Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - CASTAIC AREA TOWN COUNCIL (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: May 23, 2006 r Ken Pulskamp RESPONSE TO MAY 1, 2006 LETTER FROM THE CASTAIC AREA TOWN COUNCIL TO MAYOR WESTE City Manager's Office RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council direct the City Manager to respond to the Castaic Area Town Council informing them of the City's annexation policy and the need to obtain signatures in support of annexation from 60% of the property owners within the annexation area prior to the City intiating the annexation process. BACKGROUND Currently the Castaic Area Town Council is evaluating both the option of forming a new city on the west side of the 5 Freeway and the option of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. Also at this time, several Castaic area residential neighborhoods and many businesses within the Commerce Center have expressed an interest in annexing to the City of Santa Clarita. Residents within these neighborhoods have initiated a petition drive to obtain the necessary signatures to initiate an annexation study by the City. The City has an adopted policy that outlines the general requirements for all annexations. To intiate the process, City policy requires that 60% of the property owners within the annexation area provide written support for the annexation. This support is typically in the form of a petition. Once completed, a fiscal analysis is conducted to determine the financial impacts/feasibility of the annexation. The Council adopted a financial neutrality policy which is used as a guide to approving annexations, though certain exceptions to this policy may apply. ANALYSIS There are numerous benefits that are afforded to residents living within a city. These benefits typically include: 1. Increased local control and greater local government representation, 2. Enhanced municipal services including parks, recreation, law enforcement, street maintenance and land use planning, 3. Lower taxes and fees, and 4. Retention of more tax dollars within the community. It is highly likely that a financial analysis of the unincorporated areas within the Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) will demonstrate that the County collects more revenue than it spends for municipal services within the SCV. Such additional revenue leaves the Valley thereby reducing the quality of municipal services and infrastructure of the SCV. There are clear benefits for the residents within unincorporated areas to either incorporate a new city or to annex to an existing city. California State law provides greater financial incentive for annexation to an existing city than it does for the incorporation of a new city. There are also potential economic and planning disadvantages that can result from forming a separate city or cities within a limited geographic area such as the SCV. For example, adjacent cities will often compete economically by trying to out bid each other offering greater financial incentives designed to intice specific major tax generating businesses. In addition they may allow financial factors rather than good planning principals to drive land use decisions. Due to the above reasons it is very possible that the Castaic Area Town Council will conclude that it is more desirable to annex to the City of Santa Clarita than to remain unincorporated or to form a new city. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as directed by Council. FISCAL IMPACT None ATTACHMENTS May 1, 2006 Letter from Castaic Area Town Council City Council Annexation Policy May 1, 2006 The Honorable Mayor Laurene Weste 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mayor Weste: The Castaic Area Town Council, in conjunction with the local Vision Committee, is continuing its study into the form of our future government. While we are proceeding with our exploration into the formation of a city on the west side of the 5 Freeway, we are also seriously considering the option of annexation with the City of Santa Clarita. A threshold question with regard to the annexation issue concerns its scope. There has been some confusion surrounding whether the welcome mat is out to all of Castaic or only certain hand-picked portions. We are at this time requesting clarification as to whether or not the City of Santa Clarita would be receptive to annexing all of Castaic (the boundaries of which are laid out in the recently adopted Community Standards District). It is our desire to not fragment our community and could not support annexation if it were not to include all of Castaic. In order to assist us in exploring our viable options, we would request a response to this communication at your earliest possible convenience. If you would like to attend a Town Council meeting, please so advise and you will be placed on the agenda as soon as practicable. We look forward to maintaining a strong relationship with the City of Santa Clarita regardless of the path we choose to take. Carder, President c Area Town Council Yours truly, ohn N. Kunak Castaic Vision Committee CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I POLICY/PROCEDURE NUMBER I-13 ORIGINAL ISSUE CURRENT ISSUE EFFECTIVE 03/11/03 EFFECTIVE RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services V01-5 T1*1A SUBJECT Policy for the Annexation of Territory to the City of Santa Clarita CATEGORY Legislative Relations STANDARD MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE The City of Santa Clarita has developed the following policy to provide guidelines for the City Council's evaluation of annexation proposals for both inhabited and uninhabited properties. POLICY General Evaluation Guidelines The Council shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating whether annexation requests of vacant or inhabited territory to the City of Santa Clarita are necessary and desirable: 1. The annexation conforms with all applicable goals, objectives and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 2. The annexation would result in a logical extension of existing City boundaries or, where deemed appropriate and desirable, result in the diminution of an existing county island. 3. The annexation would not create a County island, or result in infeasible service areas for the County. 4. Whether the annexation would result In a fiscally -positive, fiscally -neutral or fiscally - negative impact on the City. Fiscally -positive, or annexations promoting economic development in the City, are encouraged. 5. Whether the annexation would result in a significant public benefit to the City. In addition to financial gain for the City, a significant public benefit could include: the protection or acquisition of open space; development of active parkland; provision of road connections and regional transportation corridors; development review control to ensure that the visual and environmental resources of the area are preserved; promotion of an innovative land use; the protection of sensitive and endangered plant and/or animal species; or acquisition of a strategically -located area that advances City objectives. 6. Annexations that result in a fiscally -negative impact on the City are discouraged. However, if it can be shown that a non -fiscal, significant public benefit to the City will result from the annexation that outweighs the negative impact to the City's General Fund, the council will consider such annexation. The Council may take into consideration such other factors that are deemed to be of benefit to the health, safety, general welfare or economic well-being of the citizens of Santa Clarita. Evaluation Guidelines for Uninhabited Territory In addition to the General Evaluation Guidelines listed above, the Council shall consider the following guidelines whether annexation requests of vacant or uninhabited territory accompanied with a development project are necessary and desirable: 1. The annexation promotes balance of the community, quality development and improvement of the City's economic base. 2. The annexation funds the costs of public facilities and services needed to serve the new development. Evaluation Guidelines for Inhabited Territory In addition to the General Evaluation Guidelines, the Council shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating whether annexation requests of developed, inhabited territory are necessary and desirable: The proposed annexation area is not encumbered by a Mello -Roos over residential properties or similar special taxing district unless deemed acceptable by the City Council. 2. Requests for annexation of inhabited territory must be accompanied by a report for the Council's consideration that demonstrates the following: a. long-term economic impact to the City; b. long-term impact on City services to existing residents; c. whether the annexation will result in a need for new or expanded City services without offsetting compensation; and d. whether the annexation will promote more efficient delivery of City services. EXCEPTION Exceptions to this policy may be authorized by the City Council. AUTHORITY Adopted by the City Council Tuesday, March 11, 2003. Kenneth R. Pulskamp, City Manager