Almost a month after receiving unanimous approval from the
Senate, an annexation bill introduced by Assemblymember
Sam Blakeslee, may be one step closer to changing the process of land transfers
between counties and cities in
“We were approached by [Supervisors] Brooks Firestone and Joni Gray to deal with some of the housing issues they we’re facing,” Blakeslee said. “There were a couple of bill ideas that were suggested and this was the bill that had the most opportunity of addressing some of the issues.”
If passed, A.B. 1019, better known as the Annexation Bill, would require annexing cities to adhere to the maximum number of housing units that have been pre-zoned by a county for development prior to a city’s annexing.
Therefore, where land proposed for annexation to a city includes parcels that have been designated for housing development by a county to meets its state mandated regional housing need goal set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the maximum number of housing units would be transferred to the annexing city.
Introduced in February, A.B. 1019 would amend section 65584.07 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act. This law deals with annexations. The law also outlines the process by which lands should be transferred from one local government to another during an annexation.
“What this bill does is creates a process for resolving potential conflicts,” Blakeslee said. “The unintended consequence of the current system is that it motivates counties to identify locations for RHNA that are relatively far away from cities so they can’t be subject to annexation, which of course increases the likely hood of sprawl.”
Currently, the law does not include any regulation or process by which a city wishing to annex land that has been zoned for housing developments by a county, should be transferred. At present, when a city annexes land owned by a county, it does not have to adhere to housing develop designations that may have been in place by a county previous to the annexation.
The Planning and Zoning law requires counties to adopt general plans annually that address many elements including housing. Housing is part of any general plan and is updated every five years to address housing needs and growth within a given county and city. The Department of Housing and Community Development determines the statewide and regional housing needs. After doing so, the housing department shares information regarding housing needs with counties and directs them to divide the needs within their jurisdictions.
Thus, counties are given a state mandated number of housing units that need to be fulfilled by a specified date. The county in turn, divides the mandated number based on the need amongst varying cities within its jurisdiction.
Because a given county has limited, if any control over land that has been annexed by a city, it has been argued that a given county loses land that was intended for housing development.
“Often when an annexation occurs the county is unable to transfer regional housing need credits for areas that have been incorporated by a city,” said Assemblymember Pedro Nava, who co-authored the bill, in a statement released by his office. “The ultimate effect is that counties have the obligation to zone the same amount of housing without land that had been planned for this use.”
When a city annexes land that a county has designated to help meet its state-mandated housing credit number, the city can decide not to accept the housing credit transfer and a given county may have to locate other lands within its jurisdiction to replace the newly annexed land.
With Santa Barbara County facing housing issues of its own after the previous state mandate required the county to build more than 17,000 units by 2008, it’s no wonder the Board of Supervisors have given A.B. 1019 a green light.
“This bill is very much supported by the Board of Supervisors,” said Third District Board Member Brooks Firestone. “If land that is eligible for affordable housing is annexed, the county could loose the opportunity for that affordable housing.”
“It just seems like a very reasonable proposal to have an agreement before any annexation is done,” he added. “This bill fits into the State Legislature’s philosophy of housing. In this aspect of state mandates, it is fair to counties. It is fair to everybody in the way the state looks at mandates.”
Though supporters of the bill contend it will allow counties and cities to work more collaboratively in remedying housing issues during annexations, John Bowen, president of the Preservation of Santa Ynez, cautions against the implementation of the bill due to Buellton’s recent proposed studies that could encourage further development and growth.
“The timing of
Bowen said the bill will open the door for the development
in areas like Buellton and will put the county in a very strong position to
make Buellton to agree to the county’s housing number. They both need housing
numbers and sites, and if A.B. 1019 wasn’t in place, Buellton would have a
harder road in getting what they want out of
In the midst of criticism, Blakeslee still contends that A.B. 1019 will not only bring more understanding and clarification to the annexation process, but will also encourage a productive relationship between counties and cities as well.
“I think it ensures that any city has a good cooperative relationship with a given county,” Blakeslee said. “It’s in no one’s interest to create a hostile environment between these two jurisdictions. It’s always in the interest of a city to have a harmonious relationship with a county, particularly in the annexation process.”
Though a specified date has not been set for A.B. 1019 to go before Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for approval, with the June 13 vote receiving unanimous approval from the Senate, A.B. 1019’s implementation looks near to certain.
For more information about AB 1019 visit www.assembly.ca.gov/Blakeslee.