Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.5 Oppose SB 1258 County Dev Agreements • kI, /.. CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 24, 1989 SUBJECT: SB 1258 Mandatory Acceptance of County Approved Development Agreements for Annexed Areas (Prepared by: Lou Ann Riera-Texeira, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager) . EXHIBITS: - Letter from League of California Cities - Draft Letter of Opposition to SB 1258 RECOMMENDATION: Consider opposing SB 1258 and if appropriate, provide input icwO/on the draft letter of opposition and authorize the Mayor to send the letter. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None. DESCRIPTION: The League of California Cities has requested the City Council's support in opposing SB 1258 (Bergeson). This legislation provides for mandatory acceptance of county approved development agreements for annexed areas. Under current law, only newly incorporated cities must accept county approved development agreements. The purpose being to eliminate the uncertainty and delay for a developer who wishes to proceed with its project during an incorporation effort. SB 1258 proposes that if the county and a developer enter into a development agreement, an existing city which annexes the subject property is bound to the terms of that agreement. In essence, this bill allows a developer to "shop around" between the county and the city to find the best terms. In addition, the bill would require a city planning to annex property to first consider the terms of the existing county development agreement. If the terms of that agreement are objectionable, the city may have to abandon its annexation efforts. However, if the annexation is initiated by the landowner-developer and is subsequently approved by LAFCO over the objections of the city, the city would be forced to allow the project to proceed under the terms of the county's agreement. Consequently, developments within annexed areas may be inconsistent with a city's general plan, local circulation systems and with various city policies. Staff has prepared a draft letter opposing the bill which has already passed the Senate and is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Local Government Committee on August 23, 1989. If the City Council concurs that the City should oppose the legislation, it is recommended that Council provide additional input on the draft letter of opposition and authorize the Mayor to transmit the letter. Sm o.. _ i 1. W AIMS League of California Cities is i.v a�� D fl , 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 .J 0 I j California Cities Work Together Sacramento, CA F-°1..)1 � F{.i sl.dl\1 June 27, 1989 TO: City Managers (City Clerks in Non-Manager Cities) RE: SB 1258 (Bergeson) Mandatory Acceptance of County Approved Development Agreements for Annexed Areas. Oppose - Urgent! Background Under existing law, only newly incorporated cities must accept county approved development agreements. The underlying purpose of this law is to eliminate the uncertainty and delay for a developer who wished to proceed with its project during an incorporation effort. However, this law allows;a developer to undermine one of the main purposes of incorporation, namely local control over development decisions. What SB 1258 Does SB 1258 provides that if the county and a developer enter into a development agreement, an existing city which annexes the subject property is bound to the terms of that agreement. This bill allows a developer to "shop around" between the county and the city to find the best terms. It will also result in further erosion of the relationship between cities and counties because the county will be allowed to preempt a city's decision regarding the type, density and conditions for development within the city's sphere of influence. An annexation is initiated either.by the annexing city or by the property owner. -If SB 1258 is passed, a city which intends to annex property will have to first consider the terms of the existing county development agreement. If the terms of that agreement are objectionable the city would have to abandon its annexation effort, unless the developer was willing to voluntarily enter into a new agreement w ith the city to waive its rights under the county-approved agreement. However, if the annexation was initiated by the landowner-developer and LAFCO approved the annexation over the objections of the city, the city would be forced to allow the project to proceed under the county's agreement. LAFCO can force a city to annex territory which the city does not wish to accept. As a result, developments within annexed areas may be inconsistent with a city's general plan, its job-housing policies, its agricultural and open space preservation policies, its planned circulation system, school sites, etc. In addition, road fees and other infrastructure requirements could not be imposed, leading to a lack of adequate facilities and voter frustration with improper planning. SB 1258 has already passed the Senate over'the strong objections-of the League.- -This bill is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee on- Wednesday, July 12, 1989: Cities should immediately relay their opposition to SB 1258 to their respective Assembly Members and to Assembly Member Dominic Cortese, the chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee. July 24, 1989 The Honorable Dominic Cortese, Chair Assembly Local Government Committee California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 6031 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Assemblyman Cortese: I am writing to register the City of Dublin's opposition to SB 1258, concerning the mandatory acceptance of county approved development agreements for annexed areas, which is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday, August 23, 1989. At the City Council meeting on July 24, 1989, the Dublin City Council reviewed SB 1258. Briefly, the bill provides that if the county and a developer enter into a development agreement, an existing city which annexes the subject property is bound to the terms of that agreement. In essence, this bill would allow a developer to "shop around" between the county and the city to find the best terms. Our concerns with this bill are as follows: 1) SB 1258 allows a developer to undermine one of the main purposes of incorporation, namely local control over development decisions. 2) In addition, SB 1258 would impede a city's annexation efforts by forcing the city to first consider the terms of existing county development agreements before proceeding with annexation efforts. If the terms of that agreement are objectionable, the city may have to abandon its annexation plans. 3) Lastly, SB 1258 may result in further erosion of the relationship between cities and counties because the county will be allowed to preempt a city's decision development within the city's sphere of influence. On behalf of the Dublin City Council I urge your support for local government by defeating SB 1258. - Sincerely, Paul C. Moffatt Mayor, City of Dublin cc: Assembly Member Baker Senator Lockyer T.c1am,o .,f _