BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
BILL NO: SB 211 HEARING: 4/1/09
AUTHOR: Simitian FISCAL: No
VERSION: 3/26/09 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Background and Existing Law
Regional park and open space districts can sell bonds to
acquire property by purchase or eminent domain. They can
use general obligation bonds paid for by higher property
tax rates that require 2/3-voter approval, Mello-Roos Act
bonds paid for by special taxes (parcel taxes) that require
2/3-voter approval, and assessment bonds paid for by
benefit assessments that require the property owners'
approval with weighted-ballots. Some of these regional
districts have their own directly-elected boards of
directors; county supervisors govern others, ex officio.
To form a new regional open space district, the proponents
must first get approval from the local agency formation
commission (LAFCO) and then circulate petitions which must
be signed by at least 5,000 registered voters. A
successful petition results in a public hearing by the
county board of supervisors which can approve or disapprove
the request to form the new district. If the county
supervisors approve, then the matter goes to the ballot.
Formation requires majority voter approval.
In Santa Cruz County, four independent recreation and park
districts and a county-run county service area provide park
services in the unincorporated communities outside the
County's four cities. Although mostly in San Mateo and
Santa Clara counties, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District also overlaps a small corner of Santa Cruz County.
Open space advocates in Santa Cruz County want to form a
countywide regional open space district with a
directly-elected board of directors. Looking to the
statutory precedents created for other counties, they want
permission to expedite the proposed district's formation.
Proposed Law
SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 2
Senate Bill 211 allows the Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors to initiate the formation of a regional park
and open space district with boundaries that are
coterminous with the County, except for territory within
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The county
supervisors can hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution,
and call the election in lieu of the usual petitions and
local agency formation commission hearings and decisions.
SB 211 requires the county supervisors' resolution to:
Name the district and explain the reasons for its
formation.
Describe the district's financing methods.
Specify that a directly-elected board of directors
will run the district.
Call the formation election.
The bill allows the county supervisors to combine the
formation election with other ballot measures to set the
district's appropriations limit, levy special taxes, or
authorize general obligation bonds.
Comments
1. Small, but lovely . Although Santa Cruz County is
California's second smallest county in area, its beaches,
mountains, and rivers are among the prettiest. The
County's agricultural land, forests, and remaining natural
habitats are valuable natural resources. Although state
and local parks protect some of these special areas, there
is local interest in creating a strong and well-funded
program to acquire and preserve more open space. SB 211
gives local voters the chance to set up an independent
special district with that focus. Relying on similar
legislative precedents for other counties, the bill allows
Santa Cruz County officials to expedite the formation of a
regional open space district.
2. Already within reach . Everything that SB 211 makes
possible is already within reach of Santa Cruz County's
voters and public officials. Current law already allows
the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to ask its
voters to approve a countywide sales tax hike to pay for
acquiring and managing more open space property. Current
SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 3
law allows the county supervisors and county staff to run a
countywide open space program, avoiding the creation of
another independent special district with its own
directly-elected board of directors and separate employees.
Current law requires the county government to follow the
land use policies in its own general plan when buying open
space property, while a separate district would set its own
acquisition priorities. The Committee may wish to consider
whether legislators should encourage the creation of
another local government when the county government already
has these powers.
3. A hollow shell ? Irrational exuberance and SB 211 may
create a new regional open space district that can't
deliver on its promises. Although the bill lets the county
supervisors combine the formation election with ballot
measures to pay for acquiring open space, they don't have
to. It's possible that the county supervisors will put
only the formation, but not the financing, on the ballot.
How will the new district pay for its operations, including
hiring staff, setting acquisition priorities, and holding
future elections? There may be local support for setting
up a new open space district, but are the voters ready to
pay for acquiring ranches, forests, and beaches? If
legislators don't link governance and finance, they invite
voters to create hollow shells --- institutions that look
like they can deliver, but can't pay for their promises.
The Committee may wish to consider an amendment that
follows the recent state laws for setting up new community
services districts and new county service areas: forming a
new district is contingent on the voters' concurrent
approval of the new district's revenues.
4. This land is your land . Counties' public works
projects must be consistent with their own general plans.
Likewise, when a special district buys property or builds
public works, it must follow the general plan of the
underlying county or city. However, if a county or city
disapproves of a special district's land acquisition, the
district can overrule the county or city's general plan.
Similarly, with a 4/5-vote of its governing board, a
special district can overrule a local zoning ordinance if
the district's governing board finds that there are no
feasible alternatives. An independent regional open space
district in Santa Cruz County could use these current laws
SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 4
to thwart the land use policies set by the city councils in
Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville, in
addition to the County's general plan for the
unincorporated area. The Committee may wish to consider an
amendment that requires the new regional open space
district's acquisition program to follow the land use
policies of the underlying general plans.
5. A silent watchdog . The courts call local agency
formation commissions (LAFCOs) the Legislature's watchdogs
over cities and districts' boundaries. The Legislature has
delegated its inherent power to control local boundaries to
the 58 LAFCOs, telling them to discourage urban sprawl,
preserve open space and agricultural lands, provide
efficient government services, and encourage orderly
government --- all based on local conditions and
circumstances. The Legislature has waived LAFCOs' control
over some districts' boundaries, particularly when they are
coterminous with the boundaries of a single county. SB 211
exempts the formation of the proposed Santa Cruz regional
open space district from LAFCO's review. However, the
proposed district would not be coterminous with the
County's boundaries because the bill slices off the 765
acres that are already within the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District's boundaries. The Midpeninsula
District also owns the 800-acre Loma Prieta Ranch in Santa
Cruz County, although that property is not yet within the
District's existing boundaries. These detailed boundary
questions may deserve the Santa Cruz LAFCO's careful
review. The Committee may wish to consider whether the
bill should exempt the formation of a noncontiguous
regional open space district from LAFCO's review.
6. A smattering of precedents . The regional park and open
space district law is the principal act for such well-known
agencies as the East Bay Regional Parks District and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Starting in
1972, 10 special bills have allowed county supervisors to
start formation proceedings for regional open space
districts without the sponsors having to gather more than
5,000 signatures on petitions:
Los Angeles SB 659 (Hill, 1991)
Marin AB 2353 (Bagley, 1972)
Napa SB 1306 (Thompson, 1992)
Riverside SB 486 (Bergeson, 1989)
SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 5
Sacramento SB 779 (Johnston, 1993)
San Bernardino AB 775 (Eaves, 1990)
Santa Barbara AB 1613 (Lempert, 2000)
Sonoma AB 3630 (Filante, 1990)
Ventura AB 1145 (Jackson, 2002)
As the following table reports, these special bills usually
required the regional open space districts to be
coterminous with county boundaries, usually exempted their
formations from LAFCO review because they would be
coterminous, and usually required the county supervisors to
govern the districts ex officio. The Legislature
prohibited three independent districts from using the usual
statutory power of eminent domain to condemn private
property.
Regional Open Space Districts With Special Legislation
LAFCO ElectedEminent
County Boundaries ? review ? board ? domain ?
Los Angeles Coterminous
ExemptSupervisorsYes
Marin Coterminous
ExemptSupervisorsYes
Napa Coterminous Exempt YesProhibited
Riverside Western part Yes
SupervisorsYes
Sacramento* Coterminous
ExemptSupervisorsYes
San Bernardino* Any territory
YesSupervisors Yes
San Diego* Coterminous
ExemptSupervisorsYes
SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 6
Santa Barbara* Any territory Yes YesProhibited
Sonoma Coterminous
ExemptSupervisorsYes
Ventura* Any territory Yes Or
appointed Prohibited
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Santa Cruz** Nearly ExemptYesYes
coterminous
* District never formed
** As proposed by SB 211
Support and Opposition (3/26/09)
Support : Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
AFL-CIO, California Council of Land Trusts, County of Santa
Cruz.
Opposition : Unknown.