GENERALSTANDARDS
1. Guidelines: The Municipal Service Review Guidelines (August 2003)
prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research shall be used as a
background for preparing service reviewsfor a jurisdiction or agency.
,1
2. Timeline: The service review must present information on future
projections and plans tied to the 5-10, and 30 -year sphere horizons of the
Sphere of Influence Plan, so that service information can be clearly tied to
the plan. In the case of cities, a shorter timeframe may be appropriate if
the applicable General Plan has a shorter planning period remaining when
the service review is prepared.
3. Adequate Services Required: The service review must demonstrate that
adequate services can be provided within the time that the inhabitants of
the area will need them.
4. Completion Date: Initial Service Reviews should be completed by January
2008 and will be reviewed and updated as necessary but no later that
every five years in conjunction with or prior to Spheres of Influence
reviews and updates. Minor amendments to a Sphere of Influence, as
determined by LAFCo, may not require a service review. Service reviews
may need to be updated independent of a Sphere of Influence review, as
determined by LAFCo, to facilitate reviewof a pending application or other
LAFCo action.
Adopted by the Commission
September21, 2007 7
5. Identification of Land Uses: The Service Review must identify existing
land use and give a reasonable projection of land use, which would occur
if services were provided consistent with the MSR.
6. Consistency Required: Service reviews must be internally consistent and
consistent with any overlapping jurisdiction.
7. Existing Resources: Use of existing information resources, technical
support from the county, cities and special districts when available and
adequate shall be used to reduce processing costs and improve the
timeliness of the reviews.
8. Affected Agencies: Service reviews will cover a range of services that a
public agency provides or is authorized to provide (i.e. fire, water, sewer,
police, and storm water). General government services such as social
services and criminal justice need not be addressed. Agencies that are
required to have SOls and require service reviews include: cities (7),
special independent districts (104), and dependent districts (45).
Countywide districts (i.e., San Joaquin County Resource Conservation
District, San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control) will not require
preparation of service reviews.
9. Organization of Service Reviews: A service review may be conducted for
sub -regional areas within the county or on a countywide basis, it may
review a single agency or multiple agencies and it may review a single
service or multiple services. LAFCo will determine how service reviews will
be organized and conducted in San Joaquin County.
10. Information Sharing: LAFCo encourages collaboration, cooperation and
information sharing among service providers and encourages public
participation in the process.
1. City Services Plans: City Services Plans used in conjunction with a
proposed change of organization shall be in conformity with the MSR.
12. Cross -county MSRs: LAFCo will work together with other County
LAFCo's to develop a schedule and plan for managing cross -county
MSRs.
B. SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
The focal point of the service review process lies with the preparation of written
statements of determination regarding the agency's ability to provide services.
Determinations cannot merely cite some broad policy statement from the
General Plan or recite a series of actions that might be undertaken. The
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 8
- determinations need to be declaratory statements that amve at a conclusion
based of all of the information and evidence presented to the Commission. The
determinations need to bridge the gap between raw data and the final
conclusion about the status or condition of the service that is under review.
The Commission needs this information to determine the appropriateness of
the sphere.
The Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act requires LAFCO to make written evaluations
on nine categories. The following is a brief description of the determination and
the standard for which the service will be review:
Determination 1: Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
Refers to the status of existing and planned public facilities and its relationship
to the quality and levels of service that are, can and need to be provided.
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies can be evaluated in terms of supply,
capacity, condition of facilities, and service quality with correlations to
operational, capital improvement, and finance plans. Maps and explanatory text
that clearly indicate the location of existing facilities and proposed facilities,
including a plan for the timing and location of new or expanded facilities need to
be included. The identification of the anticipated service level needs to be
tailored to the 5-10, and 30 year sphere horizons.
Determination2: Growth and Population projects for the affected area
The need for, and patterns of, service provision should be determined by
existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. The
municipal service reviewwill evaluate whether projections for future growth and
population patterns are integrated into an agency's planning function. This
analysis will be used to determine whether the sphere boundaries reflect
expected growth boundaries. Consideration should be given to the impact on
growth/land use patterns for adjacent areas, on mutual or regional social and
economic interests, on open space and agricultural land, and on the
government structure of the county.
Determination3: Financinq constraints and opportunities
A community's public service needs should be viewed in light of the resources
available to fund the services. The MSR will need to evaluate factors that affect
the financing of necessary improvements and whether agencies are capitalizing
on financing opportunities and collaborative strategies to deal with financial
constraints.
Determination4: Cost avoidance opportunities
LAFCo's role in encouraging efficiently provided public services depends, in
part on helping local agencies, explore cost avoidance opportunities. Cost
avoidance opportunities may include those that eliminate unnecessary costs
derived from:
Adopted by the Commission
September 21, 2007 9
0- Duplication of services and facilities;
► High administration to operational cost ratios;
P. Reliance on outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment
underutilized equipmentor buildings or facilities;
P. Overlapping/inefficient service boundaries;
► Lack of economies of scale; and
► Increasing profitable outsourcing
Determination 5: Opportunities for rate restructuring
The MSR will review agency rates and charges for public services and examine
opportunities for rate restructuring without adversely affecting service quality of
service. Rates will be reviewed for rate setting methodologies and conditions
that could impactfuture rates.
Determination 6: Opportunities for shared facilities
The service review should identify opportunities for jurisdictions to share
facilities and resources creating a more efficient service delivery system.
Sharing facilities and utilizing excess capacity in another agency's service
system works to avoid service duplications, reduces costs, and minimizes
unnecessary resource consumption. The service review will need to inventory
facilities within the study area to determine if facilities are currently being
utilized to capacity and whether efficiencies can be achieved by
accommodating the facility needs of adjacent agencies. Options for planning
for future shared facilities and services will also be considered.
Determination 7: Government structure options
The MSR will consider the advantages and disadvantages of various
government structures that could provide public services. San Joaquin LAFCo
encourages local agencies to use service reviews to determine whether
initiation of proceedings for changes of organization and reorganization,
including spheres of influence, would be in order and in the best interests of the
agency and the community it serves. LAFCo will examine efficiencies that
could be gained through: (1) functional reorganizations within existing
agencies; (2) amending or updating spheres of influence; (3) annexations or
detachments from cities or special districts; (4) formation of new special
districts; (5) special district dissolutions; (6) merges or special districts with
cities; (7) establishment of subsidiary districts; or (8) any additional
reorganization options found in the LAFCo statute.
Determination 8: Evaluation of management efficiencies
Management efficiency refers to the quality of public services and the agency's
ability to provide services. Efficiently managed entities consistently implement
plans to improve service delivery, reduce waste, eliminate duplications of effort,
contain costs, build and maintain adequate contingency reserves, and
encourage open dialogues with the public and other public and private
agencies. The MSR will evaluate management efficiency by analyzing agency
Adopted bythe Commission
September 21, 2007 10
functions, operations, and practices as well as the agency's ability to meet
current and future service demands.
Determination9: Local accountabilitv and aovernance
In making a determination of local accountability and governance, LAFCO will
consider the degree to which the agency fosters local accountability. Local
accountability and governance refers to public agency decision making and
operational and management processes that: (1) include an accessible and
accountable elected or appointed decision making body and agency staff; (2)
encourage and value public participation; (3) disclose budgets, programs, and
plans; (4) solicit public input when considering rate changes and work and
infrastructure plans; and (5) evaluate outcomes of plans, programs and
operations and disclose results to the public.
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
LAFCo encourages the early involvement of agencies, the public, and other
stakeholders in development of the service review report. A formal review
period shall be provided and a meeting/workshop with the Commission shall be
held to accept comments from the public and the Commissioners prior to
finalizing the document. The final report shall be available to the public at least
21 days prior to final consideration by the Commission. This public review
period may be in conjunction with the 21 -day notice requirement for the public
hearing. The service review shall be adopted by resolution at a noticed public
hearing. If the municipal service review supports a particular action such as a
sphere of influence update or amendment application, and the required
processes have been complied with, the Commission can take action on the
proposals the same hearing.
D. CEQA DETERMINATION
LAFCo will consider service reviews, as projects for CEQA purposes and will
be processed consistent with the requirements of CEQA and LAFCo's CEQA
procedures.
[Note: At the time of writing this policy, a bill (AB 1744) is pending in the State Legislature
that could revise the Municipal Service Review Determinations. Should this legislation
become law the above policies are intended to reflect any approved revisions.]
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 11
III, ANNEXATION POLICIESAND PROCEDURES
(Including Reorganizations)
GENERAL STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION AND DETACHMENT
These standards govern LAFCo determinations regarding annexations and
detachments to and from all agencies. The annexations or detachments must be
consistent with the general policies set forth in these Policies and Procedures.
1 _ Spheres and Municipal Service Reviews
The annexation or detachment must be consistent with the internal planning
horizon of the sphere of influence. The land subject to annexation shall
normally lie within the first planning increment (5-10 year) boundary. The
annexation must also consider the applicable Municipal Service Review. An
annexation shall be approved only if the Municipal Services Review and the
Sphere of Influence Plan demonstrates that adequate services can be
provided with the timeframe needed by the inhabitants of the annexed area.
If detachment occurs, the sphere will be modified.
LAFCo generally will not allow spheres of influence to be amended
concurrently with annexation proposals.
Proposed annexations of land that lie outside of the first planning horizon (5-
10 year) are presumed to be inconsistent with the Sphere Plan. In such a
case the agency must first request LAFCo to consider a sphere amendment
pursuant to the above policies. If the amendment is approved, the agency
may then proceed with the annexation proposal. A change of organization
or reorganization will not be approved solely because an area falls within
the Sol of any agency.
As an exception to the presumed inconsistency mentioned above, Master
Plan and Specific Plan developments may span several planning horizons
of the sphere of influence. Annexation of the entire project area may be
desirable in order to comprehensively plan and finance infrastructure and
provide for amenity -based improvements. In these cases, no amendment
of the planning horizon is necessary provided project phasing is recognized
in the Sphere of influence Plan.
2. Plan for Services
Every proposal must include a Plan for Services that addresses the items
identified in Section 56653 of the Government Code. The Plan for Services
must be consistent with the Municipal Service Review of the Agency.
Proponents must demonstrate that the city or special district is capable of
meeting the need for services.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 12
3. Contiouity
Territory proposed to be annexed to a city must be contiguous to the
annexing city or district unless specifically allowed by statute. Territory is not
contiguous if the only connection is a strip of land more than 300 feet long
and less than 200 wide, that width to be exclusive of highways. The
boundaries of a proposed annexation or reorganization must not create or
result in areas that are difficult to serve.
4. Development Within Jurisdiction
Development of existing vacant or non -prime agricultural lands for urban
uses within the existing jurisdiction or within the sphere of influence should
be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or
lead to the development of existing open space lands for non -open space
uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or
outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency. (Section
56377)
5. Progressive Urban Pattern
Annexations to agencies providing urban services shall be progressive
steps toward filling in the territory designated by the affected agency's
adopted sphere of influence. Proposed growth shall be from inner toward
outer areas.
6. Piecemeal Annexation Prohibited
LAFCo requires annexations and detachments to be consistent with the
schedule for annexation that is contained in the agency's Sphere of
Influence Plan. LAFCo will modify small piece -meal or irregular
annexations, to include additional territory in order to promote orderly
annexation and logical boundaries, while maintaining a viable proposal. In
such cases, detailed development plans may not be required for those
additional areas but compliance with CEQA is required.
7. Annexations to Eliminate Islands
Proposals to annex islands or to otherwise correct illogical distortion of
boundaries will normally be approved unless they would violate another
provision of these standards. In order to avoid the creation of an island or to
encourage the elimination an existing island, detailed development plans
may not be required for the remnant areas.
8. Annexations that Create Islands
An annexation will not be approved if it will result in the creation of an island
of unincorporated territory of otherwise cause or further the distortion of
existing boundaries. The Commission may nevertheless approve such an
annexation where it finds that the application of this policy would be
detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that a
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 13
reasonable effort has been made to include the island in the annexation but
that inclusion is notfeasible at this time.
9. Substantlaily. Surrounded
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg
Act regarding island annexation without protest hearings (Section 56375.5),
the subject territory of an annexation proposal shall be deemed
"substantially surrounded" if it is within the sphere of influence of the
affected city and two-thirds (66-213%) of its boundary is surrounded by the
affected city.
10. Definite and Certain Boundaries
All boundaries shall be definite and certain and conform to lines of
assessment or ownership. The Commission's approval of boundary change
proposals containing split parcels will typically be subject to a condition
requiring the recordation of a parcel map, lot line adjustment or other
instrument to avoid creating remnants of legal lots.
11. Service Reauirements
An annexation shall not be approved merely to facilitate the delivery of one
or a few services to the determent of the delivery of a larger number of
Services or service more basic to public health and welfare.
12. Adverse Impact of Annexation on the Other Aaencies
LAFCo will consider any significant adverse effects upon other service
recipients or other agencies serving the area and may condition any
approval to mitigate such impacts.
CITY ANNEXATIONS
1. Annexation of Streets
Annexations shall reflect the logical allocation of streets and rights of way as
follows:
Territory should be included within the annexation to assure that the
city reasonably assumesthe burden of providing adequate roads to the
property to be annexed. LAFCo will require cities to annex streets
where adjacent lands that are in the city will generate additional traffic
or where the annexation will isolate sections of county road. Cities
shall include all contiguous public roads that can be included without
fragmenting governmental responsibility by alternating city and county
road jurisdiction over short section of the same roadway.
Adopted by the Commission
September2l, 2007 14
When a street is a boundary line between two cities the centerline of
f the street may be used as the boundary or may follow a boundary
reached by agreement of the affected cities.
L
2. Pre -zoning Required
The Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act requires the city to pre -zone territory to be
annexed, and prohibits subsequent changes to the General Plan and /or pre -
zoning designations for a period of two years after completion of the
annexation, unless the city council makes a finding at a public hearing
consistent with the provisions of Governments Code Section 56375(e). In
instances where LAFCo amends a proposal to include additional territory, the
Commission's approval of the annexation will be conditioned upon the pre -
zoning of the newterritory.
Adopted by the Commission
September 21,2007 15
N ADMINISTRATION
A. WAIVER
Four members voting on a proposal may waive provisions of these policies by
stating the reasons therefore on the record. The Commission does not have
the authority to waive any provision of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
B. CHALLENGES TO PROCEDURES
Challenges to these policies shall be subject to the procedures set forth in
Government Code Sections 56107 and 65010.
Adopted by the Commission 16
September 21,2007