HomeMy WebLinkAboutEstablish Policy for Council Review of Development Agreement y- J .
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of rids including public
, o�
notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, Number A-6214; dated 29 September, 1961, and
A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1
County of Orange Public Notice it is set covered 1l_-JL1�D
by
mw emdeat a set m 7 point +U�`�' 1=)t1 tit l�
with 10 Dice column width
JUL 0 8 1984 E> 1
I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of HDfVIIdtiISTRRTi'vi
SERVICES DEPT.
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the C1,10
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, _-
County of Orange, State of California, and that a PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of p„kil i C PTea-i ncf - Exo ti ^^ PROCEDURESNOTICE OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
E
Of Development Agreements r�/l� MENTS
CITY OF H U N T I N G T O N BEACH FOR EXECUTION OF
FOR
AGREEMENTS M!
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a"
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete public nearing will be held by the''
City Council of the City of Hunt
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, ington Beach, 'in the .Council,
Chamber of the Civic Center,Hunt-
ington
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, orBas soon thereafter each, at the ras po s of �,
IbleIrvine, the South Coast communities and La una Jun on Monday the 18se day of
g June, 1984 for the purpose of con-.;,
Beach issues of said newspaper for one sldering a resolution which would-
establish procedures and require-,'
merits for the execution of develop
consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of ment agreements within the City of
Huntington Beach.
Further information may obtained
j from the Department of Develop-
ment Services.
All interested persons are invited'
June 8 198 4 to attend said hearing and express
their opinions for or against said
resolution.Further information may
be obtained from the Office of the
198 City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Hunt-
ington Beach, California. 92648
(714)536-5227.
DATED June 7, 1984
198 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By:Alicia M.Wentworth
City Clerk
F-8
198 — -- -- —
198
e
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing is true and correct. d�s'�'vJ( �I�/ -
�
Executed on June a , 198 4 F-s ' c�
at Costa Mesa California.
Signature
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
TiCe Wotes
Office of the City Clem
Huntington Beach, California
T41\S rn e� ,
r` �L - e�
a
i
REQUESI I°OR CITY COUNCIP ACTION
Date April 15, 1991
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor & City Council
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratoDr�F
Prepared by: At the Request of Councilwoman Winchell
Subject: ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR COUNCIL REVI
OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS A ROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Excep ion
CITY
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative ctrons, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF 'ISSUE: There does not currently exist a formal policy
establishing a time certain for the City Council to have a copy of
development agreements prior to the need for them to take action on
same.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a resolution establishing 30
. days as a minimum length of time prior to the agendized date for
Council action. for the City Council to . have a final copy of any and
all development agreements.
ANALYSIS: Due to the critical nature of development agreements and
due also to the detailed nature of such agreements, it is necessary
for the City Council to have an adequate amount of time to review them
prior to bringing them to Council for action. It seems that a thirty
day period prior to the actual agenda date for hearing such material
would be a reasonable length of time for review. The intent of this
request is to 'establish this as a formal policy.
ALTERNATE ACTION:
1. Direct staff to have the. development agreements to Council 45�days
prior to the date Council will be asked to take action.
2 . Direct staff without establishing a formal policy. <n
FUNDING SOURCE: N/A �
ATTACHMENTS:
_ 7
GW/PD/pad
i
PIO 5/85
a
RESOLUTION NO. 6287
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
TO FORWARD TO ALL COUNCILPERSONS COPIES
OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THIRTY DAYS PRIOR
TO THE COUNCIL TAKING ANY ACTION.
WHEREAS, development agreements passed upon by the City
Council are generally long, complicated documents requiring
extensive review by the Council before being acted upon; and
The Council desires adequate time to review development
agreements ; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach hereby directs the City Administrator
to forward to all members of the City Council a copy of any
development agreement to be passed upon by the Council, thirty
days prior to the required action unless the Council by a
majority vote waives this requirement .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th
day of May 1991 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
01
City Clerk am ity Attorney 5 _9)
REVIE*ED AND A .P� EB: INITIATE AND Al ROVED:
City Administrator I. '
Res. No. 6287
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council ,
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day
of May 19 91 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
MacAllister, Winchell, Silva, Green, Kelly, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
city Cie nd ex-o ici er
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
t
t
J-4"J& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
• COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
CA 90-11
HUNTINGTON BEACH
�f-a
To Mayor and City Council From Paul E. Cook,
City Administrator
Subject Development Agreements Date February 2, 1990
The Holly—Seacliff and Bolsa Chica property owners will be submitting proposals to enter
into development agreements for their respective properties.
Attached is an article which may give you insight on "Development Agreements." I
strongly recommend that you pursue development agreements for both projects since, if
properly drafted, they protect all parties in the future.
PEC:pf
xc: Department Heads
Attachment
I
FINANCING
Development
Agreements: The
Second Pair of Socks
for Cold Weather
hen real estate developer the nearby Pacific.
By Philip Bettencourt Gordon Tippell of London- Laguna Niguel residents in the area
The Preview Company based Taylor Woodrow surrounding Marina Hills were in-
Homes arrived in the golden state of volved in a pitched battle for incorpo-
California in 1977, he found Orange ration of their community as a city.
Out of California has come a concept County a location that seemed too good Laguna Niguel residents were also
designed to protect developers and to be true. Here was the Southern quarrelsome with county officials re-
theirprojectsfrom changing develop- California county with the state's third garding land use regulations. An in-
i ment regulations.A real estate advisor lowest rate of unemployment, robust clusionary affordable housing program
two-income households, burgeoning had long been controversial. Some re-
describes the process of obtaining a job growth, glorious beaches, and a sidents were calling for slashing exist-
development agreement. balmy Mediterranean climate. ing approved densities, citing traffic
Establishing a beachhead land de- congestion annoyances.
velopment office for the worldwide de- As the development environment
velopment and construction company began to destabilize, the development
proved to be a shrewd business deci- team became concerned over the lack
i
sion. By 1985, with the completion of of cohesive community views and con-
two major residential communities in tentiousness in the land use policy-
Southern California,the developer was making process. At stake was the
prepared for an additional acquisition. team's statutory authority to complete
The Laguna Niguel coast, about 50 implementation of its Marina Hills
miles southeast of Los Angeles Interna- master plan under the jurisdiction and
tional Airport,was evolving as the cor- previous approval of the county gov-
nerstone of Taylor Woodrow's de- ernment.
velopment strategy. In April of 1985, But neighborhood squabbling was
the company acquired an $18 million not the developers only concern.
sector of Laguna Niguel holdings from Another factor threatening already
Avco Bredero, Inc. granted development approvals was an
The property would eventually be- expanding no-Growth movement. The
come the Marina Hills Planned Corn- county's often fractious no-growth
munity, a 700-acre community of groups were proposing to circulate a
1.655 homes anchored by a major pri- growth initiative throughout the
vate community recreation center and county. The initiative would have tied
over 200 acres preserved in public and the issuance of future building permits
private parks and trails. Grading was to the outcome of a level of service
underway. Major infrastructure corn- traffic analysis for new development.
mitments had been made. Most obsta- Although a county%%-ide initiative meas-
cles to the use of the land had been tire had never qualified for election.
overcome. The market was strong. But opinion polls showed that approval was
stormy weather was on the horizon of possible.
28 Land Development/December 1988
x
'- e" 0
n';
As a result, the developer began The Marina Hills recreation center
includes a competition pool, spa,
exploring options for shoring up its de-
clubhouse, six tennis courts, baseball and
velopment entitlements.Taylor Wood- soccer fields.
row wanted to ensure that hard-won
tentative tract map and zoning approv-
als remained unchanged by either the
actions of a potentially provincial new "
city council or the provisions of any
no-growth regulations.
"With cold weather coming on,"said
Tippell, "we needed an extra pair of .
socks."
Development Agreement Statute
Revitalized
Confronted with a shifting develop-
ment climate in the spring of 1987,
Taylor Woodrow and other Orange
County developers began researching
options to protect and enhance their MARINA HILLS Planned Community Development
existing approvals. Under California's Agreement Exactions
"late vesting" theories of law, the Orange County, California
California Supreme Court ruled in Arco
Community Developers, Inc. v. South Fee or Construction Exaction Percent Per Unit Total \
Coast Regional Coastal Commission,
17Cal. 3d 785(1976)that unqualified Construct Marina Hills Drive 24 $1,057 $1,748,900 \�
rights to proceed to complete a project Prepay Transportation Corridor Fees 22 959 1,586,349
are only ensured when a developer has Prepay 1990 Plan Road Fees 12 547 905,250
"performed substantial work and incur- Help Finance Fire Station Construction 10 446 737,697
red substantial liabilities in good faith Construct Niguel Road Segment 9 384 634,716
reliance upon a permit issued by the Help Improve Golden Lantern Intersection 8 352 582,200
government. ." In a landmark Construct Hiking Trails System 7 311 515,100
California case involving an earlier Prepay Library Fees 3 128 211,599
owner of the Marina Hills property,the Prepay MPLN Intersection Fees 2 101 166,395
Aveo court held that vesting was not Prepay Sheriff Substation Fees 1 58 95,247
perfected simply because either infra- Improve Niguel Road Intersection 1 53 88,000
structure had been installed or some Signalize Paseode Colinas Intersection 1 28 46,000
preliminary permits had been issued. Prepay Child Care Program Fees 0 17 27,660
From the building industry's perspec- Total 100% $4,438 $7,345,113
tive, it seemed that building founda-
Land Development/December 1988 29
tions themselves had to be poured in
order to perfect vesting on a house-by- Key Development Agreement Requirements
house basis. Such an approach offered
skimpy protection for a multiphase Term of the Agreement. County Honoring Existing Regulations.
community. officials selected a 10-year term for The issue of the county contracting
the agreement. The term of other out its police power gave rise to sev-
Development Agreement Feasibility agree ments`-where public facilities eral concerns. Among them, the
Study Ordered were,4 debt=financed through tax county's environmental activists
The California State Legislature, in re- exempt bonds extended for as long were charging that the county could
sponse to the Avco late vesting rule, as 25 years.. A longer term gives compromise its ability to protect en-
authorized development agreements bondholders additional security that . vironmental quality by entering into
(California Government Code, Article planned developments can be com- an agreement. Therefore, the even-
2.5, Chapter 4)and a new vesting tract plete$ as originally envisioned. tually approved agreements con-
map tained a number of provisions that
map statute. In June 1987, Taylor ,�, -�.��. ._ �
Woodrow commissioned The Preview Consideration Taylor,Woodrow;: guarded against use of the agree-
Company to prepare a feasibility study eventual�p posed`anaccelerated merit to subvert either California's
for negotiating a development agree- schedule tbe e�mpletio-- reg enyironiriental protection laws or the
ment based on the still unchallenged io al In ras y cture `The schedule M rules of other independent agencies
statute. Development agreements are called for repayment of develop-`= "_such as a'local parks district or the
contractual arrangements between a de- menu fee +fore the entire planned California Coastal Commission.
veloper and a local government for the community;even if:the property did
rovision of infrastructure support ser- notdevelop as quickly as originally Land Development Rules.The de-
vices in exchange for commitments by visioned due to,economic.down- velopment contract allowed the
turns or other factors county and Taylor Woodrow to pro-
the developer to address issues of con- � � � � �, :..vide for completion of the commu-
cem to local government.Development u P
agreements are intended to protect pro- Pliasing Plans The"state statute re-``< nity in accordance with the existing
g x
#.
jects in progress. quired a phasing component. The approved master plan tentative tract
The feasibility report traced the de''WI"",'er*"agreed to be bound by any maps. State agreement guidelines,
legislature's intent in adopting the de-
alloeaiiotfiolan fortbuildtng permits' however;required that the permitted
z�
tied T the completion'of
an
quirements for entering into such an roads and/ uses of the property,the density and
velopment agreement statute, the or the prestructure intensity of use, the maximum
�, � ,payment of infra_
agreement, and the elements that must fees : height and size of proposed build-
be included in any agreement. The ' ings, and provisions for reservation
study also included a preliminary list No , Density Increase. The de- or dedication of lands for public pur-
of material inducements that could be veloper and the county agreed to poses be spelled out in the text of
offered to county officials in the way honor both the current density and the final agreement. Applicants had
of development exactions. These pub- the current Marina Hills master plan to agree to be bound by the latest i
lic interest exactions included early and not seek any increase in au adopted editions of uniform codes
completion of roadways and acceler- thorized units during the term of the governing construction practices.
ated fee payment schedules for public agreement. This commitment was Current code editions could not be
facilities such as fire stations and lib- crucial to securing community "frozen" into the text of the agree-
raries.Inducements could speed the ap- group's support of the agreement. ment.
proval of an agreement by the Orange
County government's five-member
elected board of supervisors.
Orange County planning officials ever, by the spring of 1988,the county the countv's own legal counsel re-
gree- would eventually approve more than mained unenthusiastic about serving as
were uneasy about development a
ments. Despite the fact that the state two dozen agreements involving nearly party to such agreements, even though
statute has been on the books for more 100,000 proposed dwelling units and the Orange County cities of Irvine and
than a decade, Orange County had millions of square feet of office and Tustin has made extensive use of such
never approved a development agree- industrial space. agreements for developing portions of +
ment. In fact, only two other concerns Orange County planners had not de- the 63,000-acre Irvine Ranch.
in unincorporated portions of the veloped formal submission guidelines Taylor Woodrow had to provide a
county had filed applications. How- for development agreements. Further, complete filing,and attractive public be-
30 Land Development/December 1988
nefits package if it expected to earn the veloper to submit annual monitoring re-
attention of an overworked county ports to demonstrate adherence to con-
planning staff.A strong market and un- tract provisions. The reporting require-
easiness over the spreading no-growth While development menns take effect.next year.
movement had accelerated land de-
velopment .activity to unprecedented agreements provide a Epilogue
levels. In 1987 alone, the county au- greater degree of Citizen activists eventually collected
thorized more than 10,000 new dwell- more than 90,000 signatures and qual-
ing units. certainty than the if,ed their no-growth ballot measure.
Taylor Woodrow was not alone in conventional local But Measure A, The Citizens Traffic `
pursuing an agreement. Other develop- government approval Control Initiative was defeated in June
ers were alarmed about the growing 1988 after a hard fought campaign.
strength of the no-growth forces and prOCeSS� they Offer n0_, Each of the development agreements
the investment risks associated with the guarantee against approved by the board of supervisors
possible elimination of entitlements. A court actions that is still in place. Environmental activists
loose consortium of 10 builders in the filed a suit against every agreement and
foothills area of Orange County had negate contract have entered into stipulated settlements
contributed more than $1 million to a provisions. for attorney's fees on several other ag- I
comprehensive traffic system phasing reements. None of the challenged ag-
plan. They now were prepared to mar- reements is yet near trial. Other settle-
ket more than$250 million in bonds to ments and mediation efforts continue_
build the plan's road network. A regionwide road construction and
County officials were concerned that financing program is now underway
the public would perceive them as too under the protection of the agreements. i
eager to accommodate developers. In Orange County has just adopted a new
April 1987, the county implemented a section within the planning division. comprehensive growth management
full-cost recovery policy for processing The county planners began to develop element for its general plan. Each of
development applications_requiring a a more uniform schedule of exactions the county's 28 cities is currently con-
$5,000 deposit just to review an appli- to accompany agreements and recom- sidering adopting similar regulations.
cation. Actual processing charges mended a strong development agree- While development agreements pro-
would be billed on a time and material ment policy that won easy endorsement vide a greater degree of certainty than
basis. from the board of supervisors. Orderly the conventional local government ap-
processing was essential. Under proval process, they offer no guarantee
County Calls In Spegial Legal Coun- California law and the county's new against court actions that.negate con-
sel. County planners secured authority . agreement standards, each agreement tract provisions. Overall the concept of
to obtain special legal counsel to assist required an initial environmental study development agreements is a positive
in the negotiation process, eventually and a "noticed" public hearing before step for developers. However, the well
selecting Sieman, Larsen and Marsh, both the five-member planning com- advised developer should remain cauti-
a well known firm with extensive ex- mission and board of supervisors. ous when entering into the relatively
perience in development fees and "Noticed" means that physical notice untested waters of development agree-
negotiations. The new special counsel has been served to all property owners menus. ❑
had to win the trust and confidence of within 300 feet of the planned commu-
a battery of private attorneys who rep- nity.
resented the county's land development As the first agreements were slated
community. on the board's agenda in late 1987.en- j
But the expected battle between gov- vironmental activists testified that the j
ernment and the private sector never agreements sapped the county's police
P g PP Y � P
took place. Development attorneys powers under the zoning and develop-
moved quickly to-work with county ment laws and were too lax. But the
planners and the county's own counsel board eventually approved agreements
to develop a 52-page standard form ag for nearly two dozen major properties,
reement. The Orange County Environ- including Taylor Woodrow's Marina Philip Bettencourt ispresident of The I
mental Management Agency formed a Hills property in March 1988. PreviewCumpanr,real estate advisors
new development agreement analysis The agreements require the de- located in Newport Beach, CA.
Land Development/December 1988 31
t
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
LJO
L019 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Paul Cook From Connie Brockway
City Administrator City Clerk
Subject Your CA-90-11 (Development Agreements) Date February 2, 1990
I received your CA-90-11 to Council regarding Development Agreements and I
thought the City's Resolution No. 5390 adopted 6/84 might be of interest to you in
case it needs to be changed, amended, etc.
Connie,
0994K
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTING 60 1 ..
Dy'Y$'June 5
Gltt
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat
.o
Prepared by. James W. Palin, Director, Development Services o
Subject: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIRE NTS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE :
Transmitted for the City Council' s consideration is a resolution
which would establish procedures and requirements for the
execution of development agreements between the City and
developers.
RECOMMENDATION :
The Planning Commission and planning staff recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution governing development
agreements.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Request : Adoption of resolution establishing procedures and
requirements for consideration of development
agreements.
Location: City-wide
Planning Commission Action on May 15, 1984 :
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
PROCEDURES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IS TO PROCEED TOWARD
EVENTUAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE , AND THE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL BY JANUARY 1,
l 1985 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Porter , Erskine, Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN : Winchell
481
DI SCUSSI ON :
Sections 65864 through 65869. 5 of the Government Code (attached) ,
set forth state mandated regulations for the execution of
development agreements between the City and developers. The
attached resolution serves as the City' s implementing procedures
for these regulations.
Due to two pending Senate and Assembly bills that could affect the
City' s procedures, staff is requesting that the Council adopt the
resolution as an interim measure. After action has been taken on
these bills, a code amendment to place this procedure in
Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code would be
appropriate. The adoption of enabling procedures by resolution is
recommended at the present time so as not to preclude the use of
development agreements in the near future.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Not applicable.
FUNDING SOURCE :
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Amend attached resolution as deemed appropriate .
SUPPORTING INFORMATION :
1. Planning Commission staff report dated May 15, 1984
2. Minutes of May 15 , 1984 Planning Commission meeting
3. Resolution
4. Government Code Section 65864 et. seq.
5. Senate Bill 1382
6. Assembly Bill 2869
CWT:JWP:JA :jlm
0769d �,1�,�
-2- 6-5-84 - RCA
slAF f Wntington beach developr * services department
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission •
ROM: Development Services
DATE: May 15, 1984
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of
April 24 , 1984 , directing staff to investigate the procedures of other
Orange County cities in adopting development agreement regulations and
to research two pending legislative bills.
Staff has surveyed other jurisdictions in Orange County and has found I
that most have adopted procedures for development agreements . All of ;
them, with the exception of the County of Orange, have adopted the
procedures by ordinance.
W:; th respect to the pending Senate and Assembly bills , Senate Bill
1382 pertai,,. to the transfer of development agreements when
urisdictiona , changes occur due to annexation or new incorporation.
The bill, approved, would have little effect on the adoption of
,rocedures tot the City. Assembly i.ill 2869 would require a local i
a(3ency refus i ,.a3 to enter into a development agreement to give the
,�plicant wt -tten explanation of the refusal and specify the existence
of an equivsIent procedure to prevent the imposition of policies and
standards enacted subsequent to the approval of a development I
project. These provisions, if approved, would need to be detailed in I
the City' s procedures.
According to Assemblyman Frizzelle ' s office , Senate Bill 1382 is on
the Senate floor with no date to be heard. Assembly Bill 2869 is in
the Assembly Ways and Means Committee with no date set . Neither bill
is being processed as urgency legislation, therefore, upon passage
they will not become effective until January , 1985. Staff feels that
after action has been taken on these bills , a code amendment to place
this procedure in Division 9 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code
would be in order ; however: , as an interim measure, the adoption of
enabling procedures by a resolution is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: I
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and recommend I
adoption by the City Council of the attached resolution establishing
-Z
A-FM-238
development agreement procedures and requirements .
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Staff report dated April 17 , 1984 •
2 . Resolution
3 . Government Code Section 65864 et. seq.
4. Senate Bill 1382
5 . Assembly Bill 2869
J lm
068 d
:-Lnute 1 , H. B. Plannii I.JVission
�' iy 15 , 1984
Page 24
garden wall sign; 3) Office monument sign on Beach Boulevard must be
of masonry construction and be compatible with the two monument signs
on Adams Avenue; 4) Signing proposed for both Seabridge Village and
Seabridge Villas shall be designed as part of the perimeter entrance - •
wY .11s, incorporated into the walls and not freestanding; and 5) Any
changes or additions to the program being submitted and dated as of
May 9 , 1984 shall be subject to review and approval by the Director
of Development Services and shall be a planned sign program amendment.
Commission discussion followed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED
TO SUPPORT STAFF IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AS INDICATED
BY STAFF ABOVE , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : Porter, Schumacher
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS :
Michael Adani_> reviewed the pending legislation on this matter, in-
f -,rming the c'- ,;mission that Assembly Bill 2869 is still in committee
with n- .indic-ifion of when it might possibly be enacted into law.
is the le � slation which ,;ill most directly affect the City' s
U�.:tion on de , toper agreements , and staff is recommending that the
a<<reements b eiiact'ed by resolution ::it this time and re-introduced
i:: ordinance Lorm at such time as the state regulations are in
effect.
The Commission discussed the question of urgency.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO DIRECT
STAFF TO PREP_,rE AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE SUBMITTED PROCEDURES
AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE :
AYES : Livengood, Porter
NOES : Winchell , Erskine , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT : Higgins
ABSTAIN : None
Commissioner Erskine asked staff the reason for its request for
adoption by resolution. Staff responded that it feels there are a
number of opportunities to use the developer agreement process in
the near future and, rather than postponing it, staff would like
to proceed along the suggested guidelines at this time. The time
frame for preparing and processing an ordinance would mean it could
not be used until September of this year. The Commission again
discussed the time factors involved.
-24- 5-15-84 - P .C .
Minutes , H.B. P' Wg Commission
May 15 , 1984
Page 25
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT PRO-
CEDURES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IS TO PROCEED TOWARD
EVENTUAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE, AND THE FURTHER UNDERSTAND-
ING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL BY
JANUARY 1 , 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: Winchell
DISCUSSION ITEMS :
Resolutions 1319, 1320, and 1321, amending respectively the
Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, Land Use Element
Amendment No. 82-1 , and the Downtown Specific Plan , have been
submitted for the Commission' s information only and will be
scheduled for public hearings on June 5 , 1984 .
PENDING ITEMS :
Michael Ac?ams reported on the status of the pending items, not-
incl that. 44o. 14 , handicapped ramp on the southwest corner of
Magnolia and Indianapolis has been completed and can be removed
from the list. Commissioner Livengood requested that an
advertising balloon located on. Edinger Avenue be added to the
pending items listing for investigation and report.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : None
COMMISSION ITEMS :
Commissioner Livengood discussed the status of Graham Place
EIR. He also commended staff for its early distribution of
reports .
Commissioner Mirjahangir commended staff for its prompt response
in regard to an abandoned service station.
Commissioner Schumacher questioned if anything could be done
about the condition of Slater Avenue between Gothard and Beach
Boulevard.
There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at
11 :10 p.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. on June 5 , 1984 .
James W. Palin , Secretary Marcus M. Porter, Chairman
:df -25- 5-15-84 - P .C.
Notification of change 65863.8. A local agency to which application has been
in use requirements made for the conversion of a mobilehome park to another
use shall, at least 30 days prior to a hearing or any other
action on the application, inform the applicant in writing
of the provisions of Section 798.56 of the Civil Code and
all applicable local requirements which impose upon the
applicant a duty to notify residents and mobilehome owners
of the mobilehome park of the proposed change in use, and
shall specify therein the manner in which the applicant shall
verify that residents and mobilehome owners of the mobile-
home park have been notified of the proposed change in
use. Neither a hearing on the application, nor any other
action thereon, shall be taken by the local agency before
the applicant has satisfactorily verified that the residents
and mobilehome owners have been so notified, in the manner
prescribed-by law or local regulation.
This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
1989, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1989, deletes
or extends that date.
(Added by .Stats. 1982, Ch. 1397.)
Article 2.5.. Development Agreements
Legislative policy 65864. The Legislature finds and declares that:
(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development
projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the
cost of housing and other development to the consumer,
and discourage investment in and commitment to compre-
hensive. planning which would make maximum efficient utili-
zation of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
(b) Assurance to the applicant for a development projegt
that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed
with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will
strengthen the public planning process, encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the
economic costs of development.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Authority to enter 65865. Any city, county, or city and county, may enter
agreement into a development agreement with any person having a
legal or equitable interest in real property for the develop-
ment of such property as provided in this article. Every
city, county, or city and county, may, by resolution or
ordinance, establish procedures and requirements for the
consideration of development agreements upon application
by, or on behalf of, the property owner or other person
having a legal or equitable interest in the property.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Demonstration of 65865.1. Procedures established pursuant to Section 65865
good faith com- shall include provisions requiring periodic review at least
pliance every 12 months, at which time the applicant, or successor `
94
in interest thereto, shall be required to demonstrate good
faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. If, as
a result of such periodic review, the local agency finds and
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
applicant or successor in interest thereto has not complied
in good faith with terms or conditions of the agreement,
the local agency may terminate or modify the agreement.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
65865.2. A development agreement shall specify the Contents
duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the prop-
erty, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height
and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation
or dedication of land for public purposes. The development
agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided
that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements
for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent devel-
opment of the land for the uses and to the density or
intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The
agreement may provide that construction shall be com-
menced within a specified time and that the project or any
phase thereof be completed within a specified time.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
65865.4. Unless amended or canceled pursuant to Section Enforceability
65868, a development agreement shall be enforceable by
any party thereto notwithstanding any change in any appli-
cable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building
regulation adopted by the city, county, or city and county
entering such agreement, which alters or amends the rules,
regulations or policies specified in Section 65866.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
65866. Unless otherwise provided by the development Effect on new
agreement, rules, regulations, and official policies governing regulations
permitted uses of the land, governing density, and governing
design, improvement, and construction standards and specifi-
cations, applicable to development of the property subject
to a development agreement, shall be those rules, regula-
tions, and official policies in force at the time of execution
of the agreement. A development agreement shall not
prevent a city, county, or city and county, in subsequent
actions applicable to the property, from applying new rules,
regulations, and policies which do not conflict with those
rules; regulations, and policies applicable to the property
as set forth herein, nor shall a development agreement
prevent a city, county, or city and county from denying or
conditionally approving any subsequent development project
application on the basis of such existing or new rules,
regulations, and policies.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
65867. A public hearing on an application for a develop- Hearings
ment agreement shall be held by the advisory agency and
by the legislative body. Notice of intention to consider
adoption of a development agreement shall be given as
95
provided in Sections 6.5854, 65854.5, and 65856 in addition
to such other notice as may be required by law for other
actions to be considered concurrently with .the development
agreement.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Scope of review/ 65967.5. A development agreement is a legislative act
consistency with which shall be approved. by ordinance and is subject to
plans referendum. A development agreement shall not be ap-
proved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions
of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and
any applicable specific plan.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Amendment 65868. A development agreement may be amended, or
canceled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the
parties to the agreement or their successors in interest.
Notice of intention to amend or cancel any portion of the
agreement shall be given in the manner provided by Section
65867. An amendment to an agreement shall be subject
to the provision of Section 65867.5.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Recordation 65868.5. No later than 10 days after a city, county, or
city and county enters into a development agreement, the
clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county
recorder a copy of the agreement, which shall describe the
land subject thereto. From and after the time of such
recordation, the agreement shall impart such notice thereof
to all persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this
state. The burdens of the. agreement shall be binding upon, _
and the. benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all suc-
cessors in interest to the parties to the agreement.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Exemption 65969. A development agreement shall not be applicable
to any development project located in an area for which a
local. coastal program is required to be prepared and cep'-
tified pursuant to the requirements pf Division 20 (com-
mencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code,"
unless:
(1) the required local coastal program has been certified
as required by such provisions prior to the date on which
the development agreement is entered into, or
(2) in the event that the required local coastal program
has not been certified, the California Coastal Commission
approves such development agreement by formal commission
action.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Modification/suspension 65869.5. In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations, enacted after a development agreement has
been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one
or more provisions of the development agreement, such
provisions of the agreement shall be modified or suspended
as- may be necessary to comply with such state or federal
laws or regulations.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
96
.-.t Nt 15 ..
SEN)CE BILL No. 1382
Introduced by Senator Carpenter
January 11, 1984
An act to amend Seet-ien Sections 35150 and 65868.5 of the
Government Code, relating to local government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1382, as amended, Carpenter. Local government:
development agreements.
(1) Existing law authorizes any city, county, or city and
county to enter into a defined development agreement with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in real
property for the development of the property. Existing law
requires the agreement to be recorded in a specified manner
and provides that, after the recording, the burdens of the
agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of the
agreement, inure to all "successors in interest" to .the parties
to the agreement. Existing law does not define the term
..successors in interest" for purposes of these provisions.
This bill would prescribe t:ret for yeses e€its
"_________s ift interest" }ftekdes ftfty procedures and
conditions pursuant to which a city,county,or city and county
acquiring jurisdiction over land, subject to an existing
development agreement, by annexation, detachment,
incorporation„or disincorporation .would become a sciccessor
in interest to the agreement. - By requiring compliance with
these procedures by specified local entities, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
b :;;62 —3— SB 13,
irovisions require the Department of Finance to review ® 1 land, as defined in Section 35046, and is designated f-
tatutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, 2 urban growth by the general plan of the annexing cit
or making claims to the State Board of Control for 3 As a condition to the annexation of an area, which
eimbursement. 4 surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city
This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by 5 'which the annexation is proposed, the commission m.:
his act for the purpose ofmakingreimbursementpursuant to 6 require, where consistent with the purposes of th
he constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but would 7, chapter, that the annexation include the entire island
ecognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue ® 8 surrounded or substantially surrounded territory.
heir other available remedies to seek reimbursement for .9 (b) With regard to a proposal for annexation
hese costs. 10 detachment of territory to, or from, a city, or with regal
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: 11 to a proposal for municipal reorganization which includ
-es. Mate-mandated local program: ire yes. 12 annexation or detachment, to determine wheth;
13 territory proposed for annexation or detachment,
l people of the State of California do enact as follows 14 described in its resolution approving the annexatio
15 detachment, or municipal reorganization, is inhabited :
1 SECTION 1. Section 35150 of the Government Code, 16 uninhabited. Such determination shall be based on tl
2 as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 298 of the Statutes 17 definitions of "inhabited territory" contained in Sectic
3 of 19&?, is amended to read. 18 35038.
4 35150. The commission shall have the powers and 19 (c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of by
5 duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 20 or more cities, to determine which city shall be tl
6 54773) of Part 1 ; of Division 2; of Title 5, and such 21 consolidated, successor city.
7 additional powers and duties as are specified in this part, 22 (d) To adopt standards and procedures for ti
8 including the following: 23 evaluation of plans for providing municipal servic
9 (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or 24 submitted pursuant to Section 35102.
10 without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally ® 25 (e) To waive the restrictions of Section 35010,if it fin
11 proposals for the incorporation of cities, for changes of 26 that the application of the restrictions would
12 organization of cities, and municipal reorganizations; 27 detrimental to the orderly development of t;
1� rovided, however, that a commission shall not have the 28 community and that the area that would.be enclosed
ver to disapprove an annexation, initiated by 29 a result of incorporation or annexation is so located th
15 resolution, of contiguous territory which the commission 30 it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city
16 finds is either (1) surrounded or substantially surrounded 31 incorporated as a new city.
17 by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by such 32 (f) To approve the annexation after notice ar
18 city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the 33 hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to ord,
19 territory to be annexed is substantially developed or ® 34 annexation of the territory without an election if ti
20 developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in 35 commission finds that the territory contained in
21 Section 35046, is designated for urban growth by the 36 annexation proposal:
2 general plan of the annexing city, and is not within the 37 (1) Does not exceed 75 acres in area, such ar,
23 sphere of influence of another city or, (2) located within 38 constitutes the entire island, and such island does n,
24 an urban service area which has been delineated and 39 constitute a part of an unincorporated area which is mo!
adopted by a commission,which is not prime agricultural ® 40 than 100 acres in area.
r_._
1 (2) k. Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by 1 registered voters residing within the pro(sed city.
2 the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city 2 (k) With regard to the incorporation of new city, to
3 and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean ; er .. 3 determine whether the city shall become a successor In
4 (B) Is surrounded by the city to which annexation is 4 interest to any development agreements pursuant to
5 proposed and adjacent cities. 5 Section 65868.5.
6 (3) Is substantially developed or developing. 6 Except as otherwise provided in this part, such powers
7 (4) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 7 and duties shall be exercised in accordance with the
8 35046. 8 provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
9 (5) Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving g 54773) of Part 1 of Division'2 of Title 5. To the extent of
0 benefits from the annexing city. 10 any inconsistency between Chapter 6.6 and this part, the
1 The finding required pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 11 provisions of this part shall control.
2 subdivision shall be based upon one or more factors, 12 This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
eluding, but not limited to: ; 13 1988, and as of such date is repealed, unless a later
l4 (A) The availability of public utility services. 14 enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1,
'_5 (B) The presence of public improvements. 15 1988, deletes or extends such date.
6 (C) The presence of physical improvements upon the 16 SEC. 2. Section 35150 of the Government Code, as
i parcel or parcels within such area. ' 17 added by Section 2 of Chapter 855 of the Statutes of 1981,
8 (g) To approve the annexation of unincorporated, 18 is amended to read-
9 noncontiguous territory not exceeding 160 acres in area, 19 35I50. The commission shall have the powers and
20 located in the same county as that in which the city is 20 duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
1 located, and which is owned by a city and used for 21 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, and such
'_2 municipal purposes; and to authorize the conducting 22 additional powers and duties as are specified in this art,
23 authority to annex such territory without notice or ! 23 including the following: p p
�4 hearing.
24 (h) Subject to the t ; 24 (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or
provisions of Section 35031, o f 25 without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally
:6 designate in the resolution making determinations the 26 proposals for the incorporation of cities, for changes of
conducting authority for proceedings. 27 organization of cities, and municipal reorganizations.
(i) When a municipal reorganization includes the 28 (b) With regard to a proposal for annexation or
inexation of inhabited territory to a city and the 29 detachment of territory to, or from, a city, or with regard
s0 assessed value of land within such territory equals 30 to a proposal for municipal reorganization which includes
I one-half or more of the assessed value of land within the 31 annexation or detachment, to determine whether
32 city, or the number of registered voters residing within 32 territory proposed for annexation or detachment, as
6 such territory equals one-half or more of the number of 33 described in its resolution approving the annexation,
's4 registered voters residing within the city, to determine as 34 detachment, or municipal reorganization, is inhabited.or
;5 -a condition of the reorganization that the reorganization 35 uninhabited. Such determination shall be based on the
36 shall also be subject to confirmation by the voters in an ! 36 definitions of "inhabited territory" contained in Section
37 election to be called, held, and conducted. within the j 37 35038.
38 territory of the city to which annexation is proposed. 38 (c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of two
39 6) With respect to the incorporation of a new city, to 39 or more cities, to determine which city shall be the
10, .determine the number of inhabitants or the number of 40 consolidated, successor city.
ax t rn
(d) To adopt standards and procedures for the 1 (h) Subject to the provisions of Section 35031, i-
evaluation of plans for providing municipal services 2 designate in the resolution making determinations tht_
submitted pursuant to Section 35102. 3 conducting authority for proceedings.
(e) To waive the restrictions of Section 35010,if it finds 4 (i) When a municipal reorganization includes the
that the application of the restrictions would be 5 "annexation of inhabited territory to a city and the
detrimental to the orderly development of the 6 assessed value of land within such territory equal
community and that the area that would be enclosed as 7 one-half or more of the assessed value of land within the
a.result of incorporation or annexation is so located that 8 city, or the number of registered voters residing withi:
it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or 9 such territory equals one-half or more of the number
incorporated as a new city. 10 registered voters residing within the city, to determine a.
(f) To approve the annexation after notice and 11 a condition of the reorganization that the reorganization.
hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to order 12 shall also be subject to confirmation by the voters in ai:
,.nnexation of the territory without an election if the 13 election to be called, held, and conducted within th,
ymission finds that the territory contained in an 14 territory of the city to which annexation is proposed.
exation proposal: 15 (j} With respect to the incorporation of a new city, tt
(1) Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area ' 16 determine the number of inhabitants or the number c;
constitutes the entire island; 17 registered voters residing within the proposed city.
(2) (A) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by 18 (k) With regard to the incorporation of new city, tc
the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city ' 19 determine whether the city shall become a successor irl
and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or 20 interest to any development agreements pursuant tc
(B) Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities; 21 Section 65868.5.
(3) Is substantially developed or developing; 22 Except as otherwise provided in this part, such power:
(4) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 23 and duties shall be exercised in accordance with the
35046; and ' 24 provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Sectior.
(5) Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving 25 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. To the extent o-
benefits from the annexing city. 26 any inconsistency between Chapter 6.6 and this part, th(
The finding required pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 27 provisions of this part shall control.
subdivision shall be based upon one or more factors, 28 This section shall become operative January 1, 1988.
including, but not limited to: 29 SEC. 3. Section 65868.5 of the Government Code i-s
�i) The availability of public utility services. 30 amended to read:
(ii) The presence of public improvements. 31 65868.5.- (a) No later than 10 days after a city, county
(iii) The presence of physical improvements upon the 32 or city and county enters into a development agreement
parcel or parcels within such area. 33 the clerk of the legislative body shall record with th,.
(g) To approve the annexation of unincorporated, 34 county recorder a copy of the agreement, which shall
noncontiguous territory not exceeding 160 acres in area, 35 describe the land subject thereto. From and after the
located in the same county as that in which the city is 36 time of such recordation, the agreement shall impart
located, and which is owned by a city and used for 37 such notice thereof to all persons as is afforded by the
municipal purposes; and to authorize the conducting 38 recording laws of this state. The burdens of th,
authority to annex such territory without notice or 39 agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of tht
hearing. 40 agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to thr.
9k 170 -
SB 1382 -- 8_ —9— SB 1.",
,1 g)the artiesagreement. 1 imp ose an unreasonable burden upon the new citj
P
•2 {�} "�•-� ����-� interQ9t," as used ift t-rs air 2 providing public services and facilities, would interff-
3 ineludes 9" e4yL; eeenty; e-F e4y an4 eettt#�, "Ili ing 3 with the new city s orderly land use planning a!
4 ittrisdietieft e-#-er hm4,sweet to aft existing 4 development, or represents such a substantial portion,
5 � e tionr 3neerigeratieft; er 5 the land within the proposed new city that it woui
6 digineer-peration. 6 impair the ability of the city to formulate or impleme%
7 (b) For purposes of subdivision (a), a city, county, or 7 the city development policies and land use palter-
8 city and county which acquires jurisdiction over land 8 Any development agreements entered into by t,,
9 subject to an existing development agreement by 9 county after an application for the incorporation ofa ne
110 annexation,. 'detachment, incorporation, or 10 city has been filed with a local agency formatic
1 disincorporation shall be deerrx-d to be a successor in 11 commission shall not be considered by the commissic
2 interest to the agreement whenever there has been 12 and shall not be binding upon a ne wly incorporated cit
Fompliance with whichever of the following procedures 13 unless and until, the new city acts to adopta deveoopmer
land conditions are applicable: 14 agreement.
b (1) Whenever a county proposes to enter into a 15 (3) Whenever a property owner enters into
6 development, agreement with a property owner, the 16 development agreement with a cite; the property ownr
7 county shall provide a copy of the proposed agreement to 17 may submit the proposed agreement to the county if
8 any city when the territory which is the subject of the 18 which the territory is located. If the county adopts a:
) agreement is located within one mile of the city 19 ordinance specifically referring to the affected territor
) boundaries or is within the city'ssphere ofinfluence. The m, 20 and indicating that a development agreement has.bee.
1 development agreement shall be deemed adopted by a i 21 entered into by the city for the affected territory, tha
>. city and that city shall become the county's successor in i 22 development agreement shall be binding upon th,
i interest upon annexation of the affected territory to that 23 county and the county shall become the successor it
E city if the city adopts an ordinance describing the 24 interest of the city if that territory is detached from that
affected territory and declaring that a development 25 city or that city is disin corpora ted.
agreement entered into by the county shall be applicable 26 SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 6 ofArticle XIII B o.
to that territory upon its annexation to the city. 27 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 o:
(2) Whenever an application for the incorporation of 28 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is
new city is filed with a local agency formation 29 made by this act for the purpose of making
commission, the commission shall determine from the 30 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. It is
county whetherany development agreements have been 31 recognized, however, that a local agency or school
entered into by the county affecting the territory 32 district may pursue any remedies to obtall
proposed to be included within the new city. As part of 33 reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3
its determinations, the commission shall determine 34 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division I
whether the new city shall become the successor in 35 of that code.
interest to any development agreements entered into by 36 SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 2231.5 of the
the county affecting the territory proposed for inclusion 37 Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain
in the city. The commission shall not make any 38 repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
development agreement bindingupon theneweityif the 39 provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless ano
` commission determines that the agreement would 40 until they are amended or repealed by a later enacteu
t
ASSEAMAFOR`aA LhUSL"!1.Ri:_ 1910-r: R''t
LY BILL No. 2869 J
Introduced by Assembly Member Mountjoy
(Principal coauthor: Senator Montoya)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bergeson, Bradley, Frazee,
Frizzelle, La Follette, Lancaster, Mojonnier, Navinn
Nolan, and Wright)
(Coauthors: Senators Doolittle, Johnson, Royce, and
Russell)
February 13, 1984
An act to amend and repeal Section 65865 of the
Government Code, relating to development agreements.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2869, as introduced, Mountjoy. Development
agreements.
(1) Existing law permits a city, including charter city,
county, or city and county to enter into a prescribed
development agreement with any person having legal or
equitable interest in real property.
This bill would require any local agency which refuses to
enter into such an agreement to provide a permit applicant
with a written explanation of the refusal and specify the
existence of an equivalent procedure to prevent the
imposition, after approval of a development project, of
policies and standards enacted subsequent to the approval of
the project.
It would provide its provisions be repealed on January 1,
1991, as specified.
(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
i 2869 —2— —3— AB 2869
avisions require the Department of Finance to revieN,% 1 statute, u-hich is enacted before January 1, 1991, delete,
tutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, 2 or extends that date. If that date is not deleted.br
making claims to the State Board of Control for 3 extended, then, on and after January 1, 1991,pursuant tc
mbursement. 4 Section 9611 of the Government Code, Section 65865 eye
this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by 5 the Government Code, as added by Section I of Chapter
4uiring local agencies to provide a written explanation to 6 934 the Statutes of 1979, shall have the same force anc
aperty owners in certain instances. 7 effect as if this temporary provision had not bcc
Phis bill would provide that no appropriation is made by 8 enacted.
s act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to 9 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article X1II B o•
constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but would 10 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 o:
:ognize that local agencies ana school districts may pursue 11 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation
other available remedies to seek reimbursement for 12 made by this act for the purpose of rr `-ins
kosts. 13 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. i
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 14 recognized, however, that a local agency or schoo.
ite-mandated local program: yes. 15 district may pursue any remedies to obtain:
16 reimbursement available to it under Chapter
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 17 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division
18 of that code.
SECTION 1. Section 65865 of the Government Code
is amended to read:
65865. (a) Any city, county, or city and county, may
enter into a development agreement with any person
having a legal or equitable interest in real property for
the development of such property as provided in this
article. Every city, county, or city and county, may, byle 0
resolution or ordinance, establish procedures and
requirements for the consideration of development
�reements upon application by, or on behalf of, the
property owner or other person having a legal or
equitable interest in the property. p
(b) When a city, counts; or city and county refuses to
enter into a development agreement pursuant to this
article it shall provide the applicant or successor in
interest with a written explanation of the reasons for the* 0
refusal and specify, the existence of an equivalent
procedure to prevent the imposition, after approval al of
the development project. of policies and standards
enacted subsequent to the approval of the project.
This section shell remain in effect onh• until January•1,
1991, and as of that data is repealed, unless a later enacted l
C
Go��yG
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTT
�V June 5 8
-Glt'Y
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services o
Subject: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIRE NTS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council' s consideration is a resolution
which would establish procedures and requirements for the
execution of development agreements between the City and
developers.
RECOMMENDATION :
The Planning Commission and planning staff recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution governing development
agreements.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Request : Adoption of resolution establishing procedures and
requirements for consideration of development
agreements.
Location: City-wide
Planning Commission Action on May 15, 1984 :
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
PROCEDURES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IS TO PROCEED TOWARD
EVENTUAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE , AND THE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL BY JANUARY 1,
1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN : Winchell
P10 4/81
DISCUSSION :
Sections 65864 through 65869. 5 of the Government Code (attached) ,
set forth state mandated regulations for the execution of
development agreements between the City and developers. The
attached resolution serves as the City' s implementing procedures
for these regulations.
Due to two pending Senate and Assembly bills that could affect the
City' s procedures, staff is requesting that the Council adopt the
resolution as an interim measure. After action has been taken on
these bills, a code amendment to place this procedure in
Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code would be
appropriate. The adoption of enabling procedures by resolution is
recommended at the present time so as not to preclude the use of
development agreements in the near future.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Not applicable.
FUNDING SOURCE :
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION :
Amend attached resolution as deemed appropriate .
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Planning Commission staff report dated May 15, 1984
2. Minutes of May 15 , 1984 Planning Commission meeting
3. Resolution
4. Government Code Section 65864 et. seq.
5. Senate Bill 1382
6. Assembly Bill 2869
CWT:JWP:JA:jlm
0769d Al
-2- 6-5-84 - RCA
huntington beach developtwt services department
SIAFF
REPORT_
TO: Planning Commission
„ROM: Development Services
DATE: May 15, 1984
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of
April 24 , 1984 , directing staff to investigate the procedures of other
Orange County cities in adopting development agreement regulations and
to research two pending legislative bills.
Staff has surveyed other jurisdictions in Orange County and has found
that most have adopted procedures for development agreements. All of
them, with the exception of the County of Orange, have adopted the
procedures by ordinance.
W,.,, th respect to the pending Senate and Assembly bills , Senate Bill
1382 pertain.;- to the transfer of development agreements when
Jurisdictional changes occur due to annexation or new incorporation.
The bill, approved, would have little effect on the adoption of
:)rocedures for the City. Assembly t1.1 2869 would require a local i
a(jenc,/ refusi ,q to enter into a development agreement to give the
Ppl.icant wr. :.t.ten explanation of tre refusal and specify the existence I
uf: .an equi - , ent procedure to prevent the imposition of policies and
standards enacted subsequent to the approval of a development
project. These provisions, if approved, would need to be detailed in
the City' s procedures.
According to Assemblyman Frizzelle ' s office, Senate Bill 1382 is on
the Senate floor with no date to be heard. Assembly Bill 2869 is in
the Assembly Ways and Means Committee with no date set. Neither bill
is being processed as urgency legislation, therefore, upon passage
they will not become effective until January , 1985. Staff feels that.
after action has been taken on these bills, a code amendment to place
this procedure in Division 9 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code
would be in order ; however, as an interim measure, the adoption of
enabling procedures by a resolution is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and recommend
adoption by the City Council of the attached resolution establishing
-Z
A-FM-238
development agreement procedures and requirements . ,---,
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Staff report dated April 17 , 1984 •
2 . Resolution
3. Government Code Section 65864 et. seq.
4. Senate Bill 1382
5. Assembly Bill 2869
J k8d
m
0
;'.Lnutez , H.B. Plannir•Commission .
° y 15 , 1984
Page 24
garden, wall sign; 3) Office monument sign on Beach Boulevard must be
of masonry construction and be compatible with the two monument signs
on Adams Avenue; 4) Signing proposed for both Seabridge Village and
Seabridge Villas shall be designed as part of the perimeter entrance
w. .11s, incorporated into the walls and not freestanding; and 5) Any
changes or additions to the program being submitted and dated as of
May 9, 1984 shall be subject to review and approval by the Director
of Development Services and shall be a planned sign program amendment.
Commission discussion followed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED
TO SUPPORT STAFF IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AS INDICATED
BY STAFF ABOVE , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : Porter, Schumacher
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS :
Michael Adam:; reviewed the pending :legislation on this matter, in-
f_-,~ rninq the C,,,r,rnission that _Assembly Bill 2869 is still in committee
with nc, .indic_ t.ion of when it might possibly be enacted into law.
I.V. is the le'-'_slation which will most. directly affect the C"ity' s
�Ac:t.ion on dev,y ,'Ioper agreements, and ,,t.aff is _ recommending that the
acfreerr« nts b, e;iacted by resolution :,t. this time anti re-introduced
-: ordinance form at such time as the state regulations are in
effect..
T'r�e Commission discussed the question of urgency.
F. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO DIRECT
STAFF TO PREP,'.�E AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE SUBMITTED PROCEDURES
AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AWES: Livengood, Porter
NOES : Winchell, Erskine , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Erskine asked staff the reason for its request for
adoption by resolution. Staff responded that it feels there are a
number of opportunities to use the developer agreement process in
the near future and, rather than postponing it, staff would like
to proceed along the suggested guidelines at this time. The time
frame for preparing and processing an ordinance would mean it could
not be used until September of this year. The Commission again
d"iscussed the time factors involved.
-24- 5-15-84 - P.C .
r Minutes , H.B . Paling Commission •
May 15 , 1984
Page 2S
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT PRO-
CEDURES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IS TO PROCEED TOWARD
EVENTUAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE, AND THE FURTHER UNDERSTAND-
ING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL BY
JANUARY 1, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: Winchell
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Resolutions 1319 , 1320 , and 1321 , amending respectively the
Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, Land Use Element
Amendment No. 82-1. , and the Downtown Specific Plan, have been
submitted for the Commission' s information only and will be
scheduled for public hearings on June 5 , 1984 .
PENDING ITEMS :
Michael Adams reported on the status of the pending items , not-
incl that. �o. 14 , handicapped ramp on the southwest corner of
Magnolia and Indianapolis has been comp_leted -_and can l;e removed
from the list. Commissioner Li.vengood ..requested that an
advertising balloon located on, Edinger Avenue be added to -the
pending .items listing for investigation and report .
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : None
COMMISSION ITEMS :
Commissioner Livengood discussed the status of Graham Place
EIR. He also commended staff for its early distribution of
reports.
Commissioner Mirjahangir commended staff for its prompt response
in regard to an abandoned service station.
Commissioner Schumacher questioned if anything could be done
about the condition of Slater Avenue between Gothard and Beach
Boulevard.
There was no further business, . and the meeting adjourned at
11 :10 p.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. on June 5 , 1984 .
James W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter- , Chairman
:df -25- 5-15-84 - P.C.
Notification of change 65863.8. A local agency to which application has been
in use requirements made for the conversion of a mobilehome park to another
use shall, at least 30 days prior to a hearing or any other
action on the application, inform the applicant in writing
of the provisions of Section 798.56 of the Civil Code and
all applicable local requirements which impose upon the
applicant a duty to notify residents and mobilehome owners
of the mobilehome park of the proposed change in use, and
shall specify therein the manner in which the applicant shall
verify that residents and mobilehome owners of the mobile-
home park have been notified of the proposed change in
use. Neither a hearing on the application, nor any other
action thereon, shall be taken by the local agency before
the applicant has satisfactorily verified that the residents
and mobilehome owners have been so notified, in the manner
prescribed by law or local regulation.
This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
1989, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute,.which is chaptered before January 1, 1989, deletes
or extends that date.
(Added by .Stats. 1982, Ch. 1397.)
Article 2.5. Development Agreements
Legislative policy 65864. The Legislature finds and declares that: eawN
(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development
• projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the
cost of housing and other development to the consumer,
and discourage investment in and commitment to compre-
hensive: planning which would make maximum efficient utili-
zation of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
(b) .Assurance to the applicant for a development project
that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed
with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will
strengthen the public planning process, encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the
economic costs of development.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Authority to. enter 65865. Any city, county, or city and county, may enter
agreement into a development agreement with any person having a
legal or equitable interest in real property for the develop-
ment of such. property as provided in this article. Every
city, county, or city and county, may, by resolution or
ordinance, establish procedures and requirements for the
consideration of development agreements upon application
by, or on behalf of, the property owner or other person
having a legal or equitable interest in the property.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Demonstration of 65865.1. Procedures established pursuant to Section 65865
good faith com- shall include provisions requiring periodic review at least
• pliance every 12 months, at which time the applicant, or successor
94
provided in Sections 65854, 65854.5, and 65856 in addition
to such other: notice as may be required by law for other
• actions to be considered concurrently with the development `y
agreement.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Scope of review/ 65967.5. A development agreement is a legislative act
consistency with which shall be approved by ordinance and is subject to
plans referendum. A development agreement shall not be ap-
proved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions
of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and
any applicable specific plan.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Amendment 65868. A development agreement may be amended, or
canceled .in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the
parties to the agreement or their successors in interest.
Notice of intention to amend or cancel any portion of the
agreement shall be given in the manner provided by Section
65867. . An amendment to an agreement shall be subject
to the provision of Section 65867.5.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Recordation 65868.5. No later than 10 days after. a city, county, or
city and county enters into a development agreement, the
clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county
recorder a copy of the agreement, which shall describe the
land subject thereto. From and after the time of such
recordation, the agreement shall impart such notice thereof
to all persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this
state. The burdens of the agreement shall be binding upon,
and the benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all suc-
cessors in interest to the parties to the agreement.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Exemption 65969. .A development agreement shall not be applicable
to any development project located in an area for which a
local- coastal program is required to be prepared and cer-
tified pursuant to the requirements Of Division 20 (com-
mencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code,"
unless:
(1) the required local coastal program has been certified
as required by such provisions prior to the date on which
the development agreement is entered into, or
(2) in the event that the required local coastal program
has not been certified, the California Coastal Commission
approves such development agreement by formal commission
action.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
Modification/suspension 65869.5. In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations, enacted after a development agreement has
been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one
or more provisions of the development agreement, such
provisions of the agreement shall ,be modified or suspended
as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal
Taws or regulations.
• (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
96
""""��A1vi SV"r l/ t�� JL'iVA !-C. �AHD :H 1. '•, le�`>
SEN IE BILL No. 1382 �J
Introduced by Senator Carpenter
January 11, 1984
An act to amend Seetien Sections 35150 and 65868.5 of the
Government Code, relating to local government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1382, as amended, Carpenter. Local government:
development agreements.
(1) Existing law authorizes any city, county, or city and
county to enter into a defined development agreement with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in real
property for the development of the property. Existing law
requires the agreement to be recorded in a specified manner
and provides that, after the recording, the burdens of the
® agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of the
agreement, inure to all "successors in interest" to the parties
to the agreement. Existing law does not define the term
"successors in interest" for purposes of these provisions.
This bill would prescribe Otat for yeses e€its p�eisie
• ift interest" ides ftfty procedures and
conditionspursuant to which a city,county, or city and county
acquiring jurisdiction over land, subject to an existing
development agreement, by annexation, detachment,
incorporation„or disincorporation .would become a successor
in interest to the agreement..By requiring compliance with
these procedures by specified local entities, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
B 'EJ82 —2 —3-- SB 13;
rovisions require the Department of Finance to review • 1 land, as defined in Section 35046, and is designated fc
ratutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, 2 urban growth by the general plan of the annexing cit:
it making claims to the State Board of Control for 3 As a condition to the annexation of an area, which
�imbursement. 4 surrounded or substantially. surrounded by the city
This bill would provide that no appropriation Is made by 5 which the annexation is proposed, the commission mz
Vs act for the purpose ofmaking reimbursement pursuant to 6 require, where consistent with the purposes of th
5e constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or2234, but would 7. chapter, that the annexation include the entire island
--cognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue ® 8 surrounded or substantially surrounded territory.
5eir other available remedies to seek reimbursement for .9 (b) With regard to a proposal for annexation
5ese costs 10 detachment of territory to,or from,a city,or with regal
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: 11 to a proposal for municipal reorganization which includ
es State-mandated local program: no yes 12 annexation or detachment, to determine wheth.
13 territory proposed for annexation or detachment,
l people of the State of California do enact as follows.• 14 described in its resolution approving the annexatio
15 detachment, or municipal reorganization, is inhabited
1 SECTION 1. Section 35150 of the Government Code, 16 uninhabited. Such determination shall be based on tl
2 as amended by Section 3 of Chapter 298 of the Statutes 17 definitions of "inhabited territory" contained in Sectic
3 of 1983, is amended to read. 18 35038.
4 35150. The commission shall have the powers and 19 (c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of tv
5 duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 20 or more cities, to determine which city shall be tl
6 54773) of Part 1 ; of Division 2; of Title 5, and such ® 21 consolidated, successor city.
7 additional powers and duties as are specified in this part, 22 (d) To adopt standards and procedures for tl
8 including the following: 23 evaluation of plans for providing municipal servic
9 (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or 24 submitted pursuant to Section 35102.
0 without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally • • 25 (e) To waive the restrictions of Section 35010,if it fin
1 proposals for the incorporation of cities, for changes of 26 that the application of the restrictions would
2 organization of cities, and municipal reorganizations; 27 detrimental to the orderly development of t
.3 provided, however, that a commission shall not have the 28 community and that the area that would.be enclosed
uer to disapprove an annexation, initiated by 29 a result of incorporation or annexation is so located th
S r solution, of contiguous territory which the commission 30 it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city c
.6 finds is either (1) surrounded or substantially surrounded 31 incorporated as a new city.
,7 by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by such 32 (f) To approve the'- annexation after notice ar
S city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the 33 hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to ord,
1,9 territory to be annexed is substantially developed or 34 annexation of the territory without an election if tl
>A developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in 35 commission Finds that the territory contained in
11 Section MM, is designated for urban growth by the 36 annexation proposal:
2 general plan of the annexing city, and is not within the 37 (1) Does not exceed 75 acres in area, such art
sphere of influence of another city or, (2) located within 38 constitutes the entire island, and such island does n
* an urban service area which has been delineated and 39 constitute a part of an unincorporated area which is mor
5 adopted by a commission,which is not prime agricultural ® 40 than 100 acres in area.
i
1 (2) k Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by 1 registered voters residing within the pr ,sed city.
2 the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city
3 and a county boundary or the.Pacific Ocean; er .. 2 (k) With regard to the incorporation of new city, to
4 (B) Is surrounded by the city to which annexation is 3 determine whether the city shall become a successor in
5 proposed and adjacent cities. 4 interest to any development agreements pursuant to
6 (3) Is substantially developed or developing. 5 Section 65868.5. .
6 Except as otherwise provided in this part, such powers
7 (4) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section ® 7 and duties shall be exercised in accordance with the
8 35046. ` 8 provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
9 (5) Will benefit from such annexation or. is receiving 9 54773) of Part 1 of Division'2 of Title 5. To the extent of
0 benefits from the annexing city. 10 any inconsistency between Chapter 6.6 and this part, the
I The finding required pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 11 provisions of this part shall control.
2 subdivision shall be based upon one or more factors, 12 This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
V including, but not limited to:
t� `,A) The availability of public utility services. 13 1988, and as of such date is repealed, unless a later
5 (B) The presence of public improvements. 14 enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1,
15 1988, deletes or extends such date.
.6 (C) The presence of physical improvements upon the 16 SEC.. 2. Section 35150 of the Government Code, as
7 parcel or parcels within such area. 17 added by Section 2 of Chapter 855 of the Statutes of 1981,
8 (g) To approve the annexation of unincorporated, 18 is amended to read.
'L9 noncontiguous territory not exceeding 160 acres in area, 19 35I50. The commission shall have the powers and
20 located in the same county as that in which the city is 20 duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section
I located, and which is owned by a city and used for E ® 21 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, and such
2 municipal purposes; and to authorize the conducting 22 additional powers and duties as are specified in this part,
23 authority to annex such territory without notice or 23 including the following:
4 hearing. 24 (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or
.S (h) Subject to the provisions of Section 35031, to 25 without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally
:6 designate in the resolution making determinations the 26. proposals for the incorporation of cities, for changes of
-7 conducting authority for proceedings. 27 organization of cities, and municipal reorganizations.
(i) When a municipal reorganization includes the 28 (b) With regard to a proposal for annexation or
anexation of inhabited territory to a city and the 29 detachment of territory to, or from, a city, or with regard
!0Msessed value of land- within such territory equals 30 to a proposal for municipal reorganization which includes
1 one-half or more of the assessed value of land within the 31 annexation or detachment, to determine whether
32 city, or the number of registered voters residing within 32 territory proposed for annexation or detachment, as
43 such territory equals one-half or more of the number of ® 33 described in its resolution approving the annexation,
A registered voters residing within the city,to determine as 34 detachment., or municipal reorganization, is inhabited or
5 -a condition of the reorganization that the reorganization 35 uninhabited. Such determination shall be based on the
36 shall also be subject to confirmation by the voters in an 36 definitions of "inhabited territory" contained in Section
37 election to be called, held, and conducted. within the 37 35038.
38 territory of the city to which annexation is proposed. 38 (c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of two
39 (j) With respect to the incorporation of a new city, to 39 or more cities, to determine which city shall be the
40 ;determine the number of inhabitants or the number of ( 40 consolidated, successor city.
l.q 98 160
(d) To adopt standards and procedures for the 1 (h) Subject to the provisions of Section 35031, a
evaluation of plans for providing municipal services 2 designate in the resolution making determinations thr:
submitted pursuant to Section 35102. 3 conducting authority for proceedings.
(e) To waive the restrictions of Section 35010,if it finds 4 (i) When a municipal reorganization includes tht
that the application of the restrictions would be 5 annexation of inhabited territory to a city and the:
detrimental to the orderly development of the 6 assessed value of land within such territory equal>
community and that the area that would be enclosed as 7 one-half or more of the assessed value of land within the
a.result of incorporation or annexation is so located that 8 city, or the number of registered voters residing withi
it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or 9 such territory equals one-half or more of the number
incorporated as a new city. 10 registered voters residing within the city, to determine a...
(f) To approve the annexation after notice and 11 a condition of the reorganization that the reorganization`:
hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to order 12 shall also be subject to confirmation by the voters in ar:
annexation of the territory without an election if the ( 13 election to be called, held, and conducted within th,
A&Vnmission finds that the territory contained in an 14 territory of the city to which annexation is proposed.
NFRhexation proposal: 15 . 0) With respect to the incorporation of a new city, V
(1) Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area I 16 determine the number of inhabitants or the number f
constitutes the entire island; 17 registered voters residing within the proposed city.
(2) (A) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by 18 (k) With regard to the incorporation of new city,
the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city 19 determine whether the city shall become a successor it
and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or �' 20 interest to any development agreements pursuant tc-
(B) Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities; 21 Section 65868.5.
(3) Is substantially developed or developing; 22 Except as otherwise provided in this part, such power
(4) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 23 and duties shall be exercised in accordance with the
35046; and ! 24 provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Sectior
(5) Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving 25 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. To the extent o
benefits from the annexing city. 26 any inconsistency between Chapter 6.6 and this part, tht
The finding required pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 27 provisions of this part shall control.
subdivision shall be based upon one or more factors, 28 This section shall become operative January 1, 1986
iluding, but not limited to: 29 SEC. 3. Section 65868.5 of the Government Code ,-,
i) The availability of public utility services. 30 amended to read:
(ii) The presence of public improvements. 31 65868.5. (a) No later than 10 days after a city,count4
(iii) The presence of physical improvements upon the 32 or city and county enters into a development agreemen
parcel or parcels within such area. . 33 the clerk of the legislative body shall record with th.
(g) To approve the annexation of unincorporated, 34 county recorder a copy of the agreement, which sha
noncontiguous territory not exceeding 160 acres in area, 35 describe the land subject thereto. From and after the
located in the same county as that in which the city is 36 time of such recordation, the agreement shall impart
located, and which is owned by a city and used for 37 such notice thereof to all persons as is afforded by the
municipal purposes; and to authorize the conducting 38 recording laws of this state. The burdens of thr
authority to annex such territory without notice or 39 agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of th_
hearing. ® 40 agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to tht
98 170
SB 1382 -- 8-- r9_ SB 1,.
!I parties )the agreement. 1 impose an unreasonable burden upon the new cit3-
•2 4 " interest," as tised ift s seetion; 2 providing public services and facilities, would interfc
3 itteludes arm eit�, eel; or eit ar.4 eounty seq " 3 with the new city s orderly land use planning -
4 jttrris4iekett ever lam;9ubjeet to art egg el.epmevat 4 development, or represents such a substantial portion. ..
5 agreement, 4y ennexatienT ieeerperatieft; or 5 the land within the proposed new city that it woui
6 di4eieA- 6 impair the ability of the city to formulate or implemel
7 (b) For purposes of subdivision (a), a city, county, or 7 the city' development policies and land use paile,�
8 city and county which acquires jurisdiction over land 8 Any development agreements entered into by t;
9 subject to an existing development agreement by 9 county after an application for the incorporation ofa ne
1,0 annexation, 'detachment, incorporation, or 10 city has been filed with a local agency formatic,
.1 disincorporation shall be deemed to be a successor in 11 commission shall not be considered by the commissi4
.2 interest to the agreement whenever there has been 12 and shall not be binding upon a newly incorporated cit f
ompliance with whichever of the followingprocedures 13 unless and until, the new city acts to adopt a deveoopmer
,P'and conditions are applicable: 14 agreement.
(1) Whenever a county proposes to enter into a 15 (3) Whenever a property owner enters into
6 development, agreement with a property owner, the 16 development agreement with a city, the property owne
7 county shall provide a copy of the proposed agreement to 17 may submit the proposed agreement to the county it
8 any city when the territory which is the subject of the 18 which the territory is located. If the county adopts a.
5 agreement is located within one mile of the city 19 ordinance specifically referring to the affected territor
boundaries or is within the city s sphere ofinfluence. The 20 and indicating that a development agreement has bee
i development agreement shall be deemed adopted by a f 21 entered into by the city for the affected territory, tha
'. city and that city shall become the county s successor in ` 22 development agreement shall be binding upon th,
interest upon annexation of the affected territory to that 23 county and the county shall become the successor is.
4 city if the city adopts an ordinance describing the 24 interest of the city if that territory is detached from tha
affected territory and declaring that a development 25 city or that city is disincorporated.
agreement entered into by the county shall be applicable 26 SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 6 ofArticle XIII B,.,
to that territory upon its annexation to the city. 27 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 o
(2) Whenever an application for the incorporation of 28 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation i.�
Of new city is filed with a local agency formation 29 made by this act for the purpose of making,
commission, the commission shall determine from the 30 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. It 1.<
county whetherany development agreements have been 31 recognized, however, that a local agency or schoo
entered into by the county affecting the territory 32 district may pursue any remedies to obtain
proposed to be included within the new city. As part of 33 reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3
its determinations, the commission shall determine �� 34 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division 1
whether the new city shall become the successor in 35 of that code.
interest to any development agreements entered into by 36 SEC. 5. .Notwithstanding Section 2231.5 of tht.
the county affecting the territory proposed for inclusion 37 Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain u
in the city. The commission shall not make any 38 repealer, as required by that section; therefore, thy-
development agreement binding upon the new cityifthe 39 provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless an<
commission determines that the agreement would ® ® 40 until they are amended or repealed by a later enactec
,ALIFOR'ti1A LF :?SL `+t:Rx flu;-A. R`'( =.�; F:S; `.
ASS EIVILY BILL N o. 2869
Introduced by Assembly Member Mountjoy
(Principal coauthor: Senator Montoya)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bergeson, Bradley, Frazee,
. Frizzelle, La Follette, Lancaster, Mojonnier, Navlor.
Nolan, and Wright)
(Coauthors: Senators Doolittle, Johnson, Royce, and
Russell)
February 13, 1984
An act to amend and repeal Section 65865 of the
Government Code, relating to development agreements.
• LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2869, as introduced, Mountjoy. Development
agreements.
(1) Existing law permits a city, including charter city,
county, or city and county to enter into a prescribed
development agreement with any person having legal or
equitable interest in real property.
• This bill would require any local agency which refuses to
enter into such an agreement to provide a permit applicant
with a written explanation of the refusal and specify the
existence of an equivalent procedure to prevent the
imposition, after approval of a development project, of
policies and standards enacted subsequent to the approval of
the project.
It would provide its provisions be repealed on January 1,
1991, as specified.
(2) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to 'reimburse local agencies and school
edistricts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
R 2869 —2— -3— A$ 2+869
visions require the Department of Finance to review® 1 statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1991, delete,
tutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, 2 or extends that date. If that date is not deleted of
making claims to the State Board of Control for 3 extended, then, on and after January 1, 1991,pursuant t:.
mbursement. 4 Section 9611 of the Government Code, Section 65865 cci
Phis bill would impose a state-mandated local program by 5 the Government Code, as added by Section I of Chapter
juiring local agencies to provide a written explanation to 6 934 the Statutes of 1979, shall have the same force anc
:)perty owners in certain instances. o o 7 effect as if this temporary provision had not b0'
Phis bill would provide that no appropriation is made by 8 enacted
s act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to 9 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article X1II B o
constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but would 10 the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 c.
cognize that local agencies ana school districts may pursue 11 the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation
Mother available remedies to seek reimbursement for 12 made by this act for the purpose of n;
osts. 13 reimbursement pursuant to these sections. i;
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 14 recognized, however, that a local agency or schoo
ite-mandated local program: yes. 15 district may pursue any remedies to obtain
16 reimbursement available to it, under Chapter
The people of the State of California do enact as follows- 17 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division 1
18 of that code.
SECTION 1. Section 65865 of the Government Code
is amended to read:
65865. (a) Any city, county, or city and county, may® 0
enter into a development agreement with any person
having a legal or equitable interest in real property for
the development of such property as provided in this
article. Every city, county, or city and county, may, by•
resolution or ordinance, establish procedures and
GVirements for the consideration of development
reuiements upon application by, or on behalf of, the
property owner or other person having a legal or
equitable interest in the property. O
(b) When a city, count}; or city and county refuses to
enter into a development agreement pursuant to this
article it shall provide the applicant or successor in
interest with a written explanation of the reasons for thei
refusal and specify the existence of an equivalent
procedure to prevent the imposition, after approval of
the development project. of policies and standards
enacted subsequent to the approval of the project.
This section shall remain in effect only until January- 1,
1991, and as of that data is repealed, unless a later enacted l
l