BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 244
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 17, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    SB 244 (Wolk) - As Amended:  August 15, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                             Housing and 
          Community Development                         Vote: 7-0
                       Local Government                       6-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires cities, counties and local agency formation 
          commissions (LAFCOs) to analyze infrastructure deficiencies in 
          unincorporated disadvantaged communities.  Specifically, this 
          bill: 
            
          1)Prohibits a LAFCO from approving an annexation to a city of 
            territory, as specified, where there exists a disadvantaged 
            unincorporated community that is contiguous to the area of 
            proposed annexation, unless an application to annex the 
            disadvantaged unincorporated community to the subject city has 
            been filed with the LAFCO.

          2)Requires, upon the next update of a sphere of influence that 
            occurs on or after July 1, 2012, the inclusion of the need for 
            public facilities and services of any disadvantaged inhabited 
            communities within or contiguous to the existing or proposed 
            sphere of influence of the city or special district.

          3)Allows the LAFCO to assess the feasibility of governmental 
            reorganization of particular agencies and recommend 
            reorganization of those agencies when reorganization is found 
            to be feasible and if reorganization will further the goals of 
            orderly development and efficient and affordable service 
            delivery.

          4)Requires, before the next revision of its housing element, a 
            city or county to review and update the land use element of 
            its general plan to include a description of each 
            unincorporated island, fringe community, or legacy community 








                                                                  SB 244
                                                                  Page  2

            and an analysis, based on available data, of water, 
            wastewater, stormwater drainage and structural fire protection 
            needs.

          5)Provides that no reimbursement is required because local 
            agencies have the authority to levy service charges, fees or 
            assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of 
            service mandated by the bill's provisions.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          This bill has a negligible state fiscal impact.  There would be 
          significant local planning costs, but these are not a state 
          mandated local program and would not be reimbursable.




           COMMENTS

          1)Purpose  .  According to the author, many disadvantaged 
            unincorporated communities lack public services and even 
            public facilities like domestic water, sanitary sewers, paved 
            streets, storm drains, and street lights, and some cities and 
            special districts are reluctant to annex these areas. The 
            author states the bill will require local officials to include 
            disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their long-range 
            planning for land use and public facilities.  The author notes 
            that SB 244 takes a two-pronged approach to bringing more 
            attention to disadvantaged unincorporated communities in the 
            planning process.  First, the bill requires LAFCOs to consider 
            these types of communities in both their sphere of influence 
            updates, starting after July 1, 2012.  Second, the bill 
            requires cities and counties to include information about 
            disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general 
            plans.

           2)Background.   The Department of Finance says that 159 census 
            designated places (CDPs) had 2005-09 household median incomes 
            less than 80% of the statewide household median income. CDPs 
            are named places with a concentration of residents, housing, 
            and commercial activity, but located in a county's 
            unincorporated territory.  Some of these disadvantaged 
            unincorporated communities are county islands (mostly 
            surrounded by cities), some are fringe communities (at or near 








                                                                  SB 244
                                                                  Page  3

            the edge of cities), and others are legacy communities 
            (geographically isolated).   The bill may describe these 
            communities as disadvantaged, but some residents actually 
            prefer the more rural nature of their community's environment. 
             Not all disadvantaged communities wish to be part of a city 
            or desire to receive additional services beyond what they 
            already have.

           3)LAFCO.   The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a LAFCO in each 
            county to control the boundaries of cities and most special 
            districts.  The courts repeatedly refer to LAFCOs as the 
            Legislature's watchdog over boundary changes.  A LAFCO must 
            determine a sphere of influence for every local government 
            agency within its county and must review and update the 
            spheres as necessary every five years.  In addition, any 
            person or local agency may apply to LAFCO to update a sphere 
            of influence at any time.  A LAFCO's boundary decisions must 
            be consistent with the spheres of influence of affected cities 
            and special districts.  Bringing territory into a sphere is 
            generally considered to be a precursor to annexation.

            In determining a new or amended sphere of influence, the LAFCO 
            must hold a public hearing and must prepare a statement of its 
            determinations with respect to the present and planned land 
            uses in the area; the present and probable needs for public 
            facilities in the area; the present capacity of public 
            facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency 
            provides or is authorized to provide; and the existence of any 
            social or economic communities of interest in the area, if 
            relevant.

           4)Local planning  .  Every county and city must adopt a general 
            plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, 
            housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.  Except 
            for the housing elements, the Planning and Zoning Law does not 
            require counties and cities to regularly revise their general 
            plans.  Cities and counties' major land use 
            decisions-subdivisions, zoning, public works projects, use 
            permits-must be consistent with their general plans. 
            Development decisions must carry out and not obstruct a 
            general plan's policies.  Because the general plan is a 
            long-range planning document, in preparing these documents 
            cities typically plan for their entire sphere of influence 
            rather than just their current physical boundaries.









                                                                  SB 244
                                                                  Page  4

           5)Previous legislation  .  SB 1174 (Wolk, 2010) concentrated on 
            local general plans; the bill was held on this committee's 
            Suspense File.  AB 853 (Arambula), 2010, focused on LAFCO 
            municipal service reviews, spheres of influence and city 
            annexation procedures; Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill 
            as unnecessary. 

             SB 194 (Florez), 2010, looked at disadvantaged communities' 
            needs for public works funding; Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed 
            the bill as unnecessary.

           6)Support  .  The sponsor of the bill, the California Rural Legal 
            Assistance Foundation, argues that disadvantaged 
            unincorporated communities "are systematically underserved in 
            the overall allocation of public resources and are frequently 
            left out of local planning processes?this neglect and 
            deprivation prevents these neighborhoods from realizing their 
            potential as livable and economically viable communities."  

            Supporters further argue that few local government land use 
            plans focus on the existence of disadvantaged unincorporated 
            communities, much less how to solve their many challenges.  
            This bill will result in greater awareness of these 
            communities and their needs in local government plans.

           7)Opposition  .  The League of California Cities believes local 
            agencies do not have the legal authority to impose fees to 
            recover the costs of the new duties mandated in the bill.  The 
            bill's provisions right now include a fee disclaimer that says 
            that "no reimbursement is required by this act?.because a 
            local agency has the authority to levy service charges, fees 
            or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of 
            service mandated by this act."  The League is concerned that 
            cities, under the rules dictated by Proposition 26, cannot 
            charge current residents of the city for the costs associated 
            with the considerable analysis required by the bill's 
            provisions since the residents of the city are not being 
            provided a service. 

             The County of Los Angeles opposes this bill because it is 
            both costly and burdensome.  They argue they already have a 
            long term plan for all unincorporated areas and that the bill 
            does not adequately address the fiscal strains the bill would 
            place on already distressed counties, cities, communities and 
            taxpayers.








                                                                  SB 244
                                                                  Page  5




           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081