BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 853|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 853
Author: Arambula (I)
Amended: 8/18/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/30/10
AYES: Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
NOES: Cox, Aanestad
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-2, 8/2/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-30, 5/26/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: organization
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
PolicyLink
DIGEST : This bill provides for the identification of
service deficiencies in unincorporated disadvantaged
communities through the Local Agency Formation Commission
planning process.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/10 clarify the use of
federal grant funds.
ANALYSIS : The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a local
CONTINUED
AB 853
Page
2
agency formation commission (LAFCO) in each county to
control the boundaries of cities and most special
districts. The courts repeatedly refer to the LAFCOs as
the Legislature's watchdog over boundary changes. To plan
for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities
and special districts, a LAFCO must prepare informational
reports called municipal service reviews and then adopt a
policy document for each city and district called a sphere
of influence. Boundary decisions by the LAFCOs must be
consistent with the spheres of influence of the affected
cities or districts.
State law lists the factors that a LAFCO must consider when
it reviews proposals. One factor is the extent to which
the proposal will promote environmental justice; the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes
regarding the location of public facilities and provision
of public services (SB 162 [Negrete McLeod], Chapter 428,
Statutes of 2007).
I. Disadvantaged community . When the voters passed
Proposition 84, "The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality
and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2006," they authorized $5.4 billion in state
bonds. Proposition 84 set aside some of that money for
disadvantaged communities, which it defined as
communities with median household incomes less than 80
percent of statewide average. This bill adds a
definition of "disadvantaged inhabited community" to the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, relying on the Proposition
84 definition, but requiring it to be inhabited
territory.
II. Municipal service reviews . In the late 1990s, the
Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century
reviewed the LAFCOs' activities, including how they
prepared their spheres of influence. The Legislature
adopted the recommendation that LAFCOs must periodically
conduct "municipal service reviews" to inform their
decisions about spheres of influence. Municipal service
reviews must analyze and make determinations about six
topics (AB 2838 [Hertzberg], Chapter 761, Statutes of
2000; AB 1744 [Assembly Local Government Committee],
Chapter 244, Statutes of 2007):
AB 853
Page
3
Growth and population projections.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities
and adequacy of public services, including
infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
Agencies' financial abilities to provide services.
Opportunities for sharing facilities.
Accountability for community service needs.
Other matters relating to effective or efficient
services.
This bill adds disadvantaged inhabited communities'
location and characteristics, including infrastructure
needs or deficiencies, to the required contents of
municipal service reviews.
III. Spheres of influence . Starting January 1, 2008, and
then every five years, a LAFCO must, as needed, review
and update the spheres of influence for each city and
special district in its county. For each sphere, the
LAFCO must prepare written determinations regarding:
Present and planned land uses.
Present and probable need for public facilities and
services.
Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy
of public services.
Any relevant social and economic communities of
interest.
This bill requires a LAFCO to review its spheres of
influence every five years and update them, as necessary.
For the next review and update after July 1, 2011, this
bill requires the sphere of influence for a city or special
district that provides sewers, nonagricultural water, or
structural fire protection to include the present and
probable need for public facilities and services of any
disadvantaged inhabited community.
IV. City annexation applications . Boundary change
procedures, such as city annexations, require four or
possibly five steps:
An application to the LAFCO.
A public hearing for the LAFCO's review and
AB 853
Page
4
approval.
Another formal hearing to measure public protests.
The possibility of an election, if there was
significant protest.
The ministerial filing of final documents.
An application begins when (1) a local agency
submits a resolution of application to the LAFCO, (2)
when voters or landowners submit a petition to the
LAFCO, or (3) in limited cases, when the LAFCO itself
initiates the proposal. In addition to maps, data,
and other information, boundary change proposals
require environmental review. The LAFCO's executive
officer cannot accept a city annexation application
unless the city and county have negotiated a property
tax exchange.
This bill requires a county board of supervisors to adopt a
resolution of application for a city annexation, or a
reorganization that includes a city annexation, within 180
days of receiving a petition from the voters or landowners
of a disadvantaged inhabited community. The petition must
be signed by either at least 25 percent of the affected
territory's voters or at least 25 percent of the affected
territory's landowners who own 25% of the land's assessed
value. This bill limits this provision to affected
territory which is:
All or part of a disadvantaged community.
Inhabited territory.
Within the city's sphere of influence.
Contiguous to the city.
This bill declares that, unless prohibited by federal law,
a county may apply for community development block grant
funds to pay for some of these costs.
Prior/Related Legislation
In 2008, the Committee passed SB 194 (Florez) to raise the
questions of disadvantaged communities' needs in local
general plans, Proposition 84 funding, air pollution
control grants, federal Community Development Block Grant
funds, and wastewater project funds.
AB 853
Page
5
SB 1174 (Wolk), 2009-10 Session, requires cities and
counties to plan for disadvantaged communities in their
general plans.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee anaylsis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
County/LAFCO likely
substantial local costs Local Local
mandate non-reimbursable
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/10)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source
Policy Link (co-source)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/18/10)
American Planning Association-California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
City of Lynwood
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Counties of Los Angeles and Sacramento
Orange LAFCO
San Bernardino LAFCO
San Diego LAFCO
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill intends to improve the quality of life for the
working families living in unincorporated, disadvantaged
communities that face a variety of challenges. Potential
solutions are often frustrated by a lack of political power
and a corresponding lack of access to funding for community
improvements.
This bill places disadvantaged inhabited communities
AB 853
Page
6
squarely within the existing review processes that guide
land use and infrastructure decision-making process. This
inclusion, coupled with the ability to pursue annexation
under narrow circumstances, will move the residents closer
to residing in communities with acceptable standards of
living.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The San Diego Local Agency
Formation Commission, in their letter of opposition, state
that the bill "contains burdensome regulatory provision
that will require Local Agency Formation Commissions and
local government agencies to fund studies and service
reviews that will not bring about the results that you
advocate." They further state "We believe that this new
unfunded service review mandate is very untimely. We also
do not believe that the requirement should be placed upon
special districts that provide services in areas not
adjacent to urban or suburban cities. To study these areas
will add financial burdens upon commissions and local
government agencies that fund them."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torrico, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Buchanan, Saldana, Torres
AGB:do 8/19/20 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 853
Page
7