Staff Report. Review and Consideration of New Policy Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

Transcription

1 SONOMA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE, ROOM 104A, SANTA ROSA, CA (707) FAX (707) Staff Report Meeting Date: April 4, 2012 Agenda Item: Item No. 5 Agenda Item Title: Proposal: Review and Consideration of New Policy Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Staff requests that the Committee review and provide guidance on development of a new policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Location: Environmental Determination: Countywide Not a project under CEQA Staff Contact: Richard Bottarini

2 ANALYSIS Background The Commission is governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, as amended (Government Code 56000) ( the Act ) to control the boundaries of cities and most special districts in the County. The Commission establishes and, as necessary, amends spheres of influence of these agencies to plan for future boundaries and service areas. Municipal Service Reviews are conducted in preparation for proposing substantive updates to an agency s sphere. In 2011, the Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, the California Rural Legal Assistance-sponsored SB 244 (Wolk), which amended the Act and focused on disadvantaged unincorporated communities; these areas lack many basic public services, such as domestic water, sanitary sewers, paved streets, storm drainage, and street lights, and could include county islands, fringe communities, and isolated inhabited communities. Components of SB 244: Definitions As included in SB 244, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act now defines a disadvantaged unincorporated community as Inhabited territory, as defined by Section 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a disadvantaged community as defined by Section of the Water Code. [Government Code ) (Emphasis added; discussion below) Disadvantaged community, as referred to in Section of the Water Code, means a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. Inhabited territory, as defined in the Act, means territory within which there reside 12 or more registered voters. Beyond these definitions, the other relevant new definitions are added to general plan law in Section of the Government Code: (1) Community means an inhabited area within a city or county that is comprised of no less than 10 dwellings adjacent or in close proximity to one another. (2) Disadvantaged unincorporated community means a fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median household income is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. PC Agenda Item 5 2 April 4, 2012

3 (3) Unincorporated fringe community means any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is within a city s sphere of influence. (4) Unincorporated island community means any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is surrounded or substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one or more cities and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean. (5) Unincorporated legacy community means a geographically isolated community that is inhabited and has existed for at least 50 years. Components of SB 244: Requirements for LAFCO Re: Annexation Proposals The state recognized the need to include disadvantaged unincorporated communities into nearby cities when possible. To that end, Section was amended to add the following language: (A) (B) Except for those changes of organization or reorganization authorized under Section [island annexation streamlining provisions], and except as provided by subparagraph (B), a commission shall not approve an annexation to a city of any territory greater than 10 acres, or as determined by commission policy, where there exists a disadvantaged unincorporated community that is contiguous to the area of proposed annexation, unless an application to annex the disadvantaged unincorporated community to the subject city has been filed with the executive officer. An application to annex a contiguous disadvantaged community shall not be required if either of the following apply: (i) (ii) A prior application for annexation of the same disadvantaged community has been made in the preceding five years. The commission finds, based upon written evidence, that a majority of the residents within the affected territory are opposed to annexation. (Emphasis added; discussion below) Components of SB 244: Requirements for LAFCO: Spheres of Influence and Municipal Service Reviews The Act requires LAFCO, in updating an agency s sphere of influence after July 1, 2012, to also consider and include in a written statement of determinations for a city or special district that provides public facilities or services that relate to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, the present and probable need for those facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the agency s existing sphere of influence. PC Agenda Item 5 3 April 4, 2012

4 In addition, the law allows the Commission, in determining an agency s sphere, to assess the feasibility of governmental reorganization of agencies and recommend such reorganization if that would promote orderly development and efficient and affordable service delivery. In conducting Municipal Service Reviews, the Commission must also prepare a written statement of determinations. As a result of SB 244, the determinations must include: The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the agency s sphere of influence Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the agency s sphere of influence. The law also now allows the Commission to assess various alternatives for improving efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within and contiguous to an agency s sphere, including, but not limited to, consolidation of governmental agencies. Policy Questions 1. How much discretion does the Commission want regarding the determination of a community/disadvantaged unincorporated community? In both the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community and the section associated with annexation of a contiguous disadvantaged community, the words or as determined by Commission policy appear. Thus, staff believes the Commission has great latitude in defining communities and in establishing the sub-category of disadvantaged unincorporated communities. In Sonoma County, there are numerous neighborhoods and communities. For the purposes of the Sonoma LAFCO review, small neighborhoods may not be considered a community although they may have more than 10 dwelling units in close proximity and may be unincorporated. An example of a neighborhood is the Junior College neighborhood in Santa Rosa. Sometimes large subdivisions take on a neighborhood name, but these do not constitute a community. The 2010 U.S. Census identified 28 census designated places in Sonoma County. The Commission could consider these as unincorporated island, fringe or legacy communities. Staff believes that these communities were determined by a consensus of stakeholders. By accepting them as the unincorporated island, unincorporated fringe or unincorporated legacy communities; the Commission would avoid the process of evaluating each neighborhood or community. PC Agenda Item 5 4 April 4, 2012

5 The census designated places in Sonoma County are as follows: Bloomfield Bodega Bay Bodega Boyes Hot Springs Carmet Cazadero El Verano Eldridge Fetters Hot Springs Forestville Fulton Geyserville Glen Ellen Graton Guerneville Jenner Kenwood Larkfield-Wikiup Monte Rio Occidental Penngrove Roseland Salmon Creek Sea Ranch Sereno del Mar Temelec Timber Cove Valley Ford The sub-sets of Communities are Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. When the 2010 Census income data becomes available, the identification of disadvantaged unincorporated communities will be a simple arithmetic exercise. 2. How much discretion does the Commission have regarding defining the acreage threshold that triggers an application for annexation of a disadvantaged unincorporated community? Staff believes the Commission has significant authority. The Commission can increase or decrease the 10-acre threshold in state law ( 56375, above) that triggers the annexation of a contiguous disadvantaged unincorporated community. The Commission can determine either that the standard in the law is appropriate and confirm the statute s standard or could choose a lower or different threshold that would trigger an application to annex a contiguous disadvantaged unincorporated community to the subject city. It should be noted that, within the City of Santa Rosa sphere of influence, only one disadvantaged unincorporated community exists Roseland. Based on the 2003 City of Santa Rosa Profile of Unincorporated County Areas within the Santa Rosa Urban Boundary, there are only 27 acres of undeveloped residentially-planned lands and five acres of undeveloped retail-planned lands. None of the properties appears to be over 10 acres. Further, most projects do not need to be annexed to the City to get sewer and water due to agreements with the County to provide the utilities. It is also possible that any numerical standard will not have a practical effect because the City simply would not propose an annexation of 10 acres or more. Staff could research the vacant parcels or potentially those re-developable (based on a ratio of improvements to land value) and determine the size of each. PC Agenda Item 5 5 April 4, 2012

6 Staff also believes that the Commission is not bound by one criterion. For example, the Commission could determine that an annexation with any commercially planned property (in either the City or County general plans) triggers the requirement for annexation of the entire island. In addition, the Commission could determine that annexation for development or redevelopment of residential property could trigger annexation of the complete island. Again, there is no requirement for the City to initiate an annexation. 3. What constitutes written evidence that a majority of residents are opposed to annexation, as stated in Section 56375? In the draft policy, we specify that an annexation sentiment survey may be used as written evidence. It has been the common practice in Sonoma County to prepare sentiment surveys when setting annexation boundaries and submitting them with an application for annexation. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Policy Committee review and provide comments on the draft policy. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee could defer the discussion of the policy. In the current state legislative session, Senator Emmerson has introduced SB 1498, sponsored by the League of Cities to modify SB 244 (Wolk). The League has been very concerned about the language added by SB 244, which requires a separate annexation application to LAFCO for a disadvantaged unincorporated community that is adjacent to territory proposed to be annexed to a city. The Emmerson bill does two things: (1) it includes language proposed by CALAFCO to amend Section (extensions of service outside an agency s boundaries); and (2) it eliminates the annexation language now in The League is hoping that by packaging these two concepts, they can get the support of stakeholders and the Legislature. CALAFCO is aware that members of the agricultural and environmental communities are concerned about the language. The CALAFCO Board voted to work with the stakeholders and pursue legislation in 2013, unless someone else introduces it in Although in favor of focusing on updating state law, Sonoma LAFCO did not support the proposed changes to PC Agenda Item 5 6 April 4, 2012

7 At its most recent meeting in March, the CALAFCO Legislative Committee voted to recommend that the CALAFCO Board maintain a watch position on Mr. Emmerson s bill. No hearing has yet been set. However, if heard, the bill would be considered by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which is chaired by Senator Wolk. ATTACHMENTS 1. Senate Governance and Finance Committee Review of SB 244; April 2011; September 2011 Follow-Up 2. SB 244 (Wolk), as Chaptered 3. Draft Policy PC Agenda Item 5 7 April 4, 2012

8 PC Agenda Item 5 1 April 4, 2012