15 Desk Item - County Island Annexation Process~pW N 0
!~S• ~G AS~~'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 5, 2005
MEETING DATE: 12/5/2005
ITEM NO. 15
DESK ITEM
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE COUNTY ISLAND
ANNEXATION PROCESS
Attached for your information a copy of the Santa Clara County Resolution of Intent which was
inadvertently omitted from report that was previously forwarded. Also attached are two additional
e-mails that were received on this matter.
Attachments: .
1. Santa Clara County Resolution of Intent
2. 12/4/05 e-mail from Paul and Eleanor Grams
3. 12/5/05 e-mail from Mehrdad Mavandad
" L S ox-~ Ca loo
PREPARED BY: PAMELA S. JACOBS
Assistant Town Manager
PSJ:pg
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\cnclrpts\ 12-05-05. deskitem# 15.wpd
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator
Finance Community Development Revised: 12/5/05 3:12 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
y .
r
A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN SUPPORT OF THE FUTURE
EVALUATION, CONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT
OF COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS
REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WITHIN THE URBAN UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS
("URBAN POCKETS")
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County General Plan has tong supported and encouraged
the annexation of urban unincorporated lands located within the Urban Service Areas of the
fifteen cities of Santa Clara County, defined in State law as urban unincorporated ishuids or
"pockets;" and
WHEREAS, the County and Cities have agreed through countywide urban growth
management and urban development policies originating in the 1970's that the annexation of
urban pockets by the cities is in the general public interest and welfare, and that the continued
existence of such urban pockets results in (a) inefficient and illogical political boundaries, (b)
costly, inefficient, and impractical provision of urban services and infrastructure, (c) unnecessary
division of urban communities and neighborhoods, (d) the disenfranchisement of those
unincorporated citizens of the County who are unable to vote for city elected officials and unable
to receove certain city-provided services for benefit of the community, (e) differences in land
development outcomes, and (f) other related inequities; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature, in recognition of the significant disadvantages of
retaining urban unincorporated islands, has enacted legislation signed into law which facilitates
annexation of certain urban islands of up to 150 acres which cannot be contested by resident
protest or election, and these "streamlined," reduced-cost annexation procedures are available to
cities through the end of 2006; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara :nd the Santa Clara County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) have further agreed to facilitate annexation by providing
procedural and financial assistance to cities that successfully complete the annexation of their
qualifying urban pockets within the 2005-2006 time period, including waiving of fees, payment
of mapping costs and other related processing costs, and road surface improvements; and
WHEREAS, differences in residential development standards between the County's
Zoning Ordinance regulations and those of certain cities have been a hindrance to annexation
efforts in the past, and such differences may continue to inhibit the actions of certain cities to
annex pockets eligible for the streamlined annexations, because such differences may
significantly contribute to residents' desires for their urban islands to remain unincorporated; and
WHEREAS, the cities, County and LAFCO believe the present favorable opportunities
for island annexation are unprecedented and limited in duration due to the aforementioned
circumstances, and that all effective, practical efforts should be made to facilitate actions by the
cities to complete island annexations during this window of opportunity; and
WHEREAS, for those urban islands not eligible for streamlined annexation provisions of
State law, the cities, County, and LAFCO recognize that annexation of these islands may require
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 1
more concerted, strategic planning by those 'agencies in the near future, but which are not the
immediate priority during the period 2005-2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Santa Clara, State of California, as follows:
SECTION 1, The Board of Supervisors strongly encourages the Cities of Santa Clara
County to initiate and complete the annexations of urban unincorporated islands located within
cities' Urban Service Areas, consistent with countywide urban development and growth
management policies, and more particularly, during the period 2005-2006, to annex those islands
or pockets eligible to be annexed under the State's 2005-2006 streamlined annexation laws.
SECTION 2. Consistent with the County General Plan goals and policies for the urban
unincorporated areas, particularly Policy U-LM 9, the Board of Supervisors supports the
evaluation, consideration, and amendment of County Zoning Ordinance regulations governin;
residential development standards for the purpose of eliminating significant differences between
the standards and development outcomes possible under County Zoning regulations and tlJose of
each city, potentially including, but necessarily limited to, such regulations as floor area
definitions and floor area ratios governing house size, building height, story limits, lot coverage,
setbacks from property lines and rights-of-ways, and review procedures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Signed and certified that a copy of this document
has been delivered by electronic
or other means to the chair, Board of Supervisors:
ATTEST:
Phyllis Perez
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
M - W S
Lizanne Reynolds
Deputy County Counsel
Liz Kniss, Chair
Board of Supervisors
Attachments:
Exhibit A Excerpt from County General Plan
Page 2 of-2
E un~n~. General Land Use Managemen#
Urban Unincorporated Area Issues and Policies
strafe' #z;
Ensure Contormtty of Development
With Citles' General Plans
Within cities' Urban Service Areas, the County
does not apply any General Plan designation or
classification of prescriptive land uses or densi-
ties to unincorporated parcels. Instead, allow-
able land uses and densities are determined by
the applicable city's general plan. This arrange-
ment reflects one aspect of the division of
authority between the cities and the County
under the jointly-adopted countywide "urban
development policies." Assuming that all urban
unincorporated areas will eventually be annexed
by the cities, it is appropriate that the city which
will have ultimate jurisdiction over an area have
the ongoing authority to plan for what are
presently unincorporated areas.
The responsibilities of the jurisdictions (County
and city) are fairly straightforward. For urban
unincorporated lands ineligible for annexation
or for which annexation has been refused or
deferred, the County is obligated to administer
current planning functions, such as permit
processing, zoning administration, and code
enforcement; whereas, each city addresses
through its general plan the long range planning
issues of land use, density and other issues.
In order to ensure'that development permitted
under County jurisdiction is generally in con-
formance with what would be permitted accord-
ing to each city's general plan, the County
applies zoning districts and development
regulations compatible with the applicable clWs
general plan designation. Given the variety and
complexity of some cities' development regula-
tions, it is infeasible for the County to attempt to
administer the actual regulations of the cities.
When there are differences between County and
city development regulations of some conse-
quence, such as for setbacks, building height
and bulk restrictions, or other standards, the
County may be able to adjust its standards to
minimize those inconsistencies. In any case, the
County strives to work cooperatively with the
applicant, the city and other interested parties to
ensure that the resulting development is as
Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent -
County Pockets Develcpment Standards
consistent as possible with the policies and
regulations of the city involved and will not
present future problems for either the property
owner, the city, or adjacent residents.
Pallcies and Implementation
U-LM 6
County land use and development regulations
within a city Urban Service Area shall be gener-
ally compatible with the applicable city's
general plan designations and accompanying
policies.
U-LM 7
Subdivisions, use permits and zone changes for
unincorporated property within a city Urban
Service Area shall conform with the applicable
land use and density criteria of the city's general
plan.
lI LM 8
County zoning, land development, and building
regulations should be designed and adminis-
tered to:
a. preserve and enhance the quality of existing
urban unincorporated areas; and
b. maintain community identity, through
heritage resource preservation, conservation
of historic structures and places, and other"
similar measures.
'Jai
Ghee APpr
unjnGntPorated PocKets
,
~ontar red t Ptar`
extY Qe
,4 Meets
R-6
Cl
f l
Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent -
County Pockets Development Standards
General Land Use Management
Urban Unincorporated Area Issues and Policies
U_LM 9
In cases where significant differences exist
between County and city development stan-
dards O.e, setbacks, height, bulk regulations),
resulting in potentially inappropriate develop-
ment or conflicts, the County should consider
adjusting or modifying its ordinances and
standards to minimize problems and achieve
greater conformance with city standards.
u zn-r so
No applications for subdivisions, use permits or
zone changes for property within any city's
Urban Service Area may be accepted by the
County for processing unless it is accompanied
by a statement from the applicable city affirmirig
city general plan conformance.
lmplernent lion Recommendation
114M(t) 9
Review all present County zoning districts
applied within Urban Service Areas and 'com-
pare with applicable city general plan designa-
tions.. Identify significant inconsistencies and if
needed, rezone inappropriately zoned areas to
zoning.districts that conform with city general
plans.,.
U-Lmf )10
Inform cities of County general plan conform-
ance policies so that policies and authority are
fully understood by city staff and officials..
U LM(i) xz
Evaluate County and city development stan-
dards and regulations for possible inconsisten-
cies of significance and modify County regula-.
tions where necessary to rectify or minimize the
impacts of inconsistencies. f relates to policy 6}
Strategy #3;
Provide Services as Efficiently and
Equitably as Possible
Although Joint County, city, and LAFCO policies
promote the annexation of urban "pockets,"
partly on the basis that urban services are most
efficiently provided by cities, in reality many
developed urban unincorporated areas may not
be annexed in the immediately foreseeable
future. In the interim, the County should ensure
that necessary urban, services acid facilities are
provided as efficiently and cost-effectively as
possible to these areas. Not only does the
County have a responsibility to provide basic
levels of urban services to urban unincorporated
area residents, but by maintaining and upgrad-
ing existing services and facilities, the County
and the cities facilitate the ultimate annexation
of these areas.
Nevertheless, it remains difficult for local
governments to pay for basic urban services,
much less improve upon them, in light of
outcomes of Prop 13. Since the passage of
Proposition 13 in 1978, new funding sources
have become virtually non-existent,'due to the
2/3 voter approval requirement for new taxes
and reduced growth in property tax revenues
overall. Because it is recognized that cities
should not be expected to provide services
without compensation, the financial burden fails
to the County. Therefore, cooperation among
jurisdictions to explore creative, cost effective
measures becomes the only option to costly
provision of services in the unincorporated
urban areas.
R-7
Page 1 of 2
Patsy Garcia - Island Annexations
From: "paul grams" <pgrams@hotmail.com>
To: <dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov>, <jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov>, <sglickman@losgatosca.gov>,
<bspector@losgatosca.gov>, <mwasserman@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/4/2005 11:04 PM
Subject: Island Annexations
To: Town of Los Gatos Mayor and Town Council
We are opposed to annexation.
In the last Town annexation attempt our island voted 100% against annexation. All other annexations that were voted
on also failed. A petition showing 100% of voters in our representative island being against annexation has been
submitted.
Conducting annexations by "precluding the possibility of resident protest or elections to contest annexations" and
supporting making us subject to Town building regulations where we are not represented is repulsive to voters. Voters
will remember you if you supported the annexation process, not only in the next election, but also throughout your
political career.
With all the time constraints the Town and County have why spend limited funds and time and effort on `something
voters have always overwhelmingly opposed. The County Resolution of Intent on Urban Pockets that only encourages
annexation passed by only one vote, and our County Supervisor, Donald Gage, voted No. When State Assembly Bill
(AB) 1555, which started this new annexation process, was first voted on Jim Cunneen, our State Assembly
Representative at the time also voted No.
Santa Clara County has greatly underestimated the costs of supporting annexation. John Curtis, Los Gatos Parks and
Public Works, estimated the costs to bring the island roads up to Town standards to be about $1,300,000'. Pete Kutras,
Santa Clara County Executive, estimated County cost for all fees, surveys, filings, road work, etc., to be less than
$1.000,000 for all 15 cities. Jane Decker, Santa Clara Deputy County Executive, stated that only $450,000 has been
budgeted for 15-20 centerline miles of pocket roads needing improvements and with the $100+ million County budget
deficit an increase is not even being considered at this time. Jane Decker also stated that the County would bring the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to only 70 in the pockets using a cheap thin slurry seal even though the last
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) survey states the average PCI in Santa Clara County is 86. Jane
Decker also stated that any work over this cheap level would have to be paid for by Los Gatos. The MTC states a PCI
of 70 is "becoming worn to the point where rehabilitation is needed to prevent rapid deterioration." George Garcia, Los
Gatos Public Works staff, stated that standard quality road improvements are generally a minimum PCI of 80-90
"requiring only preventative maintenance" and are generally started in the 90+ range. Los Gatos is gin _ to be
burdened with expensive roads for a long time and accepting the County cheap slurry seal is like using chew paint on a
house you are not selling.
The island annexation study by John Curtis states that revenues would only be about $210,000 for all 15 islands and .
this will not cover all the costs and "given the Town's limited resources an impact to service levels may occur."
Although we were not able to get a more detailed analysis of the costs for the Town a detailed representative study by
James Walgren, Community Development Director, City of Los Altos, states that the impact on their City eU-enditures
would be twice the expected revenues. As in most Bay area cities property taxes and fees do not even come close to
covering costs. Why should the Town burden itself and new residents with higher costs for somethi a the majority
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 2
does not even want?
Some have a concern about the small single-story house next to the new big two-story house. Is it fair to take away
from a home owner what he thought was his right to build the house of his dreams to Country Codes because the small-
house owner failed to research or ask about or just changed his mind about the building rights of the property next
door? If the proposed two-story house is close to a Town boundary and the majority of existing walls are not
maintained, or according to Santa Clara Ordinance Code Section C1-10.1 "The story height of the remaining walls may
not be changed," the property would be subject to annexation and all Town rules. Also, we have seen so many owners
of large lots who could not deal with restrictive city codes sell out to developers who have the political, legal, and
connection skills to build even denser two-story housing.
The few that want to be annexed usually can at low cost and effort as others have by meeting the very liberal
requirements of abutting, across the street, or within 300 feet of a city boundary along a road. The fees are low
compared to the building permit costs. The Town of Los Gatos lot fees are cut in half for each successive lot. The first
lot may be $2,600 but the cost by the fifth lot is only $500. Other minor fees are also greatly reduced if done in volume.
Why should the majority of residents who are opposed to annexation pay for the few who want it?
You should work with the residents to find a cost effective solution and not facilitate annexation by "precluding the
possibility of resident protestor elections to contest annexations." Just because the State enacted legislation does not
force the Town to annex islands the majority oppose.
Please do what the vast majority of residents want and do not waste the Town's and our time and effort on this costly_
annexation effort.
Respectfully,
Paul and Eleanor Grams
Santa Clara County Island Resident
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00002.HTM 12/5/2005
Page 1 of 1
Patsy Garcia
! W .5 _ 8 I
From: <mmavandad@aol.com>
To: <dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/5/2005 2:40 PM
CC: <jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov>, <sglickman@losgatosca.gov>, <bspector@losgatosca.gov>,
<mwasserman@losgatosca. gov>
Dear Ms. McNutt:
It was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone a little while ago. In follow up to our discussion regarding
the possible plans for the annexation of the parcel of land on Peacock Lane which my property is located on,
according to your advise I'm sending you and your fellow town council members a short note to raise
my objection to any such intent without my consent or vote. Unfortunately I'm not able to attend the Town
Council Meeting scheduled for this evening but would very much like to be kept informed of any possible future
meetings or plans concerning this matter.
Thank you for taking my concern into considertion in any decision that is going to be made on the matter at
hand.
Sincerely yours,
Mehrdad Mavandad
16370 Peacock Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95032
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM ATTACHMENT 3