Approved by City Manager: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2013 TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS TOM BARTLETT, A.I.C.P., CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF THE CRAFTSMAN S CORNER AREA (146 ACRES) TO THE CITY OF CALABASAS, AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO AMEND THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUCH ANNEXATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2013 DATE: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2013-1393 to initiate proceedings for a local government reorganization to include annexation into the City of Calabasas the Craftsman s Corner area, and requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County (LAFCO) to amend the Sphere of Influence for the City and to consider approval of such annexation. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 2013 staff delivered to the City Council and informational presentation regarding the potential annexation of the Craftsman s Corner area. At that meeting staff related to the Council a general outline of the steps to follow to start the process, and shared with the Council a map of the area and applicable land use policies in the 2030 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
General Plan. The Council directed staff to continue investigating the area and to meet with area property owners and residents to gauge their interest. Annexation History Calabasas was incorporated in 1991. Within the first year, in 1992, approximately 1,000 acres along Las Virgenes Road were annexed ( the MICOR lands ). Then in 2002 a boundary adjustment was accomplished (technically an annexation) when the eastern city boundary was corrected to fully include the entirety of the Creekside Condominiums. (The original city boundaries had been drawn such that only one phase of the condominium project had been included.) Finally, in 2011, following a three-year process, the Mont Calabasas community was annexed. This most recent annexation added to the city 110 single-family homes, approximately 250 acres of protected open space, and a new 65,000 square-foot office and retail commercial project (undergoing permitting today with construction anticipated next year). The municipal boundaries have not changed since the Mont Calabasas annexation. Annexation Goals and Policies The Calabasas 2030 General Plan clearly anticipates the proposed Craftsman s Corner annexation. Annexation of Craftsman s Corner is rather extensively discussed in the Land Use Element and in the Community Design Element. Below are several of the applicable policy statements found within the 2030 General Plan: II-1: Work with residents and landowners of adjacent unincorporated areas contemplated for annexation to determine interest. II-3: Pursue annexation of areas where residents and landowners desire to become part of the City of Calabasas. II-4: Specifically pursue annexation of the Craftsman s Corner area. IX-29: Annex and revitalize Craftsman s Corner through redevelopment with a mix of uses, improvement of circulation, and raising the quality of building design. Furthermore, the Craftsman s Corner area is included in the General Plan land use map (Figure II-1), and it is illustrated with a conceptual design suggesting how the area might eventually redevelop consistent with the mixed-use land use designations outlined in the Land Use Element (Figure IX-4). See Attachment C for copies of both General Plan maps.. Sphere of Influence. Every city in California has a Sphere of Influence (SOI) representing an anticipated future growth area for the city. SOIs are determined by LAFCOs, and they vary greatly from city to city. Furthermore, LAFCO reviews all SOIs on a regular basis (every 5 years), as is required under state law. The Los Angeles County LAFCO accomplishes the required SOI reviews as part of its regular Municipal Service Review process, and the most recent of these reviews was accomplished in 2012. At the time the Los 2
Angeles County LAFCO determined that the existing SOIs for Calabasas and for Hidden Hills required no modifications. Consequently, the SOI for Calabasas remains coterminous, meaning that it coincides precisely with the city s municipal boundaries. The proposed annexation will therefore require an amendment to the City s Sphere to enlarge it to include the proposed annexation area. Only the area to be annexed is requested to be included in the enlarged SOI area, so upon a successful annexation the Calabasas SOI would continue to be coterminous. City of Hidden Hills The proposed annexation area sits within the Sphere of Influence for the City of Hidden Hills. However, the City of Hidden Hills has not planned for annexation of this area, and the Hidden Hills General Plan lacks any map or policy statement which would suggest that a future annexation to Hidden Hills was anticipated. Furthermore, the North Area Plan, which is a part of the los Angeles County General Plan, includes the following policy statement: Support the annexation of lands directly adjacent to incorporated cities, where the primary access and services, such as parks, are provided through the city. Craftsman s Corner area residents and businesses obtain access to their community principally through the City of Calabasas; likewise, services, including public parks, library, and shopping, are obtained primarily from the City of Calabasas rather than from Hidden Hills. In July this year Mayor Pro Tem David Shapiro and City Manager Tony Coroalles conferred with the Hidden Hills City Manager, Cherie Paglia about the proposed annexation, and received her support. Also, last month Calabasas Planning staff discussed the matter with the Hidden Hills City Engineer, Dirk Lovett. Overall, feedback received thus far from Hidden Hills has been positive, cooperative & supportive. Community Outreach Efforts Staff arranged three different community outreach meetings with affected parties in Craftsman s Corner. The meetings took place in Founders Hall on July 15 th, August 26 th, and October 21 st. Letters of invitation were sent to all single-family home owners for the first meeting, and similar notices were sent to non-residential property owners for the two subsequent meetings. Taken all together, 31 of the 60 different property owners attended and participated in at least one of the meetings or contacted staff independently to learn about the process. The collective impression from the three meetings was that community interest was high, and that the owners and residents were generally supportive. During this same time staff also met and communicated with LAFCO staff, representatives of Los Angeles County, and the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District to advise them of the City s interest in this potential annexation and to determine is there might be obstacles or opposition. No obstacles or voiced opposition was encountered from these agencies. 3
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Staff has prepared a resolution for the consideration by the City Council (Attachment A, inclusive of map exhibit). The area in question is located within the City s planning area and is included in the City s General Plan as a future annexation area with land use designations of Mixed-Use 0.95, Business Business Park, Rural Residential, and Open Space Resource Protection. The General Plan also went as far as to project future development and redevelopment in this area, and the Plan includes an illustrated concept of how such future land uses might look and how the land use and circulation patterns might relate to the adjoining areas of the city (see Attachment C). LAFCO Process The proposed annexation involves a number of steps, and the entire process is expected to carry on for several years. (Recall that the Mont Calabasas annexation, which was less complex than this proposal, required three years to fully process.) The LAFCO process is summarized on Attachment B, and it officially begins with the filing of either a petition by affected landowners, or the adoption of a resolution by the legislative body seeking to annex the affected territory. Resolution 2013-1393 meets the requirement for the latter, and will accompany the application materials which staff will later file with LAFCO. Sphere of Influence Amendment Request Resolution 2013-1393 also requests LAFCO to amend the City s SOI as necessary to accommodate the annexation area. Additionally, because the proposed annexation area sits within the SOI for the City of Hidden Hills, the official application to LAFCO will include a request for LAFCO to remove Craftsman s Corner from the Hidden Hills SOI. On-going Coordination with Los Angeles County and City of Hidden Hills This proposed annexation will involve a corresponding annexation to the neighboring community of Hidden Hills of four parcels accessed only through Hidden Hills. Consequently, as staff proceeds with the various annexation steps, to include negotiations of tax sharing agreements, efforts must include Hidden Hills as a party and partner. Thus, as agreements are ironed out, they will have to be presented to the legislative bodies of both cities plus the County Board of Supervisors for approval. Also, the pre-zoning process will require staff to work through a pre-zoning not only for Calabasas, but also for Hidden Hills. As mentioned earlier in this report, preliminary outreach has already been accomplished with representatives of Hidden Hills, so Hidden Hills staff is aware of these future tasks and is prepared to work with Calabasas planning staff and county officials going forward. Annexation Area must be Pre-zoned Finally, the Council is advised that prior to LAFCO consideration, the City will have to pre-zone the proposed annexation area in accordance with the City s adopted General Plan or, alternatively, the City may amend its General Plan and pre-zone in accordance with the amendment. At such time that the pre-zoning action will be considered by the 4
Planning Commission and the City Council an environmental impact review document will be prepared and circulated for review in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Environmental Impact Review under CEQA Merely redrawing boundary lines for a municipality will not precipitate environmental impacts. Accordingly, for annexations where no future development is envisioned and the land use patterns are well established the general rule CEQA exemption applies that no foreseeable environmental impacts will result (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061). But for areas where future land uses are not yet fully established or are planned for future change, CEQA does apply. In this particular case the 2030 Calabasas General Plan has already anticipated the annexation and future land use patterns, and it analyzed potential environmental impacts in the 2030 General Plan EIR. FISCAL IMPACT/SOURCE OF FUNDING: There will be a fiscal impact associated with the requested action because application fees will have to be paid, and costs associated with various procedural steps will be incurred. The costs are estimated to be approximately $50,000 -- a breakdown of these costs is found in Attachment D to this report. The 2013-14 and 2014-15 budget does not include any funding for this effort; consequently, an amendment to the budget will be necessary to cover these expenses. REQUESTED ACTIONS: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2013-1393 to initiate proceedings for a local government reorganization to include annexation into the City of Calabasas the Craftsman s Corner area, and requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County (LAFCO) to amend the Sphere of Influence for the City and approve such annexation. 2) Direct the City Manager to issue a letter to LAFCO requesting that the Mountain View Estates annexation application (Annexation No. 2010-03) be withdrawn. 3) Direct the City Manager to amend the municipal budget in the amount of $50,000 from the General Fund to cover the estimated expenses for this project. ATTACHMENTS: A: Resolution No. 2013-1393, Inclusive of a Map of the Proposed Annexation Area B: LAFCO Process Chart C: 2030 General Plan Maps, Figures II-1 and IX-4 D: Summary of Estimated Expenses 5