HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1966-4207RESOLUTION N0. 4207
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
URGING AMENDMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT CODE CONCERNING THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the enabling legislation creating the Local Agency
Formation Commissions, known as the Knox-Nisbet Act, as amended, in
its present form fails to provide adequate procedural standards and
guidelines to insure the sound and well-planned growth and develop-
ment of the municipalities in the State of California, and tends to
perpetuate the existence and future development of special service
districts constituting a burdensome multiplicity of taxing bodies, and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has heretofore, in November
of 1964 and in September of 1966, gone on record before the Assembly
Interim Committee on Municipal and County Government, urging that such
amendments be recommended to the Legislature of the State of California
so as to provide the necessary procedures and standards to insure such
goals, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the statement forwarded to said Committee
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista that said Council urges the League of California
Cities, meeting in conference October 16 through 19, 1966 in the City
of San Diego, California, to adopt an appropriate resolution in accord-
ante with the views and objections set forth in said statement and in
accordance with the views and objections set forth by Mr. Joseph B.
Geisler, City Attorney of Anaheimv
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
Chula Vista be, and he is hereby directed to forward a copy of this
resolution and the attached statement to the Resolutions Committee
of the League of California Cities, meeting in conference in October
1966, and to members of the Legislative delegation of the County of
San Diego, and to Chairman John Knox and all members of the Assembly
Interim Committee on Municipal and County Government.
Presented by
area A. Ross,
Officer
Approved as to form by
~hief Administrative George Lindberg, City At ney
ADORED AND APPRO`JFD by the CITY COUNCTI< of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNLA, this 11th day of ~_ October ~ 1g 66 9 by the following vote,
to-wit o
AYES Councilmen Sperling, Sylvester,_Anderson, McAllister, McCorquodale
NAYESo Council.mer. None
ABSENT: Councilmen None
_ _ ~ _~--
.~ ~ ~
_ayor f the Ci.t~ of Chula Vista
ATTEST ~' .-«_~.: _C~'!Gr-rte ~~-G-~
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORN LS j
COUNTY OF SAN D1EG0 > ss .
CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
I, KENNETH B~ C.4'~1FBEL~, 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.
DATEDo
City Clerk
CC-652
~ ~o~
October 4, 1966
To the Members of the Assembly Interim Committee
on Municipal and County Government
Gentlemen:
On September 27, 1966, I appeared in my capacity as City
Attorney of the City of Chula Vista, representing the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista, before your Interim
Committee Meeting at the State Building in the City of
San Diego. At that time, because of the length of the
agenda and the time limitation of the hearing which you
were conducting, it was not possible for me to express
the feeling of the City Council before your committee,
but I did note that I would forward a written memorandum
concerning the position of the City of Chula Vista regard-
ing necessary amendments to the Government Code relating
to the Local Agency Formation Commissiono
I have heretofore appeared before your committee in the
same capacity with the same intent on November 9, 1964.
In a memorandum dated November 24, 1964, a copy of which
is attached hereto, specific objections were registered
as to the conduct of the Local Agency Formation Commis-
sion in the County of San Diego. In addition certain
amendments to the Government Code were suggested in said
memo. The objections raised by the City of Chula Vista
were as follows:
1. A concern over the infringement of the home
rule principle of municipalities by the Local
Agency Commission.
2. The frustration of annexation of territory
because of the imposition of conditions upon the
cities concerned, which conditions could not be
fulfilled.
3. The perpetuation of special service districts,
creating a multiplicity of taxing agents in direct
conflict with the avowed purposes of the estab-
lishment and creation of the Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission.
4, The creation of an all-powerful commission
exercising extensive regulatory power over the
operations of local municipal governments and the
ability of said governments to make logical plans
for the growth and development of Contiguous unin-
corporated areas.
2 4aoZ
Assembly Interim Committee Page 2
At this time the City of Chula Vista wishes to renew those
same objections Further, it is the position of the City
of Chula Vista that the amendments proposed and accepted
in the 1965 Legislative session fail to ameliorate in any
manner the objections which had been raised, and in fact,
the ambiguities and potential abuses inherent within the
Act were, ii anything, aggravated by the amendments that
were adopted at said Legislative session.
Before detailing some of the specific problems concerning
the operation of the San Diego County Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission regarding the City of Chula Vista, however,
I wish to have it clearly noted for the record the position
of the City of Chula Vista regarding the desirability and
need for an or anization such as the Local Agency Formation
Commission, an~ our high regard in general for the work
being performed by the Commission of San Diego County, and
their excellent Executive Officer, Mr. Robert Small.
The City Council of the City of .Chula Vista long supported
the creation of 'an organization such as the Local Agency
Formation Commission to check the abuses of unregulated
and unplanned expansion of municipalities and to promote
the orderly growth of municipalities into the unincorpor-
ated areas of various counties. The City has long felt
that in the abser}ce of such a regulatory body, no effec-
tive program for planned growth and development would be
possible and cities would vie against cities in an un-
healthy scramble for the acquisition of new territory
unrelated to proper growth patterns, and that special
districts providing single services would be created and
perpetuated to act as barriers against the extension of
general government services into unincorporated areas,
become intolerable taxing bodies, and by creating uncoord-
inated service areas, promote waste and future cost bur-
dens in order to undo the harm which they are presently
accomplishing. If such goals and purposes were intended,
we applaud the action of the Legislature in establishing
the Local Agency Formation Commission. However, we must
concur with the City Attorney of the City of Anaheim,
Mr. Joseph B. Geisler, in his statement that "...the
legislation in its present form is dangerous and subject
to as much, or more, abuse than the abuses under the old
annexation and incorporation laws prior to the enactment
of the Knox Nisbet Act creating Local Agency Formation
Commission. "
Such criticism is not engendered by a lack of confidence
in, or question of the competence of, the Local Agency
Formation Commission of the County of San Diego or of
12. U~?
Assembly Interim Committee Page 3
its Executive Office r We feel that the Local Agency
Formation Commission in San Diego County is composed of
men of good will who are attempting honestly and intelli-
gently to cope with the problems brought before them
Both the Commission members and their very capable Exec-
utive Officer are genuinely concerned with the problems
of the growth of all of the cities in San Diego County
and are acting in the public interest. However, we feel
that the failure of the enabling legislation to provide
certain broad standards of conduct and to impose a definite
requirement upon the Local Agency Commission to establish
clear and uniform standards of procedure creates a tend-
ency toward uncoordinated and unrelated decision-making.
Discretion excercised without restraint and proper guide-
lines in carrying out the quasi-judicial functions of the
Local Agency Formation Commission is discretion exercised
abusively and arbitrarily.
Secondly, the City of Chula Vista wishes to go on record
as being in complete support of the statement submitted
by Mr. Geisler, the City Attorney of the City of Anaheim.
We had heretofore assumed that the dissatisfaction repeat-
edly expressed by the City of Chula Vista was peculiar to
our own local and personal problems, However, it is
apparent that the same difficulties have been experienced
in other localities and the warnings of abuses and requests
for amendments to the existing legislation should not go
unheeded by this Committee
As an observer at your hearings, I was frankly astonished
that certain of the witnesses before the Committee could
so casually dismiss the thoughtful and detailed presenta-
tion made by Mr. Geisler- Witnesses told your Committee
that it was impossible to provide any sort of meaningful
rules, procedures or standards for the operation of the
Local Agency Formation Commission„ In fact, it was con-
tended that what was necessary was a broader scope of
action for the Commission and a full recognition of their
function as the only agency in the state that was engaged
in planning in depth Clearly it was the feeling of some
of the witnesses that the legislative bodies of the var-
ious municipalities throughout the state should be com-
pletely subordinate to the exercise of powers by the Local
Agency Formation Commission,. The contention was~that
planning for the growth of cities should no longer be the
function of those bodies or even of regional planning
bodies, but should rather be turned over to the Commission.
However, as was pointed out by Mr~ Geisler, if such plan-
ning decisions are to be turned over to the Commission
i2 ~~
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 4
to be exercised with undoubted wisdom, we would be allow-
ing the governmental agency, which was not representative
of the people with:~n the area nor obligated to pay for any
of the services to be rendered zn the area, to impose its
will
I will now review in general a few of the matters recently
before the Local Agency Formation Commission and one matter
which cannot come before the Local Agency Formation Com-
mission, to illustrate the basis for our objections to the
present enabling legislation and to encourage this Committee
to recommend necessary amendments to correct the problems.
In the spring of 1966, the San Diego County Local Agency
Formation Commission requested that the City of Chula
Vista, as a condition precedent to favorable consideration
by the Commission of annexations to the City of Chula Vista,
undertake three actions 'they were as follows:
1, Enter into discussions with the City of National
Cityo located to the north of the City of Chula Vista
and separated in many instances by unincorporated
areas, in order to establish a line of demarcation of
the zones or areas of influence of the respective
municipalities. Such a line would serve as a useful
guide to the Commission in acting upon annexations
to National City and Chula Vista
2~ To prezone properties to be annexed to the City
of Chula V~stao This would obviously facilitate a
more orderly zoning pattern, both within the incor-
porated area and in the county area,
3 Enter .into agreements with special districts pro-
viding special servYCes so that annexations would not
result in any detriment to the persons continuing to
reside in the unincorporated areas of such special
districts. Such agreements were to be drawn zn terms
mutually satisfactory to the City of Chula Vista and
to the special districts involved.
In general terms, such conditions seemed to be reasonable
and desirable and would afford some assistance to the Local
Agency Formation Commission in acting upon annexations.
However, in the absence of any specific goals and standards
contained in the enabling legislation and in the absence
of any specific limitations upon the ~urisdict~on of the
Local Agency Formation Commission, such jurisdiction may
conflict with the proper exercise of legislative powers
by municipal governments. Such conditions become meaningless
12 yao~
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 5
and serve only to defeat and frustrate proper annexation
of territories to incorporated cities. I would offer the
following examples:
1„ The City of National City did meet with the City
of Chula Vista, and a line of demarcation establish-
ing zones or areas of influence was agreed upon.
This line was the proposed flood control channel
running down the middle of the Sweetwater Valley
separating the two cities, plus an extension of said
line Immediately thereafter, a property owner own-
ing substantial lands located in the Sweetwater Valley
on either side of the proposed flood control channel
applied for annexation to the City of National City.
After a public hearing and with the full knowledge
of the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and
the City of National City. the Local Agency Formation
Commission approved the annexation of this territory
to the City of National City, totally disregarding
the previously agreed upon line of demarcations Pre-
sumably this will create a piece of property bounded
on three sides by the City of Chula Vista over which
the City of Chula Vista has no control as to the sub-
division and development. The basis of the decision
was the opposition of the single property owner to
the division of his land between National City and
Chula Vista., However, this factor does not relate
to the problems of orderly growth or either of the
municipalities involved,
Furthermore, the approval of the Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission was undertaken without regard to cer-
tain other problems existing between the City of
National City and the City of Chula Vista concerning
the subject propertye This particular property was
included within the unincorporated area for which
the City of Chula Vista reserved sewer capacity in
the Metropolitan Sewer System some five years ago.
The capacity thus reserved for the property is now
useless to the City of Chula Vista and there is no
certainty that the City of National City would agree
to transfer said capacity to their account or would
reimburse the City of Chula Vista for amounts already
expended to reserve the capacity. This matter will
be again discussed in relation to another example.
20 In accordance with the requirements of the Local
Agency Formation Commission, the City of Chula Vista
undertook the prezoning of certain property belong-
ing to a substantial subdivider and developer which
Assembly Interim Committee Page 6
property was located in the Bonita area in the upper
Sweetwater Valleys After full public hearings before
the Planning Commission and the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista, it was determined that the pro-
perty should be zoned for single-family residential
purposes, with 20,000 square foot minimum lots. This
zoning was in accordance with the General Plan pre-
viously adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved
by the County of San Diego insofar as the plan may
affect the unincorporated areas in the County contig-
uous to the City of Chula Vista.
The matter of the annexation was brought to the Local
Agency Formation Commission for public hearing. At
said hearing, the property owners adjacent to the
territory in question voiced objections to the small
lot sizes contemplated in the prezoning adopted by
the City Council. Because of these objections, and
again, presumably, because the Local Agency Formation
Commission concurred that the zoning was improper,
the annexation was rejected by the Local Agency
Formation Commission This action resulted in a
substantial financial loss to the developer and a
loss to the City of Chula Vista of an area that was
naturally a part of the urban complex of this city.
In effect, the Local Agency Formation Commission
substituted its judgment on a zoning matter which
is clearly and exclusively within the province of
the legislative body of the City of Chula Vista.
The Commission itself has no zoning functions. How-
ever, if it does have the power to disapprove of
zoning imposed in a prezoning procedure by a muni-
cipality seeking to annex territory it is, in effect,
exercising the powers of planning and zoningP Al-
though the enabling legislation does not attempt to
specifically authorize the Local Agency Formation
Commission to exercise such jurisdiction which here-
tofore has been reserved solely to the municipal and
county governments, the veto power over prezoning
which the Commission presently feels is inherent
within the broad discretionary powers granted by the
legislation constitutes such a delegation of authority
by indirection. Moreover, this is in direct conflict
with the legislative intent expressed by the amend-
ment of the State Planning Act in 1965 expressly
authorizing municipalities to prezone territories
contiguous thereto in the unincorporated areas.
~ ~~o~
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 7
3. Pursuant to the request of the San Diego County
Local Agency Formation Commission, the City of Chula
Vista proposed, various terms of agreement to the
Montgomery Fire Protection District which is contiguous
to the City of Chula Vista on the Southerly boundary.
The Commission's interest was in maintaining the fire
district's ability to provide an adequate level of
service for the people within the district. In each
case of negotiation with the district, it has not
been possible for the City to secure agreement on
proposals that have been made. The City has gone so
far as to propose an arrangement for taking over the
functions of the fire district. ~iowever, it is the
position of the fire district that the City's obliga-
tion should be to pay from City funds whatever loss
might be incurred by the fire district as a result
of annexations which would reduce its tax basis,
thus making it possible for the fire district to
continue in being indefinitely without regard to
the actual demands placed upon it, the level of
service being provided or the superior capability
of the City of Chula Vista to provide such services.
In August of 1966, two parcels of property were pro-
posed for annexation to the City of Chula Vista,
which parcels were located within the Montgomery
Fire Protection District. Both were located within
an area which constitutes an island of unincorporated
territory within the boundaries of the City. The
Executive Officer of the Commission reported that,
in the absence of some agreement with mutually sat-
isfactory terms between the City of Chula Vista and
the Montgomery Fire Protection District, these an-
nexation proposals were no more logical than others
which had been rejected in 1964. However, he did
concede that the area was a logical growth area for
the City. His report to the Commission stated,
"..ehowever, in view of the zoning implications as
well as the lack of an effective operating agreement
between the fire district and the city, these annex-
ations cannot be considered logical or justified."
After conducting a public hearing, the Commission
approved these annexations. This approval in no
way reflected a resolution of the questions and
objections raised by their own Executive Officer.
The basis for approval seemed to be a desire to
square off the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista.
One of the Commissioners stated that, although the
Commission would probably continue to approve
~- ~aoi
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 8
annexations in this island area in the future, and in
another similar area located within the boundaries of
the City of Chula Vista in the fire district, the
City could be assured that they would not approve any
further annexations of territory in the Montgomery
Fire Protection District outside of these island areas
until some agreement was reached between the City and
the fire district. The logic of their decision "as well
as its implications for future annexations is not
apparent. If, in fact, the Commission's desire is
to enable the fire district to maintain its existing
level of service (which the City must reject as being
merely a device for the perpetuation of the district)
its goal is as essentially defeated by permitting
annexations within the island areas as to any other
portion contiguous to the City of Chula Vista. In
fact, the assessed valuations within the island areas
is substantially greater than elsewhere within the
district and annexations therein would have a more
detrimental effect on the financial abilities of the
district than in those areas where the Commission has
already indicated that it would find future annexations
unacceptable. Again, it should be emphasized that in
the absence of any precise standards, the Commission,
basing its review of annexation requests upon unrelated
individual cases viewed with a broad and undefined
discretion, will invariably reach such illogical con-
clusions.
4. To the Northeast of the City of Chula Vista there
lies a substantial area of unincorporated territory.
Some years ago, a water district known as the Otay
Municipal Water District was established to serve this
area. As in the case of most water districts, the
powers of the district are broad and include the
ability to establish sanitary districts and fire
protection districts within their boundaries. The
Otay Municipal Water District has, in the past,
established special assessment districts and has
provided several special services although it is
by no means a general government body. The City has
received word that the water district contemplates
the establishment of a special sewer service district
within the water district, which would be contiguous
to the City's boundaries. This would be an improvement
district, or special assessment district. As outlined,
the proposal would contemplate the creation of an
entirely independent sewer service district, includ-
ing the establishment of treatment plants and dis-
posal facilities. A major portion of the area within
12~-~,ao~
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 9
which this special district is proposed is territory
for which the City of Chula Vista has reserved sewer
capacity from the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System.
The amount of capacity reserved for this area is
presently costing the City of Chula Vista approximately
$100,000 per year and was reserved as a result of sound
planning to adequately provide for the natural growth
of the City. If the water district carries out its
announced objectives, there will be an immediate loss
to the City of Chula Vista and a continuing obligation
to pay for reserve capacity which would never be used.
In addition, the plan in the opinion of engineers is
unsound because it does not take into consideration
natural drainage basins and would ultimately have to
be replaced as expansion occurs. However, the water
district apparently has the power to proceed as in-
dicated and the Local Agency Formation Commission
has no jurisdiction in this matter.
When the City of Chula Vista previously urged amend-
ments to the Knox-Nisbet Act, we strongly recommended
that all special service districts including water
districts be included within the jurisdiction of the
Local Agency Formation Commission. This was not
accomplished and we are therefore confronted with the
possibility of an antonomous special district under-
taking programs detrimental to the sound growth and
development of municipal government in this area.
The City of Chula Vista feels that these examples reinforce
the objections which we raised regarding the present en-
abling legislation creating the Local Agency Formation
Commissions. We would also again reiterate our stand in
concurring with the proposals of Mr. Joseph B. Geisler,
City Attorney of Anaheim. It is obvious that under the
present legislation there is no real possibility of appeal
from the decision of the Local Agency Formation Commission.
In the absence of precise requirements for standards and
procedures and for written findings, no review body could
properly evaluate the basic question of whether or not
the Commission had exercised its discretion in a reasonable
manner or whether such discretion was abused or imposed
arbitrarily.
In conclusion, the City of Chula Vista strongly urges your
Committee to recommend necessary amendments to the existing
legislation which would overcome the objections set forth
~ ~~~
Assembly Interim Committee
Page 10
in this statement. We would hasten to reiterate our firm
belief in the value of the Commissions, per se, and our
respect for the efforts of the San Diego County Local
Agency Formation Commission and their Executive Officer.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
George D. Lindberg, City Attorney
City of Chula Vista, California
GDL:bjs
Attachment
i2-4ao'1