BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1174|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1174
Author: Wolk (D), et al
Amended: 4/29/10
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 3-2, 4/19/10
AYES: Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
NOES: Cox, Aanestad
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/10/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Cox, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Corbett, Denham
SUBJECT : Land use: general plan: disadvantaged
unincorporated
communities
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires cities and counties to update
elements of general plans to include specified information
to address the presence of unincorporated island, fringe,
or legacy communities. The general plan update must occur
by January 1, 2013 and upon each future update of the
housing element, and would include the following: (1)
identification and mapping of each unincorporated island or
fringe community located within a city, and of each legacy
community located within a county, (2) quantification and
analysis of six specified conditions regarding deficient
CONTINUED
SB 1174
Page
2
services, facilities, and housing conditions, (3) analysis
of current programs and activities that address those
conditions, and an evaluation of the feasibility of
annexation or extension of service to those areas, and (4)
a statement of specific, quantified goals for eliminating
or reducing those conditions, and a flexible program of
actions to achieve these goals, including an identification
of timelines and timelines.
ANALYSIS : The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or
county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for
the physical development of the city or county and of any
land outside its boundaries that bears relation to its
planning.
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, Chapter
729, Statutes of 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 percent 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
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.
This bill 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
Page
3
This bill requires these updated general plans reviews and
revisions to include:
1.In the case of a city, an identification of each
unincorporated island or fringe community, or in the case
of a county, of each legacy community, including
descriptions and maps.
2.Analysis of specified conditions regarding deficient
services, facilities.
3.Analysis of current programs and activities that address
those conditions, and whether annexation, or extension of
services to, an identified island or fringe community is
appropriate.
4.Specific, quantified goals for eliminating or reducing
those conditions.
5.Flexible implementation measures to carry out those
goals.
This bill requires a city and county make a diligent effort
to involve all members of the public in preparing the
reviews and updates required.
The bill defines these terms:
1."Disadvantaged unincorporated community" is a fringe,
island, or legacy community where the median household
income is 80 percent or less of the statewide median
household income.
2."Unincorporated fringe community" is the inhabited
territory within a city's sphere of influence.
3."Unincorporated island community" is the inhabited
territory that is substantially surrounded by city limits
or cities and the Pacific Ocean.
4."Unincorporated legacy community" is a geographically
isolated community that has existed for at least 50
years.
SB 1174
Page
4
This bill also contains legislative declarations in support
of its requirements.
Comments
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 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. This bill applies a similar
approach to the problems that confront disadvantaged
communities. This bill helps local officials promote
development that benefits disadvantaged communities without
obstructing the community's long-term vision.
Related Legislation
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.
This bill takes a narrower focus, concentrating on local
general plans and avoiding the reallocation of federal and
state grant funds.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, local
governments have broad fee authority to cover costs
associated with planning duties, including general plan
updates. Specifically, existing law authorizes local
agencies to impose zoning and permit fees that include
"costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise plans and
policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it
can make any necessary findings and determinations." Case
law and previous decisions by the Commission on State
Mandates support the position that local governments'
planning costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes
new planning mandates. However, to the extent that general
SB 1174
Page
5
plans have been recently updated or would be required to be
updated outside the general cycle, SB 1174 would result in
significant additional costs to local governments that they
may not be able to recover in the timeframes specified in
the bill. Proposition 84, approved by the voters in 2006,
authorized $5.4 billion in state general obligation bonds
and specifically set aside $90 million for "planning grants
and planning incentives." The Strategic Growth Council,
established by SB 732 (Steinberg), Chapter 729 of 2008,
manages these programs and 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. These funds could be accessed
by local governments for the general plan updates required
by this bill.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/12/10)
CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source)
PolicyLink (co-source)
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
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
Housing California
SB 1174
Page
6
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/12/10)
County of Los Angeles
City of Fountain Valley
City of Sacramento
California State Association of Counties
League of CA Cities
Regional Council of Rural Counties
American Planning Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"SB 1174 ensures that local governments include
unincorporated communities in the local planning process.
At the time of their next housing element update or
comprehensive general plan update, which ever occurs first,
local governments will need to:
1.Identify disadvantaged unincorporated communities within
their sphere of influence;
2.Conduct an assessment of the infrastructure conditions
within these communities and identify existing
deficiencies; and
3.Develop goals, objectives, and a timeline for addressing
those conditions.
"This will ensure that local planning responds to the unmet
needs of California's poorest communities and supports the
development of healthy, equitable, and prosperous
communities for all Californians.
"According to the U.S. Census data, Californians live in
disadvantaged, unincorporated communities. Predominantly
Latino and African American, these communities range from
remote but concentrated settlements of industrial or
agricultural laborers; to neighborhoods at the fringes of
cities and towns that have been left out of city borders;
to islands within cities, surrounded on all sides by an
incorporated city but excluded from all of its services.
"Residents of these areas often live without the most basic
features of a safe and healthy environment - services like
SB 1174
Page
7
clean water, sewage lines, storm drains, streetlights, and
safe housing. Dependent on county governance for urban
needs, these communities are systematically underserved in
the overall allocation of public resources and are
frequently left out of local planning processes. This
neglect and deprivation prevents these neighborhoods from
realizing their potential as livable and economically
viable communities and threatens the health, safety, and
economic security of residents.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents state, "As
currently drafted, this bill would impose a very expensive
new mandate on cities and counties to amend their General
Plans with an extraordinary amount of detail regarding not
only disadvantaged but fringe communities, and mitigate a
very broad and un-prioritized list of services in these
communities without funds to complete the requirements. SB
1174 would require a city or county to amend its General
Plan to address the presence of island, fringe, or legacy
unincorporated communities inside or near its boundaries.
The definition of 'unincorporated communities' to which
this new mandate applies is extremely broad, including a
fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median
household income is 80% or less than the statewide median
household income (a very high income threshold that will
mandate additional planning efforts many areas), any
inhabited and unincorporated territory that is within a
city's sphere of influence or that is surrounded or
substantially surrounded by one or more cities, or a
geographically isolated community that is inhabited and has
existed for at least 50 years - regardless of income in the
community. ? Other implementation roadblocks include the
fact that sidewalks and other services listed in the bill
are amenities that many local communities and counties do
not want. Some of these issues are problems on every
street in California - street lighting and high housing
costs for example. And there is a patchwork of special
districts that govern existing infrastructure in many of
these communities, making it difficult to coordinate
changes. Most recently, cities and counties have begun
using community plans rather than the General Plan to
address disadvantaged communities, using community-based
planning to address residents' wants and needs, determining
which are the areas and infrastructure most in need, and
SB 1174
Page
8
then addressing these areas as funding becomes available.
But, this bill includes a definition of 'substandard' that
is not prioritized and is so broad, funding will not be
available in any foreseeable future."
DLW:AGB:nl 5/12/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****