SR-412-002 (4)
INFORMATION
.
Santa Mon1ca, c~ornia. November 20, 1978
~'Z-tJo-z
TO: Mayor and City Counc11
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Annexation of Area 1n Vlcinity of Santa Monica Canyon Rim
(area of San Vicente Boulevard. Entrada Drive. Woodacres Road, etc.)
Introduction
This report transmits 1nformation to Council regardlng the proposed annexation
to the C1ty of Santa Monica of the Santa Monica Canyon Rim area (in the
v1cinlty of San Vicente Boulevard. 7th Street, Entrada Dr1ve~ Woodacres Road,
etc.) and the necessary steps for City Counc11 1f annexation 15 to occur.
Background
The residents of the area in question (which currently is part of the City
of Los Angeles) attempted to be annexed by the City of Santa Monica by con-
tacting the City of Los Angeles and the State Legislature. However, no steps
toward deannexation from the C1ty of Los Angeles and annexation to the City
of Santa Monica occurred.
Therefore, the residents of this area filed an application with the Local Agency
Formation COITllll1SSlOn of Los Angeles County (LAFCO) under the t1unicipal Organi-
zatlon Act of 1973 (MORGA).
The application seeks to realign the boundary between the City of Los Angeles
and the City of Santa Monica along the rim of the Santa Monica Canyon (s~e
Exhibit A). Twenty-eight acres of territory are involved. The subject area
is totally developed with flfty-eight sinqle family residential units. Access
to the area is only by way of San Vicente Boulevard. All of the streets within
the proposal are dead-end streets. The City boundary line runs through so~e of
the residences.
Mayor and C1ty coun~
-2-
.
November 20. 1978
The Proposal
This proposal was initiated by a petition containing seventy-four valid
signatures of registered voters from within the area which has a total of
115 registered voters, The LAFCO staff report states that "the proponentsl
Just1ficat1on for th1S proposal cites the lack of service from the City of
Los Angeles. particularly the lack of. or very slow response, in providing
emergency services such as Police, Fire and Paramedic. Reportedly. incidents
have occurred such as fires which have been put out by the Santa Monica Fire
Department even before the arrival of the Los Angeles City Fire Department;
burglaries in progress. with no response from the Los Angeles Police Department;
having to move a heart patient to an address in Santa Monica in order to get
immediate paramedic aid, etc."
The LAFCO report went on to recommend that the Local Agencv Formation
Commisslon adopt a resolution
A. Finding that this proposal will not have an adverse impact on the
environment and adoptinq a negative declaration;
R. Approvlng thlS proposal;
C. Designating the City of Santa Monica as the conducting authority;
D. Requiring the City of Santa Monica to be responsible for the appropriate
State Board of Equalization fees ($145 - this figure 1S based on the
acreage involved and is payable to the State Board of Equal1zat1on for the
processing of the necessary documents).
City of Los Angeles
The Clty of Los Angeles is opposed to the residents' proposal to detach themselves
from Los Angeles because of "City policy". Under the current r::rovisions of MORGA,
Los Angeles can only seek to convince LAFCO and the conductlnq authority (Santa
Monica) that the proposed municipal reorganization is inapproprlate. However,
Mayor and City counc~
-3-
.
November 20, 1978
under a recent amendment to MORGA, effectlve January 1, 1979, Los Anoe1es
may terminate the entire matter by a slMple written protest or resolution
filed with the conducting authority before the conclusion of the public hearing.
This is why the City of Santa Monica must conduct a public hearing on the
proposal before January 1, 1979. If the Santa Monica City Council takes no
actlon before that date, LAFCO must designate the Board of Supervisors as the
conductlng authority.
LAFCO
It is most llkely that LAFCO will adopt a resolution approvlng the proposed
municipal reorganization to relocate the Santa Monica/Los Angeles boundary line
along the rim of Santa Monica Canyon. Also. LAFCO will most likely designate
the Clty of Santa Monica as the conducting authority. Certain steps are required
in order to complete the annexation of this area before January 1, 1979 (before
the recent provlslon of MORGA goes into effect).
Steps
Immedlately after the LAFCO hearing on November 22. 1978, the City of Santa
Monlca should be prepared to complete the following:
1. Adopt a resolution initiating municipal reorganization proceedings.
The resolution must be in the form and contaln the items specifled in
Section 35300 of the Government Code.
2. The Santa Monica Clty Clerk provides notice of the hearing before the
conductlng authority (Santa ~onica) pursuant to Section 35301. Notice
must be given by publication and by mall to the persons set out in
Section 35302 as provided by Government Code Section 35055.
Mayor and City coun~
-4-
.
November 20, 1978
3. Santa Monica conducts a public hearing at the time and date
speclfied in the notice (Section 35303). At the hearing Santa
Monlca hears and receives any oral or written protests, obJections
or evidence offered (Section 35305).
As previously mentloned, the hearlnq must occur before January 1, 1979.
The recent MORGA amendment provides that the hearing before the conducting
authority must be "not less than thirty, nor more than forty-five days
after the conducting authority's resolution" pursuant to Sectlon 35300.
Therefore, the resolution to initiate the public hearing must be passed
as soon as possible after the hearing November 22, 1978 in order to allow
thirty days to pass and still allow the hearing to occur before the first
of the year. Thus, the resolution to initlate proceedings should be
passed at least by November 24, 1978 so that the public hearing could
occur by the first of the year.
Once the hearing itself has been completed, the remaining steps can
occur after January 1, 1979.
4. Not less than thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing, Santa
Monica should adopt a resolution making a finding regardlnq the value
of any written protest (Section 35306), and ordering the territory re-
organized without an election so long as no more than 25% of the land
owners or 25% of the area's registered voters have filed written protests.
5. Santa Monica City Clerk transmits a copy of the resolution adopted in
Step 4 ordering the municipal reorganization without election to the
Executive Officer of LAFCO (Section 35350).
LAFCO would then complete the remaining proceedinqs.
Mayor and City counc~
-5-
.
November 20, 1978
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution initiating municipal
reorganization proceedings at their special meetin~ of November 24. 1978.
Prepared by: MARK C. PUSINELLI
Admlnistrative Aide
MCP: dar
r
.
CITY OF
.
~
R!tX '. L "'YTO~
'':IT.. C.EI!;O(
CALI FOR N IA
Los ANGEL-e:S:-:
.... -- I I
WHC.... ""'...1<1....0 J"'Q'jIRt:[3
A~~ATJVE- TO TlHS ~A.TTEA
IItFFII TO FJL~ NO 76-3301
")' ~--,
., I I ~ :..._
o,,-rCE 0'"
CITY CLERK
Fl:OOM 3...:50 CI1'"V HAL....
i'" - .
, --
'..,
I
L.OS ANGEL.ES C.....L.IF 90012
48S-S70S
S.tl-J.J.
TOM BRAD\..EY
M.....YOR
October 26, 1978
The Honorable Tom Bradley, Mayor
City Attorney
Cvi~unity Develo?ment Department
Chief Legislative Analyst
City Planning Department
Los klgeles County Board
of Supervisors
383 Hall of F~ministretion
Los ~~geles, CA 90012
-... CJ
0 -,
~
--:; -...
-<:
~-
c:::=: -
" -
.s::- -
en - .
~ c -
::: .
.. - -
L)
--..I ., J;>.
00 lTl
City of Santa ~bnica
City Hall
1685 11B.in Street
Santa Monica, CA
Co~nty of Los Angeles
Local Agency Formation
Commission
383 Hall of Administration
Los hngeles, CA 90012
Independent Cities of
Los Angeles County
630 West Duarte Road
Suite 302
Arcadia, CA 91006
(Attention Mr. Cunningham)
ANNEXATION Ah'D DETACHMENT LOOPHOLES
br. cne meecing of cne Council held OCi:ubc!." ':0, 1970,) I.~~t!
attached report of the P~~ING AN~ E~~IRONMENT CO}~TTEE
was adopted.
~
~
. ~.
~~~
~'v ~-
I'
Ci ty Clerk
ca
e t : ~j;- 6u1~
%i';;:;J 7Ii..tt~ v
'~
AN EOU L EMPLOYMENY'OPPORTUNITY-AFF1RMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
r'
I .
; // -
! > I
.
.
p.J.e no.
(
78.3301
TO THE CQUXCu.. OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Your
PLANNING AND E~NTRO~itNT
Co:n.m.i ttee
reports as follows:
In connection with Hotion (Russell-Cunningh~J:l) referred to 'the
Planning and Environment COMmittee, we REtO}~!E~D that said Motion
revised by the Committee as follows, BE ADOPTED:
"On July 11~ 1978, the City Council adopted a r~port ~f
~he IntcrRovernnental Relations Con~1ttee which stateJ
in paTt: 'That the City Council hereby declares its
opposition to any effort by any other city to atinex or
Jt:tcicii an:;r Ci t)- oi Los J\nf:":: l~s i:'".C:'~v11:.tec t:::r-;-i to:;. ..
under the loophole currently exis~i~g in State law whereby
the city losing the tC~Tito7Y cannot ~eTmin~te proceedi~;~
by. objecting to such annexation QT detachment.
"
UIn furtherance of this polic)" t.he City Council has already
fornally oppc~ed 'loo?h~l~l ~nnexatic~ efforts by the Cities
of San Fernancio ar.d In; le\;0od. Ho~...t>vor, anothe~~ applicCi. tic:1
fOT a 'loophclcf ar.r.ex~tion has been filed, in\~lv~ng ~he
Ci t)" terri tOTY which l\'ould be annexed to ~he Ci ~y of Santa Monica.
In light. af <.:.dc,!)tcu Cvuc.c:.l peliey ~ ?-:,c.ti::ms ~~Cil actio:is, r.;:d
the p~ovisions of AB 213i ",-hich ,,ri 11 permit t::.E' 105 ing city "':0
protes~ and h~lt pTccecdings ~fter Jilnuary 1, 19i9, it is
i~portznt for t.he City to officially oppose the Santa Monica
'loophole' action.
tlThcre is a -fourth action 'Pendin~ \\'hi.:h l"!::y rcsul t in the
detachment of City territory and annex~tion to another city.
However, this actlon, which invol~es ~c~achment of 2 sm~11
T~sidential area knol.~ as Frederic Street fro~ Los Angeles
and annexation to Burbank, is not a 'loophole' action: a~d the
Ci ty of Burbank h::.s sholm its ldlling-uess to negotiate t!':.is
;aa~t-cl" ~~i"t11 tr...e Ci"'.:;.-.. and :-c:i.~h ~n c~~i~~~lc 5~Jut.icn_ T~i!=
action by Burbank illl1stT~tes a m~tually agreeable o??ro~ch
by which annexation matte~5 should be handled, ES opposed to
the unilateral u~e of the I loophole. t
"I THERErORE HO\TE that the Ci t)T Council does hereby oppose a .
pendin~ action to detach a pcrtion of the City of Lo~ Angeles
and to annex the same to the City of Santa Monica (If!unicipnl
Reorg-anization: Ann~xation Nur.locr 7 to the Ci ty of Santa j,!anica/
Detachment from the Ci~y of Los Angeles'). inasmuch as such
actior. is intcn~ed to take advan~o~c of an unintentional
'loophole' in State law \lI'hich \-till not exist aft.er Janu:trv 1,.
1979, and HhlCh is contrary to the intent of the Hunicipal
Organization Act of 1977.
.. continued ..
,_ No. .q
t
! ,
~
I
. .
.. ~" .. >-
.
.
File No. 78- 3301
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE
eIIT OF LOS ANGELES
- 2 ..
Your
PLANNING AND ENV1RONHENT
Comnuttee
reports a'i follows:
"I FURTHER MOVE that the Local Agency Formation Commission
of Los Angeles County and the City of Santa !-Ionica be advised
of the Council's opposition to this !loopholet annexation
effort and that the City of Los Angeles request the Independent
C~ties of Los Angeles County to consider how the cities of the
County ~ay approach the problems posed by the loophole provision
so that all cities can derive a mutually satisfactory solution
+- th':.. ....,.-b' e'" "
'"'v.............> .i'" L 'vi J. ,.16.
Respectfully subnitted,
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COH~'lITTEE
J
CSK:mw
10-25-78
r_ No .: