Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-01; City Council; 8675; AB 3236 legislation LAFCO Initiation of Annexation' I l I I '"Ii f I. f X i 1 i l ' ( j l ' l, ' '• t f i l l 0, LIJ, ~ er: 0.. ~ z 0 ~ ti( _, u z = 8 Clt~F CARLSBAD -AGENDN31LL • AB# cPro '7. ,;-:_ IITJ.E; MiO. 7/1/86 LEGISLATION -AB 3236 DEPT. HO . ...;.:; ...... """'·..,-:i -~==· DEPT .. _cM __ _ LAFCO INI'l'IA'l'ION OF ANNEXATION Cl -· __ _,~1t: -ITAll1 ;-, • CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By minute motion oppose AB 3236 and direct staff to send letter of opposition. ITEM EXPLANATION: Mayor Cox of the City of Chula Vista has asked that Carlsbad oppose AB 3236. A copy of Mayor Cox's letter is attached. AlBo, attached is the City of Chula Vista's analysis of the bill and a copy of the bill. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct impact. EXHIBITS: l_ Letter from Mayor Cox dated June 2, 1986. 2. Copy of bill and analysis of AB 3236. ) OFFICE OF THE MAYOR GREGORY A. COX CllY OF CHUIA VISTA June 2, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: At its May 20, 1986, meeting, the Chula Vista City Council took official action to oppose AB 3236 (Hannigan) regarding a major modification of the laws governing Local Agency Formation Commissions. This legislation has the potential to weaken local control over land use, and to further diminish local home rule. Specifically, this legislation would empower LAFCO to initiate the annexation of territory to a city, even where the involved territory is not planned or developed to the city's standards. Furthermore, it would change the scope of judicial review requiring substantial legislative decisions to a scope of requiring substantial evidence in the record as well as result in an increase in the cost of planning at the local level. The Chula Vista City Council believes that AB 3236 1 s provisions are counterproductive and would contravene local planning initiative, meaningful interjurisdictional planning, and the exercise of local home rule. Therefore, we encourage you to oppose AB 3236 before it is rein ·oduced as a new bill or introduced as a preprint bill and interim hearings are held. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. GRC: IO/nr WPC 1158D/1168D 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 6S1·5044 ( (_ II. AB 3236: Pro osed Amendment to the Laws Governin the Local A ency onnat on omm1ss1ons Background On April 7, Assemblyman Tom Hannigan amen!!ed his AB 3236 to become a major modification of the laws governing Local .~gency Formation Commissions. As amended, the bill: a} changes the scope of judicial review of LAFCO decisions from being legislative decisions to a scope of review requiring substantial evidence in the record; b) modifies the purposes of LAFCO to include the discouragement of premature extension of loca1 agency boundaries, the promotion of reorganization, the balancing of revenue-producing activities with activities that have higher costs and the prevention of premature conversion of agriculture and open space lands; c) adds two more pubiic members to LAFCO's, and gives LAFCO's power to initiate the consolidation, disso1ution, merger and establishment of districts and annexations of territory to cities; d) eliminates the limitation ( currently at $1,500) on the fee LAFCO may charge on an individual application and funds LAFCO by using property taxes to pay their operating costs. e) requires annexations to be consistent with specific standards and spheres of influence set forth by LAFCO's. The City's Advance Planning Division has reviewed AB 3236 to determine its impact on the City. The following is a summary: 1. It would substantially increase the regional planning responsibilities of Local Agency Formation Commis~ions, but, at the same time, reduce those of local governments. This aspect of the proposed legislation has the potential to weaken local control over local land use, and to resultantly diminish local home ru1e. ( '. C ) ., l Legislative Analysis -3-May 15, 1986 2. While AB 3236 would rigidly control the territorial expansion of cities, it would not effectively reduce the primary cause of urban sprawl, namely; the urban development of unincorporated areas under County aegis. 3. AB 3236 would substantially increase the cost of planning at the local and LAFCO levels. Since local taxes cannot be readily increased, this cost could potentially have a negative impact on other governmental services. Unfortunately, some of the studies called for under the bil 1 , such as those which establish a balance between jobs and housing,numerical goals for in-filling, and urban-service delivery alternatives, are not only premature, but ill-advised at the sphere-of-influence and territorial reorganization determination stages. 4. AB 3236's provisions, to some extent, are predicated upon the fallacy that cities will urbanize all of the territory brought within their limits. In actuality, a city's annexation of large tracts of open space would enable it to effectively pl an the extend of its urban pattern, and those areas which should be preserved as permanent greenbelts or green interstices (wedges). 5. 6. The city and regional planning process is both comprehensive and continuing. It also tends to be open ended and characterized by change. The rigid, pre-annexation planning called for under AB 3236, therefore, might be ephemeral in nature. AB 3236 indicates that a LAFCO may maintain jurisdiction over annexed land and be empowered to dissolve annexations; therefore, resulting in a loss of Local Home Rule. It would empower a LAFCO to initiate the annexation of territory to a city, even where the involved territory is not planned or developed to the city's standards. This 11you-got-it 11 provision could saddle cities with uneconomic, unincorporatf?d settlements, and further encourage counties to promote urban settlements which they are ill-equipped to administer or serve. In conclusion, AB 3236 would iucrease local territorial planning's responsiveness to city and regional planning, and, from the standpoint, is supportable. However, some of the bill 1s provisions are counterproductive, and wculd contravene local planning initiative, meaningful interjurisdictional planning, and the exercise of local home rule. Several of the planning processes established under AB 3236 furthermore, woul-d be premature, impracticable, and costly. In short, AB 3236 requires substantial amendment. Status On April 29, AB 3236 was heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee. The bi 11 fa i1 ed in Conmi ttee because its broad impact required more time for Committee review and due to the pending Legislative recess only limited time was available. However, this legislation may be reintroduced as a new bill or introduced as a preprint bill, and interim hearings are likely to be held. Accordingly~ the League has requested review and comments by California cities. . • f . -· ( ( (_ Legislative Analysis -4-May 15, 1986 League Position The League staff has taken no position on AB 3236. They are recommending that cities review and send comments. Recomnendation That the Ci-ty Council authorize staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor• s signature addressing the impact of AB 3236 on the City of Chula Vista and the City's general opposition to the proposed legislation unless amended to reflect the City's concerns. WPC 1152D ✓ CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-19135-86 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3236 Introduced by Assembly Member Hannigan February 14, 1986 An act to amend Section 56001 of the Government Code, relating to local government. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 3236, as introduced, Hannigan. Local agencies: organization. The existing Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 contains various legislative findings and declarations regarding the development of cities and districts. This bill would revise those legislative findings and declarations. 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 I. Section 56001 of the Government Code 2 is amended to read: 3 56001. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the 4 policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and 5 development, the preservatio11 of :.lgricultural and other 6 valuable open-space lands, m1d the efficient provision of 7 local government services, all of which are essential to 8 the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state. 9 The Legislature recognizes that the logical formation ttttd 10 determination of local agency boundaries is an important 11 factor ttt p,omoti11g orderly Ele\.·clopment Therefore, the 12 Legislature further finds and declares that this policy -2- 1 should be effected by the logical formation and 2 modification of the boundaries of local agencies. 3 The Legislature recognizes that urban population 4 densities and intensive residential, commercial, and 5 industrial development necessitate a broad spectrum and 6 high level of community services and controls. The 7 Legislature finds that a compact urban form and a 8 reasonable balance of jobs and housing are advantageous 9 in providing efficient community services and pres{!Jrving 10 agricultural and other open-space lands on the urban 11 periphery. The Legislature also recognizes that when 12 areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the 13 full range of community services, priorities are required 14 to be established regarding the type and levels of services 15 that the residents of an urban community need and 16 desire; that community service priorities be established 17 by weighing the total community service needs against 18 the total financial resources available for securing 19 community services; and that those community service 20 priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, 21 conditions, and limited financial resources. The 22 Legislature finds and declares that a single governmental 23 agency, rather than several limited purpose agencies, is 24 in many cases better able to assess and be accountable for 25 community service needs and financial resources and, 26 therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing 27 community service priorities. ,,,-,.