AB 453 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS �

-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BILL NO: AB 453 HEARING DATE: June 25, 2013
AUTHOR: Mullin URGENCY: No
VERSION: February 19, 2013 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Sustainable communities.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. In 2008, the Strategic Growth Council was created as a
multi-cabinet level agency in part to implement a provision in
Prop 84 that included $90 million for planning grants and
incentives related to future regional and local land use plans.
Eligible entities included councils of government (COGs),
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), cities, counties, and
joint powers authorities (JPAs). A central purpose of the
council was to coordinate on a multi-agency basis the grants
with the new multi-disciplinary planning provisions of SB 375.

2. The council has one round of grant awards left before its
funds are exhausted and there is not another resources or other
bond pending with funds for this purpose. Approximately $13
million is left for these planning grants.

3. The text of Prop 84 provided $90 million "for planning grants
and planning incentives, including revolving loan programs and
other methods to encourage the development of regional
and local land use plans that are designed to promote water
conservation, reduce automobile use and fuel consumption,
encourage greater infill and compact development, protect
natural resources and agricultural lands, and revitalize urban
and community centers."

4. Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are required
under current law to complete a municipal service review (MSR)
prior to a sphere of influence update, which occurs every 5
years or whenever needed.

The MSR process assesses the ability of local government
agencies (cities, special districts and counties) to effectively
and efficiently provide services to residents and users. While
there are different approaches by various county LAFCO's, one
point of agreement is that MSRs are required to update spheres
of influence (SOI). The form and content of the MSR is provided
for in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000 and the State of California's LAFCO
MSR Guidelines. The MSRs examine factors including growth and
population projections, capacity of public facilities,
infrastructure needs related to basic public services such as
police, fire, and water. Notably, they do not look
comprehensively at regional issues as contemplated in Prop 84.
The word "region" in the LAFCO statute refers to sub-county
regions.

5. SB 375 already requires that the metropolitan planning
organizations in California must consider the spheres of
influence that have been adopted by the LAFCOs within its
region. This provision is in section 65080(b)(2)(F) of the
Government Code.

6. Government Code Section 56668 directs LAFCOs to consider
regional transportation plans (which would include sustainable
community strategies of SB 375). See Amendment 1.

PROPOSED LAW
AB 453 adds LAFCOs to the list of eligible applicants for
financial assistance grants and loans made by the Strategic
Growth Council for the purpose of developing, adopting, and
implementing a regional plan or other planning document to
support the development of sustainable communities as that term
is defined in SB 732 (Steinberg).

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the California Association of Local Agency
Formation Commissions (CalLAFCO) and other county LAFCO's, the
bill could fund expanded and more detailed MSR preparation that
would be done in collaboration with regional transportation
agencies.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.

COMMENTS
1. This bill is identical to AB 2624 (Smyth) that was held in
Senate Appropriations last year for reasons substantially
2

similar to those mentioned here. Senate Appropriations, in
addition to noting significant cost pressures, was not convinced
that LAFCO's statutory responsibilities include the planning
responsibilities that are eligible for funding in Prop 84.
Obviously, the text of Prop 84 cannot be changed by the
Legislature.

2. According to the Strategic Growth Council, it plans just one
more series of grant awards from its Prop 84 funding. The
Council's Prop 84 funds will thereafter be completely depleted.
The grants will be made in 2014. It is quite evident that LAFCOs
may not receive any funds (or very few funds) even if this bill
were to pass. The funds a LAFCO might receive would obviously
diminish grants to metropolitan planning organizations or other
entities with a more direct connection to the SB 732 and SB 375.
That said, LAFCO's are capable of receiving grants through joint
applications with other eligible entities such as metropolitan
planning organizations.

3. A consideration raised by this bill is whether, as the end
approaches for the existing grant-making process of the
Strategic Growth Council, is it reasonable and fair to expand
that process by making LAFCOs eligible for grants? As the
analysis of AB 2624 noted last year, applications for funding
outpace available funds by at least 3:1 and perhaps 4:1
according to the Strategic Growth Council.

4. SB 732 provides that the grants should go to those entities
that work on regional plans or other planning documents that
improve air and water quality, natural resource protection,
affordable housing, transportation, meets the climate goals of
AB 32, and encourages sustainable land use.

Some, but clearly not all, of these topics may be handled by
some LAFCOs, but, as with the discussion above referencing the
text of Prop 84, there is no explicit statutory provision that
LAFCOs should include each of these topics in their work
products.

5. SB 732 defines "regional plan" as a regional transportation
plan or a regional planning blueprint, neither of which are
prepared by LAFCOs. That said, such plans may benefit if an MPO
includes information from a region's LAFCO even if the LAFCO is
not grant-eligible.

6. The bill also does not provide any direction for LAFCOs other
than what is described in the "Existing Law" section to include
3

these topics or to ensure that LAFCO actions are otherwise
consistent with state laws on planning including SB 375. The
proposed amendment is intended to provide some assistance with
that question should the bill be supported by the Committee. The
amendment would provide additional linkage between the work of
LAFCOs and the policies of Prop 84 and SB 732.

AMENDMENT 1
Amend LAFCO statute, Government Code section 56668(g) or as
drafted by Legislative Counsel, to state that LAFCO's reviews of
proposals shall provide enhanced scrutiny of actions that are
not consistent with approved regional transportation plans or
the future ability of such plans to meet the regional
transportation and land use greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets that are established pursuant to Section 65080.

SUPPORT
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
Orange County LAFCO
Santa Clara LAFCO
Stanislaus LAFCO
Solano Local Agency Formation Commission
Local Agency Formation Commission of Yolo County

OPPOSITION
None Received