HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/1994, 6 - APRIL 20TH LAFCO MEETING �II�I�WII�I�II�III�IIIII�Ity o f(� san ,tis oBi spo MEEnNG OATS:
Ip�u��lUl city m -�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT N _6
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative OM
SUBJECT: April 20th LAFCo Meeting
71,
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Defer the study session regarding the Nacimiento Project
until after the April 20th Local Agency Formation Commission meeting, and discuss the
presentation strategy with respect to the April 20th LAFCo meeting.
DISCUSSION:
As you know, on April 20th, the Local Agency Formation Commission will consider CSA
22's request for expanded powers. I intend to attend this meeting, along with other staff
members. Ken Hampian has been asked to present a summary of recent Council actions
relative to the Airport Area, similar to the presentation on March 17th. I would also urge
the Council sub-committee members as well as other City Councilmembers to attend and
participate in this meeting as well.
On a related matter, I am suggesting that the study session on the Nacimiento Water Supply
Project be postponed until after Council consideration of the Water Management Plan and
LAFCo action on the CSA 22 matter.
I thought we might take a couple of minutes at the conclusion of the April 5th Council
meeting to see if Council Members,have other ideas with respect to a presentation before
LAFCo on the 20th.
\g\Iafco
MEE1.1413 AGENDA
DATEy=ITEM #�
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
April 7 , 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Jorgense
SUBJECT: April 20th LAF 0 Meeting
This is just a reminder that if a majority of the City Council
attends the April 20, 1994 LAFCO meeting, care should be taken that
Council members " . . . do not discuss among themselves. . . " business
of a specific nature that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction. . . " of the City. (Government Code § 54952 .2 . ) To
avoid the potential for a mistake or the appearance of
deliberation, it would be a good idea if the Councilmembers do not
sit together. In addition, it would be preferable to have no more
than two Councilmembers represent the remainder of the Council if
public testimony is to be given. The risk here is that if all or
a majority of the Council testify at the meeting, it may at some
point be construed as deliberation by the Council without a
properly called meeting.
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
contact me at your convenience.
JGJ/sw
cc: John Dunn
Cindy Clemens
2.36"eu� L ❑ CDD DIR
0 ❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PiIDIfI
I-, POLICE CHF.I
7/ Rr--.�Q��Fa_E i:' L�TILG;P. !I
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 4"I `94ITEM #
&ADOPTED BY COtJ?QTY,RES, 9316; 9318, & 9319 IN MAY 1993
J
� Ua
2y
J •—� 6y General Standards For The Evaluation Of Proposals For The Formation Of
n= Municipalities And Special Districts And Annexations C• CCU rIC/L
• A4190
CirY ATTY
I. General Standards: L' Iry CkeR 1<
R. To"01%
1. Cities and special districts are discouraged from annexations outside of their urban FILE
development area unless the need for such services is clearly demonstrated.
2. Cities and special districts which provide municipal - type services are encouraged to
establish urban development areas within their spheres of influence.
3. Cities are encouraged to annex unincorporated islands, and land mostly surrounded,
within their spheres of influence.
4. Cities are discouraged from strip or non-contiguous annexations.
5. Development of vacant land within a city is favored by the Commission over
development in fringe areas.
6. Urban development within cities is preferred by the Commission to such development in
unincorporated territory.
7. The Commission will recognize and preserve clearly - defined, long-term agricultural and
open space areas established by the County.
8. The Commission favors annexation to an existing agency over creation of a new agency.
9. The Commission discourages special districts from extending services by agreement
without annexation.
10. The Commission normally will require annexation to a city rather than annexation to a
sanitation, sanitary, or water district in the unincorporated area.
11. The Commission will require, as a condition to city annexation, detachment of the
annexed territory from special districts where appropriate.
12. The Commission prefers merger of special districts with a city upon incorporation,
whenever possible, as being in the best interest of the local citizens.
13. In any proposal, the impacts on affordable housing must be considered. The Commission
will consider the impact of the creation of new jobs on affordable housing stock, not only
in the jurisdiction to which the annexation is proposed, but also in neighboring
jurisdictions. The agency to which the annexation is proposed, should demonstrate to
the Commission that the effects of the proposed project on affordable housing have been
mitigated."
14. The Commission encourages development on vacant or under-utilized parcels already
within the boundaries of a jurisdiction, prior to annexation of territory within that
agency's sphere of influence and service. The agency should provide LAFCO with a
build-out estimate or inventory and document how it was prepared.
In any annexation proposal, the agency should demonstrate that it has the capacity to
serve the vacant or under-utilized parcels already within its boundaries, plus the
annexation area. If the proposed project is in phases, the agency should demonstrate that
adequate service capacity will be provided as needed for each phase. Alternative single
or multiple sites for the proposed project that are already within the agency's boundaries
should also be identified."
15. In any proposal requiring water service, the Commission requires that the agency to
which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate the availability of an adequate,
reliable and sustainable supply of water. In cases where a phased development is
proposed, the agency should demonstrate that adequate service capacity will be provided
as needed for each phase. In cases where a proposed annexation will be served by an .
on-site water source, the proponent should demonstrate its adequacy.
II. Standards for City Incorporation:
1. Incorporation will be discouraged where a municipal government already exists adjacent
to the area.
2. When other municipalities are adjacent, the Commission will consider as preferable, in
the order listed, the following actions:
a. Annexation to an existing agency.
b. Reorganization, consolidating one or more of the municipalities and the
unincorporated area.
C. Incorporation.
3. Incorporation will be given more favorable consideration if:
a. A community is geographically located some distance from any other
municipality;
b. There is a demonstrable public need for additional governmental services and
controls, or a need for a higher level of some or all of those being provided; and
C. The needed governmental services can be shown to be most quickly and
economically provided by incorporation.
4. The area to be incorporated is compact and contiguous and possesses a community
identity.
2
S. The proposed incorporation must reflect and consider the general plans of the County and
affected cities.
6. The proposed incorporation must not conflict with the logical growth of adjacent cities
as reflected in Commission approved spheres of influence.
7. The proposed incorporation does not represent an attempt to incorporate only revenue-
producing territories to preempt neighboring cities.
8. The proposed incorporation benefits the majority and does not give special advantages
to a particular interest group.
9. The proposed boundaries do not create or result in areas that are difficult.to serve.
10. The proposed boundaries must be definite and certain and wherever possible should
conform to lines of assessment.
11. The effect of incorporation on special districts must be considered.
12. Within the proposal there must be a cost versus benefits justification of the proposed
incorporation.
13: Sufficient revenue to supply required municipal services is evident in the incorporation';
proposal.
14. Consideration will be given to the effect of incorporation upon adjacent landowners,
governmental agencies, and the County.
III. Standards for City Annexation:
1. The boundaries of the proposed annexation must be definite and certain and must
conform to lines of assessment whenever possible.
2. The boundaries of the area to be annexed will not result in any areas difficult to serve.
3. There is a demonstrated need for governmental services and controls.
4. The City has the capability of meeting the need for services and controls.
5. There is a mutual social and economic interest between the residents of the city and the
proposed territory.
6. The proposed annexation is compatible with the city's general plan.
7. The proposed annexation represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the annexing
municipality.
3
IV. Standards for Annexation to Special Districts:
1. A demonstrated immediate need exists for the required services and there is no
reasonable alternative manner of providing them.
2. The proposed annexation represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the district.
3. The proposed annexation reflects the plans of adjacent governmental agencies.
4. The proposed annexation does not represent an attempt to annex only revenue-producing
property.
5. The proposed boundaries must be definite and certain and conform to lines of assessment
whenever possible.
V. Standards for Formation of Special Districts:
1. There is a demonstrated need for services or controls which can be provided by a special
district.
2. There is no alternative which would provide for the required service in a more
reasonable manner.
3. There will be sufficient revenue to adequately finance the required services or controls.
4. The proposal does not represent a conflict with the reasonable and logical expansion of
adjacent governmental agencies.
5. The proposal does not give to any special interest group the status of a governmental
agency.
6. The boundary configurations will not create or result in areas difficult to serve.
7. The boundaries of the proposed formation must be definite and certain and must conform
to lines of assessment whenever possible.
8. The boundaries must not conflict with boundaries of other public agencies possessing the
same powers unless properly justified.
4