BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1174 HEARING: 4/19/10
AUTHOR: Wolk FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/13/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Background and Existing Law
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.
Proposition 84 (2006) authorized $5.4 billion in state
bonds and specifically set aside $90 million for "planning
grants and planning incentives." The Strategic Growth
Council manages these programs (SB 732, Steinberg, 2008).
The Council intends to award planning grants to cities and
counties worth $22 million a year in 2010-11, 2011-12,
2012-13. Concerned about the inequities faced by
disadvantaged communities, the Council will prioritize 20%
of each year's grants for work that benefits economically
disadvantaged communities.
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
SB 1174 -- 4/13/10 -- Page 2
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.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 1174 requires cities and counties to review and
update the elements of their general plans to include data
and analysis, goals, and implementation measures regarding
unincorporated islands, fringe, or legacy communities.
Local officials must act before January 1, 2013 and, after
that, each time they revise their housing elements.
SB 1174 requires these general plans reviews and revisions
to include:
Identification of unincorporated islands, fringe,
or legacy communities, including descriptions and
maps.
Quantification and analysis of six conditions
regarding deficient services, facilities, and housing
conditions.
Analysis of current programs and activities that
address those conditions.
Specific, quantified goals for eliminating or
reducing those conditions.
Flexible implementation measures to carry out those
goals.
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
median household income.
"Unincorporated fringe community" is the inhabited
territory within a city's sphere of influence.
"Unincorporated island community" is the inhabited
territory that is substantially surrounded by city
limits or cities and the Pacific Ocean.
"Unincorporated legacy community" is a
SB 1174 -- 4/13/10 -- Page 3
geographically isolated community that has existed for
at least 50 years.
SB 1174 also contains legislative declarations in support
of its requirements.
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 1174 tackles that challenge by inserting
these concerns into local general plans. Long considered
the constitutions for community development, city and
county general plans guide local officials' development and
public works decisions. By putting these conditions
squarely in front of city councilmembers and county
supervisors, the bill makes it harder to ignore the
questions of social equity.
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, each 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 land
uses that generate more revenue while shunning low revenue
SB 1174 -- 4/13/10 -- Page 4
neighborhoods that need expensive public works. Before
legislators tell local officials what to do about
disadvantaged communities, they need to straighten out the
state-local fiscal relationship.
3. Details, details, details . The data required by SB
1174 exceed what local planners usually use in their
general plans. While knowing the availability of water and
sewer service and other public works is important when
describing disadvantaged communities, the bill's level of
detail looks more like a community plan or specific plan
than the direction found in general plans. Only the
housing element law is this prescriptive. The Committee
may wish to consider amendments that compress these
requirements into broad categories and allow local
officials to draft their general plans based on local
conditions and circumstances.
4. Just another mandate . The Legislature first required
cities and counties to adopt general plans in 1937 (AB 722,
Weber, 1937). Over the last 70 years, legislators have
insisted on increasingly detailed local plans. The recent
trend has been to require general plans to pay more
attention to specialized topics: San Joaquin Valley's air
quality (AB 170, Reyes, 2003), wildland fires (AB 3065,
Kehoe, 2004), tribal cultural places (SB 18, Burton, 2004),
military operating areas (SB 926, Knight, 2004), and flood
hazards (AB 162, Wolk, 2007). On April 7, the Committee
passed SB 1207 (Kehoe) which requires cities and counties
to improve how their general plans address wildland fire
hazards. As land use problems hit the headlines, they
capture the attention of legislators who react by imposing
new planning chores on cities and counties. But, unlike
other states, California doesn't invest State General Fund
money in long-range, comprehensive, local planning. The
burden of funding these new state mandated local programs
falls on local general funds and on the property owners who
apply for development permits. Even with money available
from the Proposition 84 grants, SB 1174 is just another
well-intentioned, but unfunded, state mandated local
program.
5. Better planning, better decisions . Comprehensive land
use planning serves two purposes. First, it helps public
officials avoid problems when they make decisions about the
future. Second, it helps public officials solve past
SB 1174 -- 4/13/10 -- Page 5
problems. The goal of planning is not the adoption of
plans, but preparing public officials to make better
decisions. Local general plans present information, set
goals and policies based on that information, and come up
with feasible measures to carry out those goals and
policies. SB 1174 applies a similar approach to the
problems that confront disadvantaged communities. SB 1174
helps local officials promote development that benefits
disadvantaged communities without obstructing the
community's long-term vision.
6. Legislative history . Last year, the Senate Local
Government Committee passed a much broader bill dealing
with disadvantaged communities. SB 194 (Florez, 2008)
remains in the Assembly Rules Committee, waiting for an
assignment to a policy committee. SB 1174 takes a
narrower focus, concentrating on local general plans and
avoiding the reallocation of federal and state grant
funds.
Support and Opposition (4/15/10)
Support : CRLA Foundation, California Pan-Ethnic Health
Network, California Communities Against Toxics, California
Environmental Rights Alliance, California Safe Schools,
Catholic Charities-Diocese of Stockton, Clean Water Action,
Community Water Center, Del Amo Action Committee, Ella
Baker Center for Human Rights, Environmental Justice
Coalition for Water, Fresno Metro Ministry, Housing
California, Just Transition Alliance, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, PolicyLink, San Joaquin Valley Latino
Environmental Advancement Project, Sierra Club-California,
The City Project, Urban Habitat, Professor Michelle Wilde
Anderson, Fresno County Supervisor Henry Perea, Kern County
Supervisor Michael J. Rubio.
Opposition : City of Fountain Valley, County of Los
Angeles.