HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1969-5321RESOLUTION NO. 5321
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS REGARDING
THE PRESENT CONSIDERATION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR REVISION OF ANNEXATION LAWS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve
as follows:
WHEREAS, the California Chapter of the American Institute of
Planners has adopted a paper entitled, "A Position Paper on Annexation",
which includes therein the following statement.
The California State Development Plan Program report states as
follows: "Recognize that the problems of jurisdiction, services,
and development are closely related. An inefficient pattern of
local government units can impair sound metropolitan or regional
development by undue balkanization of service patternn and unrelated
land use controls. Hence, planning for jurisdictional boundaries
should be part of an effective county, metropolitan, or regional
planning effort and should be specifically required in the Planning
Law and recognized in the LAFC (Local Agency Formation Commission)
Law." The state report further recommends and concludes ten specific
items that should be given consideration and adjusted for lacal
conditions and needs in developing such a plan, as follows:
1. All urban or urbanizing areas near a city should be included within
a city unless very special conditions prevail.
2. Urban or urbanizing areas near a city should be annexed to it, and,
if not near a city or a potential city, should be incorporated subject to
specified minimum size requirements.
3. If annexation or incorporation is not feasible or desirable in the
immediate future, such areas should remain under county land use control,
and if urban development is in the public interests, services should be
provided through a County Service Area. Creation of new special districts
for services should be avoided.
4. With appropriate adjustments to give consideration to projected
regional population and traditional community patterns in the region,
cities should have specified minimum populations and land areas.
5. City size should be such as to permit the efficient provision
of a necessary range of municipal services without unduly high tax rates.
6. City boundaries should, when possible, follow natural boundaries,
be reasonably compact, and not be unnaturally or inefficiently shaped.
7. The city should have social and economic significance, although
contrived balance is undesirable, and should not interfere with proper
growth or solvency or adjacent communities of the region.
8. Based on the above policies and principles, a regional or metro-
politan, long-range, comprehensive plan element for government boundaries
and service areas should be developed. This should be done by a metro-
politan planning agency, advised by the LAFC. The plan would be general
in nature and would still require discretionary judgement to be exercised
in specific cases by LAFC. In cases of genuine disagreement on the
content of the plan, provision should be made for appeal to an appropriate
state agency.
-1-
9. Prior to development of the metropolitan or regional plan, each
LAFC should assist the County Planning Agency in preparing a governmental
units element of the county plan. An amendment to the State Planning Law
making this a mandatory element of such a plan would be desirable.
10. There should be a natural evolution of the LAFC from county repre-
sentation to coordination on a metropolitan or regional basis, and ultimately
to transfer of an appropriate part of their authority and responsibility
to a metropolitan or regional decision-making agency.
and
WHEREAS, said paper concluded that the policy of the California
Chapter of the American Institute of Planners shall be the following:
1. That a comprehensive revision and reform of annexation proce-
dures to provide urban unification legislation is imperative to promote
orderly urban growth in California.
2. That the gravity of the present situation within urban areas of
the state cannot be met with continued piecemeal amendments of the annexa-
tion statutes based on the present negative philosophy of these statutes.
3. That urban unification legislation shall have a high priority
on the legislative program of the Chapter.
4. That the Chapter will strongly support and work cooperatively
with the League of California Cities, the Planning and Conservation
League, and with all other interested and allied groups in achieving a
comprehensive reform for urban unification.
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista concurs in
the need for basic revision and overhaul for the laws regarding annexation
and that said revision should reflect the position and policies as set
forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista that said Council on behalf of themselves and all citizens who
are interested in the orderly growth of this community do hereby endorse
and support the positiazof the California Chapter of the American Institute
of Planners.
BE IT FURHTER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby urge the
State Legislature to consider the revision and overhaul of the annexation
laws of the State in accordance with the position and policies outlined
herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista
be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy
of this resolution to Senator James R. Mills, Assemblyman Wadie P, Deddeh
and to all members of the San Diego County Legislative Delegation.
Presented by
.. j~r~ / ~ -/ r
v
1~--~,,,. ru c e H. War n, D i r~ to r o f
Planning
Appro~v^ed as to form by
._ . ~ /~ r 1
,, ~ ~,
~ ~ ~
George D.f indberg, City Attorne
-2-
ADOPTED ADTD APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALIFORNIA, this 19th day of August , 19 69., by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES: Councilmen McAllister, Scott, Sylvester, Hamilton, M orquoda7e
NAYES: Councilmen None
ABSENT: Councilmen None
ATTEST ~ ~ .~ --t ~.. -~c ~ ~ v ~~ ~f~-C ,`'
_,C~ty Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAP1 DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
/~„ ,7 j, f ~~;;% , ;
yor of the C~ ~ T Chula Vista
I, KENNETH P. CAMPBELL, City Clerk of the city of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
and that the same has not been amended
or repealed,
DATED
City Clerk
K-1