Staff Report. Staff requests Commission review, discussion and determination of a policy on Unincorporated Islands and Corridors

Transcription

1 SONOMA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE, ROOM 104A, SANTA ROSA, CA (707) FAX (707) Staff Report Meeting Date: April 4, 2012 Agenda No.: Item 5.2 Agenda Item Title: Policy: Unincorporated Islands and Corridors Proposal: Environmental Determination: Staff Contact: Staff requests Commission review, discussion and determination of a policy on Unincorporated Islands and Corridors Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines Richard Bottarini

2 ANALYSIS The purpose of this report is: to provide general and specific information about islands of unincorporated territory surrounded by a city within Sonoma County; to bring the Commission up to date about deliberations of the Policy Committee and its evaluation of various factors on which to base a policy about islands and island annexations; to review aspects of state law on islands and annexation; and to provide information about islands within the sphere of influence of the City of Santa Rosa and action by the City regarding these islands Background Fifty-two islands of unincorporated territory completely surrounded by a city exist in Sonoma County; with the majority consisting of fewer than 50 acres. Fifty-one of these islands are located within the sphere of influence of the City of Santa Rosa; the largest island, of over 3,500 acres, is known as Roseland. Neither this report nor the draft policies discussed in the report includes or pertains to the Roseland island. Current Commission Policy The Commission s current policy, which has been in place for many years, is stated as follows: Unincorporated Islands and Corridors. A. Creation of Unincorporated Islands. The Commission discourages proposal boundaries which would create an island of unincorporated territory surrounded by territory within one or more cities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375, islands may be created only if the Commission finds that 1) application of the restriction against creating islands would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community, and 2) the area that would be enclosed is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. B. City Annexation. If additional public services for an unincorporated island or corridor are requested, the Commission encourages that such services be obtained by annexing to the surrounding city. The Commission encourages cities to annex adjacent unincorporated islands and corridors. Item April 4, 2012

3 In late 2009, staff requested that the Policy Committee consider modifications to clarify the Commission s position on annexations of parcels within unincorporated islands and to better align the policy with state law. State Law There are several sections of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act that are relevant to islands: Section prohibits the creation of islands of unincorporated territory surrounded by a city, via annexation, unless the Commission determines otherwise, in accordance with Section 56375(m). Section 56375(m) allows the Commission to waive the restrictions of Section if it finds that the restriction would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area to be included within the annexation boundary is located such that it could not reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. Section of the law gives cities and LAFCOs the opportunity to significantly streamline procedural requirements for island annexations if proposals meet specific criteria. Under this provision, LAFCO is required to: conduct a noticed public hearing on such a proposal, approve the annexation; and waive protest proceedings if the following conditions are met: (a) Annexation is proposed by resolution of the annexing city. (b) The island does not exceed 150 acres in area and that area constitutes (c) the entire island. The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city or constitutes a reorganization containing a number of individual unincorporated islands. (d) The island is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city or by the annexing city and adjacent cities. (e) The island is not a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district. (f) (g) The island is substantially developed or developing based on the availability of public utilities, presence of public improvements or the presence of physical improvements on the parcels within the area. The island is not prime agricultural land as defined in the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Act (GC Section 56064). (h) The island is receiving benefits from the annexing city or will benefit from the city. The requirement to waive protest proceedings is scheduled to sunset after January 1, 2014, and CALAFCO is in the process of polling its member LAFCOs regarding interest in extending that provision. Item April 4, 2012

4 Within this context, the Policy Committee began discussions on approaches to an island annexation policy. The topic was addressed at the Committee s meetings of December 2, 2009, February 3, April 7, and May 5, 2010, and January 12, March 2, April 13, and December 7, In its deliberations and as a means of organizing components of a policy, the Committee considered various factors which are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Draft Policy Ultimately, the Committee, at its meeting of April 13, 2011, directed staff to distribute to cities for review the draft policy that had evolved over the course of many meetings. The draft policy states: In order to fulfill the intent of the state legislature and implement the urban development policies of cities, the county and LAFCO, and in the interest of efficient service provision and orderly growth and development, cities are encouraged to annex all islands of unincorporated territory. Cities are further encouraged to annex, as part of a single application, as much of each unincorporated urban island as possible and practical. When annexing any part of an island that is: completely surrounded by a city and developed to the existing density allowed by the county or pre-zoning of the city and where more than half of the parcel owners within the island consent to annexation, with each parcel having one vote regardless of the number of people owning a parcel, a city is strongly encouraged to annex the entire island using the island annexation procedures found in Government Code Section The Commission shall not consider proposals that are contrary to state law, which states territory shall not be incorporated into, or annexed to, a city pursuant to this division if, as a result of that incorporation or annexation, unincorporated territory is completely surrounded by that city or by territory of that city on one or more sides and the Pacific Ocean on the remaining side (Government Code Section 56744). Special circumstances may exist, and islands may be created if the Commission finds that: 1. Application of the restriction against creating islands would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community, and 2. The area that would be enclosed as an island is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. Item April 4, 2012

5 The draft policy was designated as the incremental island annexation policy ( the incremental island policy ) or Policy Option 1. The Committee acknowledged that the proposed policy would not eliminate the islands but would serve to reduce them over time. The key aspects of this policy are: 1. Cities are encouraged to annex as much of an island as possible and practical in a single application. For example, if a city or LAFCO receives an application for annexation of an individual property or group of parcels representing less than an entire island, the city and/or LAFCO could prepare a sentiment survey and analysis to determine the extent of support for annexation and develop boundaries that encompass as much as the island as possible. The final application might include parcels some of whose owners do not support annexation; however, the territory included must create a logical boundary. An example of a logical boundary would be the annexation of all parcels on one side of a street or annexation of an entire block. 2. If the results of the sentiment survey or an application indicates the support of a majority of parcel owners for annexation, the city is encouraged to pre-zone the entire island, which would be followed by LAFCO consideration of annexation. Alternative Policy Proposed The Committee was split on whether to endorse the incremental island policy solely or to offer an alternative with equal or nearly equal support. The alternative recommended by the Policy Committee was designated as the entire island policy ( the entire island policy ) or Policy Option 2. This policy states: In order to fulfill the intent of the state legislature and implement the urban development policies of the cities, the county and LAFCO, and in the interests of efficient service provision and orderly growth and development, the Commission requires annexation of entire islands that are: Fewer than 150 acres; Completely surrounded by the City; and More than 50 percent (of the parcels) developed to the General Plan density range. Cities are encouraged to annex substantially surrounded fringe islands. The Commission defines substantially surrounded as territory contiguous to the annexing city on at least 75 percent of its boundaries. The Commission encourages cities to use the island annexation provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (GC ). Item April 4, 2012

6 The Commission discourages annexation of territory to a city if that annexation splits an island of unincorporated territory, creating additional islands. Special circumstances may exist, and islands may be created if the Commission finds that: 1. Application of the restriction against creating islands would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community, and 2. The area that would be enclosed as an island is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. The key provisions of this alternative policy are: 1. Once the city receives an application for annexation, even for a single parcel within the island, it would have to pre-zone the entire island and pass a resolution proposing annexation. 2. If the territory within the island is not substantially developed, that is, less than half of the parcels are developed to the city or county general plan densities, annexation of less than all territory within the island would be acceptable. 3. Cities are encouraged to annex substantially surrounded fringe islands, which are defined by the Commission as territory contiguous to the annexing city on at least 75 percent of its boundaries. There would be no requirement to pursue annexation of such territory using the streamlined island provision in Section of the Government Code. Developing an Island Annexation Policy: Complexity of Issues On its face, it does not seem that developing a policy on islands would be a difficult task. However, as the Policy Committee began its deliberations, the complexity became evident. Questions and issues that evolved included: How many islands exist in Sonoma County, and where are they located? How big are the islands in acreage and number of parcels? What are the consequences of annexing only a portion of an island? Should there be classifications of annexation by size of island, number of parcels, development? What services do the islands receive? Are the islands inhabited, according to the definition in state law, or uninhabited, and what difference does this make? What is the City of Santa Rosa s policy on annexation? Item April 4, 2012

7 Characteristics of Existing Islands First the Committee needed to understand the characteristics of the islands under consideration. Staff prepared a comprehensive inventory of the islands including a description of each with regards to acreage, number of parcels, number of registered voters, current service provision, level of development and approximate property valuation. A copy of this report is available upon request. Of a total of 51 unincorporated islands completely surrounded by a city, 50 are located within the sphere of influence of the City of Santa Rosa. This report will focus on those 50 islands. Number of Islands Completely Surrounded by the City City City of Cloverdale 0 City of Cotati 0 City of Healdsburg 0 City of Petaluma 0 City of Rohnert Park 0 Notes An area along the southern end of Petaluma Boulevard South is 95% surrounded. Annexation of this area is based on an agreement with the City regarding 16 remainder parcels that are adjacent to territory which is owned by South Petaluma Partners and which was annexed to the City several years ago. City of Santa Rosa islands east of Highway 101; 9 islands north of Highway 12 and west of Highway 101 City of Sebastopol 0 City of Sonoma 1 4 parcels Town of Windsor 0 Total 52 Factors for Determining Annexation Thresholds The Committee discussed several factors that might be used as thresholds to require proposals for annexation of any part of an island to include the entire island. These factors included the number of parcels within the island, acreage, number of registered voters, and the extent of development of the parcels. One factor the Committee first considered was the number of parcels within an island. The following table summarizes the number of islands containing a specific number of Item April 4, 2012

8 parcels and the percentage of these islands to the total number of islands. The cumulative percentage was given to assist the Committee in determining the impact on the reduction of islands based on the threshold number. For instance, 42% of the islands contain 10 or fewer parcels. Number of parcels within an Island Number. of Islands containing that number of parcels Percentage of the Total Number of Islands (Cummulative) 4 or fewer After its deliberations on this factor, the Committee recognized that using this or any single factor alone to determine what would be an acceptable reduction in the size of an island may not adequately address the needs of the remaining parcels. The concern was at what point does the annexation of a portion of an island create more of problem for the remaining island, with regards to logical boundaries and the provision of services. The Policy Committee then discussed ways of classifying unincorporated islands using more than one factor, including acreage, number of parcels, extent of development and the number of registered voters. For staff purposes, the islands were defined as follows: Very Small Islands: Islands with fewer than 20 acres, six or fewer parcels and fewer than 12 registered voters (Uninhabited) Small Islands: Islands with fewer than 20 acres, more than six parcels, fewer than 12 registered voters, and substantially developed (more than half of the parcels in the island developed to the general plan density range) Medium Islands: Islands with fewer than 150 acres, more than 12 registered voters (Inhabited) and substantially developed Large Islands: Islands with more than 150 acres, more than 12 registered and substantially developed Each of these island classifications could have a different policy that better addresses the characteristics of that island. For example, the Committee considered, but is not Item April 4, 2012

9 recommending, a policy for the Very Small and Small Islands that would require that proposals for annexations of territory within these islands meet the following: The city shall pre-zone the entire island. If the annexation is initiated by the city, all parcels within the island shall be included. If the annexation is by property owner petition, the petitioner shall prepare and present to the Commission a sentiment survey of all property owners within the island regarding annexation. If the value of the property owned by the petitioner(s) and supporters is less than 50 percent of the land value of all the properties within the island, the Commission will accept applications that reduce the size of the island and support the formation of logical boundaries. Annexation of the entire island would not be necessary. The Committee recognized the merits of requiring that proposals for annexation of parcels within Very Small/Small islands include all parcels within the island. The Committee also recognized that this is not always practical. Many property owners are not interested in annexation unless or until they have a need for services, such as sewer or water. If parcels within only a portion of island are in need of city services and the remainder of the island property owners do not wish to annex, it could be difficult to include the entire island into the proposal due to the associated costs, the requirements of state law, and the implications of forcing annexation on property owners. When annexation is not a viable option, the Commission currently addresses the extension of services to these islands for health and safety reasons through an Outside Service Area Authorization (OSAA). As stated in the law, these authorizations are supposed to be in anticipation of annexation; however, there are no requirements in the law or LAFCO policy as to when that follow-up step is required. The City of Santa Rosa now requires OSAAs to include covenants preventing owners from protesting annexation if and when the City wants that step to occur. Although no database is currently maintained on the location and conditions of each OSAA, it is possible that an island may have a majority of properties with recorded annexation covenants associated with a previously approved City utility certificate. Current Services within Islands Although unincorporated islands have historically received a variety of services from the County, special districts, and the private sector, these services often do not cover the full range or level of services that many urban dwellers have come to expect. There is no consistent pattern as to the services an area receives. However, many of the islands receive some services, such as water and sewer, directly from the City and some services, such as recreation and parks, indirectly by proximity. Through agreements between the County, Special Districts and City of Santa Rosa as well as through utilization of Outside Service Area Authorizations, many unincorporated islands throughout the City receive City water, sewer, fire and police protection services. Item April 4, 2012

10 However, roads and related infrastructure remain the responsibility of the County and may not be at the standard of similar urbanized areas within City boundaries. Some residents within these islands may not see the need to annex to the City since they are already receiving City services whereas other residents may see the lack of comparable services to be a disadvantage that should be eliminated by annexation to the City. Definition of Inhabited Under state law, inhabited territory" means territory within which there reside 12 or more registered voters. This determination becomes important during the LAFCO process because different requirements apply regarding steps that need to be followed as the Commission considers an application. For uninhabited proposals, property owners control the outcome while, for inhabited proposals, registered voters sentiment may weigh more heavily. This is especially relevant when not all owners or voters consent to annexation. Should the Commission approve a proposal with less than 100% consent, state law requires the Commission to conduct a protest proceeding to allow property owners (in uninhabited proposals) or property owners and registered voters (in inhabited proposals) the opportunity to protest the action. Depending on the level and type of protests, the proposal could go forward, be terminated, or go to an election. The Commission has no discretion over the result. Many of the islands referred to in this report have more than 12 registered voters. How a policy is shaped could determine the outcome of annexation of an island, especially if the streamlined island annexation procedures are used. Information from City of Santa Rosa Since all except one of the islands of unincorporated territory surrounded by a city within the County are located within the Santa Rosa sphere of influence, the Committee was particularly interested in knowing the City s policy on annexation and in obtaining feedback from the City regarding the draft LAFCO policy. The latest amendment to the City of Santa Rosa annexation policy was approved in August At that time, the City Council adopted a policy for processing and evaluating annexation requests. The criteria for reviewing annexations are as follows: The annexation officer and the City Council shall use the following criteria in making a determination as to whether annexation boundaries will be set: 1. Whether the proposed annexation, with or without modifications, would represent a logical extension of the City s boundaries at the time of its consideration; 2. Whether the proposed annexation is consistent with the City s General Plan, including the Plan s Urban Growth Boundary; Item April 4, 2012

11 3. Whether adequate urban level services will be available when the property is developed; 4. Whether the annexation is in the best interest of the City. An annexation may consist of City-owned property that is not contiguous to the City s boundary if the property is to be used solely for municipal purposes. The total area of all such annexations may not exceed 300 acres unless the property is used for the reclamation, storage or irrigation of treated wastewater. The City Council may waive the criteria and procedures of this Policy if it finds that a proposed annexation, or an amended annexation boundary, would benefit the City. As was noted at earlier in this report, in April 2011, the Committee directed staff to circulate the proposed policies on island annexations to cities. As a result of several requests from LAFCO for feedback, on March 12, 2012, the Santa Rosa City Council received a report from its Community Development Director regarding both the incremental island and entire island policies. By unanimous vote, the Council affirmed its existing annexation practice, as stated above, and supported Policy Option 1, the incremental island policy. The City staff report, as well as the confirming letter from the City Manager regarding City Council s action, are attached, for the Commission s review and information (Attachments 1 and 2). The City s current practice is to annex only those parcels whose property owners consent to annexation. Although annexation of such territory takes substantially less time and effort, especially by staff, than being in the difficult position of having to determine to annex a property against owners will, the question, from a LAFCO perspective, is whether this promotes good public policy. Existence of islands creates confusion among residents and responders alike and is much less efficient than having such territory under the jurisdiction of a single entity. Complicating the discussion is the potential for monetary mitigation of services by those annexing. The City staff report prepared for the Council s recent review of the LAFCO draft island annexation policy stated that the cost of providing services, especially police services, is an issue for the City. To deal with this, the report states that, when annexation is proposed, the City requires the proponent to mitigate the impacts of an increased need for public safety services resulting from the project to a less than significant level. A proponent has four choices: 1. annex the affected territory into a special tax district; 2. pay a lump sum to cover increased public safety costs; 3. provide private policy services; or 4. include other uses that would generate sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing police services. Item April 4, 2012

12 Since many residents of the unincorporated County islands already receive the benefits of water, sewer, and fire from the City, they might understandably be reluctant to agree to annexation and have to pay more for these and other services. As a result of the City s practice, LAFCO staff would expect to see more applications for single parcel annexations, either for development purposes or because threats to public health and safety necessitate connection of the affected property to City utilities systems. The Policy Committee directed staff to profile, for the Commission s information, two pending applications which illustrate issues associated with development of an island annexation policy. Each application proposes annexation of a portion of an unincorporated island and is discussed more fully below. Spring Lake Village Proposed Expansion and Annexation In May 2007, Episcopal Senior Communities, which owns Spring Lake Village, a senior community care facility located in southeast Santa Rosa, requested that the City approve an expansion of the facility to include three parcels, all within City limits and located adjacent to and west of the existing main campus. By the end of that year, a fourth parcel, to the west and located in an unincorporated County island, was purchased and added to the project. Due to the extent of the proposal and a number of project changes, the City determined to complete an Environmental Impact Report for the project. During that process and in response to a neighborhood sentiment survey, by mid-2010, the City established an annexation boundary to include not only the fourth Spring Lake Village parcel but also three adjacent unincorporated parcels along Brey Road whose owners requested annexation. Subsequently, at the request of LAFCO staff, City staff expanded the annexation and prezoning boundary to include two additional parcels located on the east side of Brey Road, for a total of six parcels within the proposed annexation boundary. The two parcels most recently added to the proposal (in July 2011) have recorded annexation covenants associated with previously approved City Utility Certificates and Outside Service Area Authorizations. These recorded documents state that the property owners covenant to annex or support annexation proceedings and waive protest rights. No improvements are proposed for the Brey Road parcels, and the existing, single-family land uses would remain the same. Item April 4, 2012

13 In October 2011, the Santa Rosa City Council pre-zoned the six unincorporated parcels, as recommended by its staff. To date, LAFCO has not received an application for annexation of the affected territory, but staff expects it to be submitted shortly. Regarding payment for the cost of police services for the affected territory, the Spring Lake Village developer has agreed to pay the associated fees for the single parcel it owns in the proposed annexation area. The City staff report which recommended that the City Council pre-zone the six parcels stated that the five remaining parcels would not be annexed into the special tax district or assessed fees until or if they submitted development proposals which would require discretionary permits or approvals; as a result of these, the impacts of development (i.e., more need for police services) would need to be mitigated and paid for. The City Council ordinance did not address this issue but instead stated: Adequate City services are available and can be provided for the future annexation of these properties. With stated differences among the information provided in (a) the recent report to the Council on LAFCO s proposed island annexation policy, (b) the October 2011 staff report for the Spring Lake Village et al. pre-zoning and (c) the Council s prezoning ordinance for the Spring Lake Village and other parcels, it is unclear what, if any, responsibility the five parcels would have regarding payment for police services, should they be annexed. LAFCO staff believes that the proposed annexation boundary is generally consistent with the Committee s draft incremental island policy. The proposed annexation does reduce the size of an unincorporated County island, in that parcels on the east side of Brey Road are included in the annexation proposal, and a smaller island boundary is created for the remaining unincorporated territory. In addition, with LAFCO staff s encouragement, the City has proactively included, in the annexation boundary, properties whose owners may not necessarily support the annexation but are obligated due to existing annexation covenants. Staff believes that the proposal is not consistent with the proposed entire island policy Piner Road Proposed Annexation On March 14, 2007, Barbara Kringle applied to the City for pre-zoning of a vacant, 10- acre parcel fronting Piner Road in northwest Santa Rosa. The parcel is part of a 69- parcel unincorporated island identified by LAFCO staff as the Floral Way island. Approximately 57 acres, the island consists mostly of single-family homes dating from the 1950s. To staff s knowledge, the area does not receive either City sewer or water. As a result of neighborhood sentiment surveys, the City Annexation Officer initially set the annexation boundary to include an additional 13 parcels whose owners supported annexation. Based on further public input, the annexation boundary was revised to include 23 parcels. The vacant Kringle parcel was proposed to be pre-zoned as Medium High Density Residential for future development while the other 22 properties would be pre-zoned as Low Density or Very Low Density. Item April 4, 2012

14 LAFCO staff discussed the proposed annexation boundary with City staff several times, encouraging the City to pre-zone as much territory as possible to create a logical annexation boundary and a successful proposal. Staff further advocated pre-zoning of the remaining parcels in the island as a means of streamlining future annexation proposals by owners, some of whom expressed interest in having future access to City services; thus, if territory were already pre-zoned by the City, property owners, when desirous of annexation, could save money and time because they could apply directly to LAFCO and not be required to apply to both the City and LAFCO, thus streamlining the process. In March 2009, after further consideration, City staff recommended to the City Planning Commission pre-zoning of the 23 parcels within an annexation boundary and further recommended pre-zoning of the remaining 46 parcels in the island, in anticipation of future annexations. LAFCO staff addressed the proposed pre-zoning at the meeting and supported City staff s recommendation. The Planning Commission concurred, in unanimous votes. Soon after the Planning Commission vote, the City declared a fiscal emergency and did not accept or act on proposals for annexation of territory because it determined that it could not provide services to additional territory. No further action was taken regarding this proposal for more than two years. In June 2011, the City s fiscal emergency was determined to have ended, and processing of annexations was resumed. In October 2011, LAFCO staff was notified Item April 4, 2012

15 that the proposal was moving forward with only the Kringle property in the annexation boundary and subject to pre-zoning. The City s letter to the property owner, stated: Based on fiscal impacts to the City of Santa Rosa due to the ongoing economic downturn, properties now coming under the jurisdiction of the City are now required to off-set some of the costs associated with providing services to these properties. Due to the negative sentiment from some of the surrounding property owners originally included in the boundaries of the pre-zoning/annexation to any fiscal impacts associated with annexation to the City of Santa Rosa, the boundaries of the annexation have been revised. The statements seem to indicate that, unlike five of the six parcels in the Spring Lake Village proposal which would not be required to pay for City services upon annexation, any parcels added to the developable single parcel in the Piner Road proposal would. LAFCO staff believes that the proposed annexation boundary may not be consistent with the Committee s draft incremental island policy. Although the proposed annexation does reduce the size of a County island, it does not annex any additional parcels whose owners previously supported annexation. Parcels along Floral Way could be included, and the entire north side of the block could be annexed into the City. Further analysis would be required to determine if the number of registered voters and the assessed value of properties both supporting and opposing annexation would have any effect on the annexation process. Should a proposal with a larger number of parcels be submitted, some parcels opposed to annexation might need to be included to form a logical boundary, a determination which would be made by the Commission. As this annexation has been in the process for such a long period of time, there may be an equality issue that the Commission may consider in application of this policy. Again, that would be determined at a later date. RECOMMENDATIONS The Policy Committee recommends that the Commission solicit testimony, discuss the alternatives drafted by the Committee, and determine a policy on island annexation. As noted above, the Policy Committee is recommending an incremental island annexation policy. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS Item April 4, 2012

16 1. Retain the Existing Policy This policy is not recommended because it does not address existing islands. The recommendation from the Policy Committee expands the policy to provide guidance to the City of Santa Rosa and Commission staff, thus making applications more predictable. 2. Eliminate Existing Policy By eliminating the existing policy, the Commission would have to rely on State law in its deliberations, foregoing the option of creating policy tailored for Sonoma County. The Commission has little control or input into State law, and the law could change over time. For these reasons, the Committee is not recommending this alternative. 3. Expand the Southwest Annexation Policy to the Entire County The policy places a moratorium on annexations until there is a plan for annexation of all islands. This approach would expand the scope of the existing policy and encourage the City of Santa Rosa and the County to come to a mutual agreeable plan for eventually eliminating the islands, including Roseland. The Committee did not recommend this policy because it could have a detrimental effect on development in the unincorporated islands. Property owners could be caught between disagreeing agencies and be unable to move forward with desirable projects. Further, the existing agreements between the County/special districts and the City of Santa Rosa may permit development without annexation, only increasing the potential for no annexation of the islands. Finally, there has been little documented recent evidence that either the City or the County would be willing to develop a plan in the immediate future. 4. Establish Two or Three Policies Policies could be based on factors including size, existing development, number of parcels, or inhabitation. This alternative was not chosen due to the difficulty in determining the appropriate criteria. However, there are significant advantages to choosing this alternative, particularly when considering a threshold based on the number of parcels or acreage. Small developed islands of fewer than seven parcels represent more than a third of all islands. Islands with 13 or fewer parcels represent nearly half of the islands. A policy for only small islands, requiring annexation of the entire island, is at least definitive. Many of these islands have City services, and some parcels have covenants prohibiting protest of annexation. Using the criteria of inhabitation can be more difficult because the number of registered voters within an island can change right up to the date of the protest hearing. An annexation with fewer than 12 registered voters at the time of application could become an inhabited annexation at a later point in the process. The Commission could consider numerous combinations. The main disadvantage to the policy is determining the criteria. Item April 4, 2012

17 ATTACHMENTS 1. City of Santa Rosa Staff Report to City Council, March 13, Letter from Santa Rosa City Manager, March 15, 2012 Item April 4, 2012