Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO SANDIST 26 32 POLICY (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND City Manager Item to be pre Y±6 -ch Henderson November 8, 1994 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 26 & 32 - POLICY REVIEW Community Development In 1992, the Board of Directors for Sanitation District Nos, 26 and 32 encountered procedural and policy issues during the conduct of its normal business of considering and approving annexations to the Sanitation Districts (SD); While some issues were addressed by general SD policies, there were few policies to guide the specific business of Districts 26 and 32, The Board subsequently asked City staff to study and recommend policies for discussion and potential adoption. On March 9, 1993, the City Council reviewed the issue and recommended several policies to the Board of Directors of Sanitation District Nos; 26 and 32. These policies, adopted by the Board on March 18, 1993, are listed in Attachment A. While the majority of the policies recommended by City staff were adopted, several were not, (These policies are also identified in Attachment A.) As Policy No. 7 reflects the Board's intent to periodically review policies and amend or add to them as deemed necessary, however, it may be appropriate to reconsider the policies at this time, especially in light of new information regarding potential capacity shortfalls indicated by the County's Development Monitoring System ("DMS"). ANALYSIS Overall, the policies adopted by the Board have been successfully implemented by SD staff and monitored by the City. Prior to the adoption of Policy No. 1, for example, SD staff routinely issued "temporary connections" in District Nos, 26 and 32, prior to annexation. While this facilitated the annexation process, it also circumvented discretionary approval of annexations by the Board. Since adoption of the policy, only three temporary connections have been issued, and all were reviewed by the Board for approval. Policy Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 have also been implemented; compliance with Policy No. 3 is difficult to determine. Past discussion of the two policies not adopted focused on the Directors' authority to deny or condition annexation to the Districts on the basis of non-compliance with planned land use densities and/or adjacency to the City. While SD legal counsel has indicated it does not 45t� `ea" Agenda Items 010 _ believe the Board has such authority, the City Attorney holds an opposing view because the Board exercises discretionary authority over annexations and is therefore theoretically empowered to conditionally approve them. The issue has not been tested to date. Staff believes that the Board should reconsider and discuss adoption of these policies at this time as part of a regular review of SD activity. Additionally, development processing has slowly been on the rise in the County over recent months, resulting in land uses and densities not anticipated in County and SD planning documents. As the discrepancy between planned and actual development widens, it may be of concern to the SD, and could provide the Board with a reasonable nexus to impose conditions on annexations of projects which are inconsistent with planned development. For the same reasons, the Board may also want to consider the following new policy as well: C. Sanitation Districts staff shall incorporate information from the County DMS into the evaluation of available capacity to serve new projects requiring annexation to Districts No. 26 and/or 32. In projecting remaining capacity available, SD shall consider and assume that 60% of all projects approved or pending approval by the County shall be developed, and shall allocate existing and future capacity accordingly, before determining whether additional capacity is available to serve the new development. This policy would enable the Board to better understand the "real" capacity available. Because 97.7% of all projects proposed in the County of Los Angeles are approved, and of those approximately two-thirds are built; it appears reasonable that SD staff should somehow factor in the eventual demand created by these future projects, rather than wait for capacity to be exceeded as new development comes on-line. This is especially true given the recent recurrence of General Plan Amendment approvals in the County (i.e., Market Place and The Colony), These CPAs are not reflected in existing demand projections and may lead to capacity shortfalls and expensive 'batch -up" facility planning later. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive status update of existing policies; 2) Discuss and reconsider recommending to the Board adoption of Policies "A" and 'B", not previously adopted in 1993, and; 3) Recommend to the Board that it adopt Policy "C". Attachment A -- SD Policies, Existing and Proposed co�xil�a�f 109sd.dmw ATTACHMENT A (Sanitation District Policies Agenda Report of November 8, 1994) Policies adopted by the SD Board on March 18,1993: 1) Temporary sewer connections maybe permitted as follows: A) The applicant shall file a formal request for annexation with the Sanitation Districts prior to temporary connection; and, B) Temporary sewer connections shall be subject to the prior approval of the Board of Directors; 2) Previously prepared environmental documents may be used for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance for annexations to the Sanitation Districts as follows: A) When the project/entitlement for which they were prepared is still active; or B) When the documents were prepared within the last five years, whichever is less; and, C)The above information shall be included in the agenda packet for the Board's review at such time as a "Resolution of Application" for a proposed annexation is scheduled for action. 3) While the Sanitation Districts must by law utilize Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth projections, Sanitation Districts staff shall consider the City and County growth projections when calculating future sanitation needs within the City's planning area. The Sanitation Districts should participate in the SCAG's studies, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) update, to ensure that the SCAG numbers reflect local population projections. The Sanitation District staff shall make regular status reports to the Board on the progress of this participation. 4) The SD staff analysis of each proposed annexation (assuming eventual connection) will include the projected flow from the annexation, and the remaining capacity of the system after annexation and connection. 5) The Sanitation Districts staff, in conjunction with City staff, will hold pre -agenda meetings, prior to each monthly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss regular and special items on the Board's meeting agenda. 6) Local public hearings will be held, following appropriate notice, for all proposed fee increases. 7) The Sanitation Districts Board may periodically review these policies at its discretion, and may amend them as the Board deems appropriate to further the business of Sanitation Districts 26 and 32. Policies considered by Council but not forwarded to the SD Board in March 1993: A. Vacant property may be annexed to the Sanitation Districts as follows: 1) ,Active entitlements exist on the property; and B) These entitlements are in conformance with the planned land use density and/or intensity for the property, as established by the Santa Clarita General Plan. B. The Board of Directors may condition annexations to the Sanitation Districts, at its sole discretion, at the time of adoption of the "Resolution of Application" for transmittal to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and as deemed necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the Sanitation Districts. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: 1) The Board of Directors shall have the discretion to re- evaluate sanitation service to the property if the density and/or intensity of the land use increases beyond that evaluated by the Board for the purposes of this annexation; and, 2 ) Where property considered for annexation to the Sanitation Districts is located adjacent to the City limits, the Board may require that the property annex to the City as a condition of approval. coun61\nr110fl d.d.w