BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
BILL NO: SB 194 HEARING: 4/29/09
AUTHOR: Florez FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/22/09 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Background and Existing Law
Proposition 84 enacted "The Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2006," and authorized $5.4 billion
in state bonds. One purpose is "Revitalizing our
communities and making them more sustainable and livable by
investing in sound land use planning, local parks and urban
greening." Proposition 84 made $580 million available for
those purposes; $90 million specifically set aside for
"urban greening projects" and another $90 million for
"planning grants and planning incentives." The Strategic
Growth Council awards and manages these programs (SB 732,
Steinberg, 2008).
The U.S. Census Bureau identifies a "census designated
place" as the statistical counterpart of a city in that it
is a named place with a concentration of residents,
housing, and commercial activity, but located in a county's
unincorporated territory. Of the 598 census designated
places in California, 241 have household median incomes
that are less than 80% of the statewide household median
income. Some of these disadvantaged unincorporated
communities are county islands (mostly surrounded by
cities), some are fringe communities (at or near the edge
of cities), and others are "legacy communities"
(geographically isolated). More than 1 million people live
in these island, fringe, and legacy communities.
Many of the disadvantaged unincorporated communities lack
public services and even public facilities like domestic
water, sanitary sewers, paved streets, storm drains, and
street lights. Some cities and special districts are
reluctant to annex these areas. Advocates want legislators
to create incentives and opportunities for local officials
to deliver better services and facilities.
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 2
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 194 enacts the Community Equity Investment Act
of 2009, with legislative findings and declarations.
I. General plan amendments . Current law requires every
city and county to have a general plan with seven elements:
land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space,
noise, and safety. Local officials may amend their general
plans up to four times a year. Major local land use
decisions --- zoning, subdivisions, public works, use
permits --- must be consistent with these general plans.
General plans are among the important sources of
information that local agency formation commissions
(LAFCOs) rely on when drawing cities and special districts'
spheres of influence and when making boundary decisions
such as annexations.
Senate Bill 194 requires a city or county that accepts
Proposition 84 funds under either the urban greening
program or the planning assistance program to amend the
land use, circulation, housing, conservation, and open
space elements of its general plan to include:
data and analysis,
goals, policies, and objectives, and
feasible implementation measures
to address the presence of disadvantaged unincorporated
communities in or near its boundaries.
SB 194 requires the general plan amendments to identify,
describe, and map each disadvantaged unincorporated
community within or proximate to its boundaries. For each
disadvantaged unincorporated community, the general plan
amendments must quantify and analyze six conditions
regarding deficient services, facilities, and housing
conditions. The bill requires the general plan amendments
to state specific quantified goals, policies, and
objectives for eliminating or reducing those deficiencies.
SB 194 requires the general plan amendments to include a
program of actions to achieve these goals, including the
activities, timelines, and available resources.
The bill defines these terms:
"Disadvantaged unincorporated community" is a
fringe, island, or legacy community where the median
household income is 80% or less of the statewide
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 3
median household income.
"Fringe community" is a settled, unincorporated
place within 1 miles of a city or within or adjacent
to the city's sphere of influence.
"Island" is an unincorporated area surrounded by
city limits on at least 75% of its sides.
"Legacy community" is a geographically isolated
community that has existed for at least 50 years.
II. Strategic Growth Council . When the Strategic Growth
Council awards Proposition 84 funds from the urban greening
program and the planning assistance program, Senate Bill
194 requires the Council to require the city or county to
specify a date by which it will adopt general plan
amendments for disadvantaged unincorporated communities,
but no later than January 1, 2013.
SB 194 requires the Council to ensure that activities
funded by the urban greening program and planning
assistance program comply with the general plan amendments
for disadvantaged unincorporated communities. The bill
requires the Council to require that councils of government
and other regional entities that receive planning
assistance funds from Proposition 84 include assessments of
island and fringe communities and how community investments
would help meet regional greenhouse gas reduction targets.
III. Air Pollution Control Fund . Monetary penalties for
violating the California Air Resources Board's regulations
go into the State Treasury's Air Pollution Control Fund.
The Legislature can appropriate that money to support the
Board's programs. Senate Bill 194 allows the Legislature
to appropriate money from the Air Pollution Control Fund to
invest in public transit for disadvantaged unincorporated
communities, accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, and mitigate the health impacts of climate
change.
IV. Community Development Block Grant eligibility .
Metropolitan cities and counties get federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds directly from the
federal government. Under current law, nonmetropolitan
cities and counties can compete for CDBG funds by applying
to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development. To be eligible to receive CDBG funds, a
nonmetropolitan city or county must submit the housing
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 4
element of its general plan to the Department. For CDBG
applications submitted after January 1, 2013, Senate Bill
194 requires a city or county to certify that it has
amended its general plan to address the presence of
disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
V. Community Development Block Grant spending . The
statutes which direct the State Department of Housing and
Community Development to administer the federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program declare the
Legislature's intent to "be of maximum benefit in meeting
the housing and economic development needs" of low- and
moderate-income families. Senate Bill 194 requires local
governments which receive CDBG funds from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development to spend
the funds within each existing supervisorial or city
council district based on the percentage of low and
moderate-income people within those districts. SB 194 also
requires that at least 75% of all CDBG funds must benefit
those targeted income groups.
VI. Safe Routes to School . Current law requires Caltrans
to administer the Safe Routes to School construction
program to build projects for bicycles, pedestrians, and
traffic calming (AB 1475, Soto, 1999). Caltrans awards
these grants to local governments based on a statewide
competition which rates the proposals on six statutory
factors:
Demonstrated need.
Potential for reducing injuries.
Potential for encouraging walking and bicycling.
Identification of safety hazards.
Identification of walking and bicycling routes.
Consultation and support from other groups.
Senate Bill 194 adds benefit to a disadvantaged community
as a seventh factor.
VII. State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small
Community Grants . Current law allows the State Water
Resources Control Board to assess fees in lieu of charging
interest on the financial assistance it provides for
wastewater projects. The resulting fee revenue goes into
the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small
Community Grant Fund to help pay for small communities'
projects (AB 2356, Arambula, 2008). Senate Bill 194 makes
a technical, nonsubstantive change to this statute.
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 5
Comments
1. The wrong side of the tracks . Disparities in public
facilities and services is nothing new. For decades, some
neighborhoods have enjoyed good schools, parks, libraries,
street lights, and police protection, while other areas
have endured rutted streets, low water pressure, inadequate
sewers and storm drains, and no curbs or sidewalks. There
are plenty of reasons for these differences, including
fiscal limits and political realities. A coalition of
advocates has compiled compelling information about these
persistent patterns. They want legislators to change the
rules for allocating public works funds so that these
disadvantaged unincorporated communities can remedy their
past problems. SB 194 tackles that challenge by weaving a
policy thread through the broader fabric of public works
funding programs. The bill starts by inviting local
elected officials to insert these concerns into their
general plans. SB 194 asks cities and counties that want
Proposition 84 funds to document the problems, adopt
responsive goals, and pursue feasible solutions. There is
no state mandated local program in the bill, but it
attaches strings to state fiscal assistance.
2. Scarce resources . The classic definition of politics
is that it's the process by which a society allocates
scarce resources. Without enough money to satisfy every
need, a community sorts out its priorities and spends its
revenues accordingly. In a state that's geographically
large, economically varied, and demographically diverse,
it's no wonder that different communities make different
choices about where to provide public services and
facilities. The local elected officials who set policy for
the 58 counties, 480 cities, and 3,400 special districts
struggle with the question of "who gets what." When
combined with the constitutional limits on raising new
local revenues, the state's archaic revenue and taxation
laws result in the fiscalization of land use. Hemmed in by
these fiscal realities, local officials often chase retail
development and other land uses that generate more revenue
while shunning low revenue neighborhoods that need
expensive public works. Before legislators plunge into the
reallocation of state and federal grants, they need to
straighten out the state-local fiscal relationship.
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 6
3. Noble motives, unpredictable consequences . Turning
ignored communities into strong neighborhoods is SB 194's
worthy goal. The bill relies on the existing tools of land
use planning and existing funding sources to focus
attention on the 1 million Californians who live in the
underserved island, fringe, and legacy communities. But
state legislators and local officials should be wary of the
rush to extend growth-inducing public facilities and
growth-supporting public services into remote rural areas.
Installing sewers and expanding water supplies will improve
the public health, but their very existence may also
accelerate land speculation and urban sprawl. It's one
thing to clean-up a distressed pocket of poverty surrounded
by existing development, but it's quite another problem if
helping a remote "legacy community" becomes a speculator's
excuse to justify leapfrog development. The Committee may
wish to consider scaling back SB 194 so that the bill
focuses attention on the island and fringe communities.
4. Too prescriptive ? Most of SB 194 uses fiscal carrots
to influence local officials' behaviors towards
disadvantaged communities. However, Section 5 creates a
new statutory formula that nonmetropolitan cities and
counties must follow when spending their federal CDBG
funds. This new section requires city councils and county
supervisors to spend money within each existing
supervisorial or city council district, based on the
percentage of poor people within those districts. In
effect, SB 194 takes away local political discretion over
CDBG spending in rural areas. Are there widespread
documented patterns of neglect that justify this
legislative intrusion into local control and home rule?
5. Watch your language . SB 194 introduces the terms
fringe community, island community, and legacy community to
the statutory vocabulary. These new terms and their
definitions will frame future decisions. For that reason,
legislators should be sure that these words have the right
meanings. A fringe community must be within 1 miles of
the city limits or within or adjacent to a city's sphere of
influence. There is no rational basis for setting an
arbitrary 1 mile standard. There could be a significant
gap of active farmland between a city's limits and an aging
mobilehome park. Instead of putting arbitrary distances
into the statute, the Committee may wish to consider
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 7
defining a fringe community as a settled place within a
city's sphere of influence. Similarly, the bill's use of a
75% standard to define an island community is different
than the existing statutory definition that LAFCOs use.
Avoiding arbitrary numbers, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act
looks at unincorporated islands that are "substantially
surrounded," leaving the LAFCOs to adapt the standard to
local conditions and circumstances. The Committee may wish
to modify SB 194's definition to more closely follow the
definition that LAFCOs currently use.
6. Spot section ? Capitol observers say that a "spot bill"
is a legislative measure which makes only a technical,
nonsubstantive amendment to current law and exists as a
placeholder for later, sometimes controversial changes. Is
the minor amendment to the new Small Community Grant Fund
in Section 9 of SB 194 just a placeholder for more
ambitious changes to that new program? The Committee may
wish to consider deleting that section from the bill until
the concept is better understood.
7. Technical amendments . Although the April 22 amendments
improved the bill's language, the Committee may wish to
consider additional clarifying and technical amendments:
In Section 2, "locality" should be "city or county"
to be consistent with the rest of the general plan
statute (page 4, line 28).
In Section 2, "municipality" should be "city" (page
5, lines 34 & 35).
In Section 5, "local government" should be "city or
county" to be consistent with the terms used in the
CDBG program (page 7, lines 3 & 4).
In Section 6, "developed" should be "adopted" (page
7, line 21).
8. Double referred . The Senate Rules Committee ordered
the double-referral of SB 194; first to the Senate Local
Government Committee and then back to the Rules Committee.
The bill's provisions relating to general plan amendments
and the Strategic Growth Council's use of Proposition 84
funds for planning assistance are squarely within the
Senate Local Government Committee's policy jurisdiction.
Other policy committees may be interested in the bill's
provisions affecting the Air Pollution Control Fund,
Community Development Block Grants, Safe Routes to School
grants, and the Small Community Grant Fund. That's up to
SB 194 -- 4/22/09 -- Page 8
the Senate Rules Committee to decide.
Support and Opposition (4/23/09)
Support : California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Center on Race, Poverty
& The Environment, El Comite para el Bienestar de
Earlimart, Community Water Center, Dolores Huerta
Foundation, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights,
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Fresno City
Councilmember Henry T. Perea, Fresno County Supervisor
Henry Fresno Metro Ministry, Planning and Conservation
League, Organizac?on en California de Lideres Campesinas
Inc., Seven Trees Coalition.
Opposition : League of California Cities.