SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman
BILL NO:
AB 1556
HEARING: 8/25/00
AUTHOR:
Correa
FISCAL: No
VERSION:
8/21/00
CONSULTANT: Detwiler
ANNEXATION OF MCAS EL TORO
Background and Existing Law
The power to
create local governments and set their
boundaries belongs
to the legislative branch. The
California Legislature
has delegated much of its authority
over the boundaries
of cities and special districts to the
local agency
formation commissions (LAFCOs). The courts
refer to LAFCOs
as the Legislature's watchdogs over local
boundaries.
The Cortese-Knox
Act requires four, sometimes five, steps
for city annexations:
First is the application to LAFCO. Landowners or
registered voters
can petition LAFCO, asking for
annexation.
Alternatively, a city can apply directly to
LAFCO by adopting
a resolution. In any case, there must be
an environmental
review document. Further, the city and
the county government
must agree to a property tax
exchange.
Without a property tax exchange agreement, LAFCO
can't consider
the annexation.
Second is LAFCO's review and approval. After
receiving a
staff report and considering the environmental
document at
a public hearing, the commission can approve or
deny the proposed
annexation.
Third is a public hearing held by the city council to
measure protests.
If the property is uninhabited (less
than 12 registered
voters), then the annexation goes
forward without
an election unless there is a majority
landowner protest.
If the property is inhabited (12 or
more voters),
then:
If protests are less than 25% of the voters, the
annexation goes forward without an election. See step
five.
If protests are between 25% and 50%, the annexation
goes forward, subject to voter approval. See step four.
If protests are 50% or more of the voters, the
annexation stops.
Fourth is the election among the registered voters in
the area proposed
for annexation to the city, but only if
there was 25%
or more protest among the voters. If the
protests were
less than 25%, there is no election.
Fifth is the filing of formal documents, making the
annexation official.
A crucial decision
is whether the area to be annexed has 12
or more registered
voters, making it inhabited and raising
the possibility
of an election. That fact is determined
when the city
council adopts a resolution applying to LAFCO
(if the council
gave 20 days' prior notice) or the date on
which LAFCO
accepts the annexation application as complete
(including the
required property tax exchange agreement).
If there are
fewer than 12 registered voters on that date,
local officials
must treat the proposal as an uninhabited
annexation,
even if many voters move onto the property
later.
The future of
the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El
Toro remains
controversial. The federal government has
recognized the
County of Orange as the "local redevelopment
authority" responsible
for converting the former military
base to civilian
uses.
About 420 acres
of the former base are already inside
Irvine's city
limits but the other approximately 4,300
acres are in
the unincorporated territory of Orange County.
In 1994,
the County's voters passed Measure A, calling for
a civilian airport
at El Toro. A 1996 ballot measure to
overturn Measure
A failed. In March 2000, the voters
passed Measure
F to require 2/3-voter approval before the
County supervisors
can approve any airport, jail, or
hazardous waste
facility. Arguments in the lawsuit
challenging
Measure F will occur in mid-September.
Orange County
wants federal officials eventually to
transfer title
to the former base to the county government.
In the
meantime, the County has leased the property from
the Navy to
start the conversion to civilian uses. Some
county supervisors
want to lease about 850 abandoned
military housing
units to a private developer who would
rehabilitate
the dwellings and then rent some of them at
affordable rates.
The County's draft plan calls for the
eventual demolition
of those housing projects and the
operation of
a civilian airport.
In 1999, the
City of Irvine filed a preliminary application
with the Orange
LAFCO to annex about 4,400 acres, including
the rest of
MCAS El Toro. Irvine's general plan calls for
commercial and
residential land uses but not an airport.
County officials
fear that if Irvine annexes El Toro, they
won't be able
to convert the base into a civilian airport.
State law gives
cities control over airports within their
boundaries.
County officials further worry that if tenants
move into former
military housing, the new residents could
vote in an election
to annex the territory to Irvine.
County officials
want to block the annexation to Irvine
until the federal
government transfers ownership to the
county government.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill
1556 prohibits the Orange Local Agency
Formation Commission
(LAFCO) from approving or
conditionally
approving the annexation of Marine Corps Air
Station El Toro
until the title to that territory transfers
to the local
redevelopment authority, or until January 1,
2007, whichever
occurs first.
Comments
1.
Opportunity knocks . Orange County faces a dilemma that
AB 1556 resolves.
On the one hand, the County wants to
start converting
MCAS El Toro to civilian uses by reopening
former military
dwellings to affordable housing. On the
other hand,
the County worries that the new residents might
vote to annex
the property to Irvine. Annexation to Irvine
will preclude
the property's use as a civilian airport. By
temporarily
blocking the annexation of El Toro, AB 1556
gives Orange
County the advantage it needs for the next six
years.
By keeping MCAS El Toro under the County's control
until 2007,
AB 1556 promotes the political stability that's
necessary to
convert the former military base to civilian
control.
2.
The bill isn't necessary . Current law already allows
Orange County
to block Irvine's proposed annexation of El
Toro.
By declining to sign a property tax exchange
agreement, the
County can prevent the Orange LAFCO from
considering
Irvine's annexation application. If LAFCO
can't act on
the proposal, there's no danger that the new
residents of
the former military housing could vote in an
annexation election.
Given the provisions of current law,
the Committee
may wish to consider if AB 1556 is necessary.
3.
It's still uninhabited . Even if Orange County agreed
to a property
tax exchange with Irvine and city officials
filed their
application with LAFCO, the Cortese-Knox Act
wouldn't consider
El Toro to be inhabited territory. The
date on which
officials determine if the territory is
inhabited or
uninhabited is the date that LAFCO accepts a
city's annexation
application as complete. As long as
Orange County
officials don't allow tenants into the former
military housing
until after LAFCO accepts Irvine's
application,
state law treats the property as uninhabited.
Even if the
County allows hundreds of tenants into the
planned affordable
housing after that date, the annexation
will proceed
as legally uninhabited territory. In that
case, even if
LAFCO approves Irvine's request, the
Cortese-Knox
Act does not provide for an annexation
election.
Current law allows Orange County to block
Irvine's uninhabited
annexation by filing a majority
landowner protest.
4.
Legislative prerogative . The Legislature has the
constitutional
power to control the boundaries of local
governments:
counties, cities, special districts, and
school districts.
As long as the Legislature honors the
constitutional
rights of residents and landowners, it can
change local
boundaries. A 1907 U.S. Supreme Court
decision held
that state legislatures can constitutionally
create, expand,
diminish, or totally abolish cities with or
without the
consent of their residents, or even against
their protest.
California's courts continue to follow this
precedent.
Although banning a city annexation is unusual,
AB 1556 is within
the Legislature's constitutional
prerogative.
5.
Legislative history . Originally introduced by Assembly
Member Maddox
as a spot bill dealing with the Business and
Professions
Code, AB 1556 eventually blossomed into a measure
benefiting freeway
billboards in Garden Grove. The
August 21 amendments
stripped those provisions, added
Assembly Members
Correa and Granlund as the authors, and
inserted the
language that temporarily prohibits the
annexation of
MCAS El Toro.
6.
Technical error . The August 21 amendments rewrote the
entire bill,
including the so-called relating clause in the
measure's title.
Previously a bill relating to "outdoor
advertising,"
Legislative Counsel now says the bill relates
to "redevelopment."
AB 1556 actually relates to local
agencies' boundaries,
not redevelopment. The Committee may
wish to consider
making a technical amendment that allows
Legislative
Counsel to correct its erroneous relating
clause.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant
to the August 21, 2000 version of the bill.
Support and Opposition (8/23/)
Support
: Orange County Supervisors Coad, Smith, Silva;
California State
Council of Laborers, California State
Council of Carpenters,
Central Labor Council of Orange
County, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 441, Laborers
Local 652, Orange County Business
Council, State
Building Trades Council.
Opposition
: California Association of LAFCOs,
approximately
850 individuals.