BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2624 HEARING DATE: June 12, 2012
AUTHOR: Smyth URGENCY: No
VERSION: As introduced CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Sustainable communities.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. In 2008, the Strategic Growth Council was created as a
multi-cabinet level agency in part to implement a provision in
Prop 84 that included $90 million for planning grants and
incentives related to future regional and local land use plans.
Eligible entities included councils of government (COGs),
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), cities, counties, and
joint powers authorities (JPAs). A central purpose of the
council was to coordinate on a multi-agency basis the grants
with the new multi-disciplinary planning provisions of SB 375.
2. The council has one round of grant awards left before its
funds are exhausted and there is not another resources or other
bond with funds for this purpose pending. Approximately $12.5
million remains for grants in the next cycle.
3. The text of Prop 84 provided $90 million "for planning grants
and planning incentives, including revolving loan programs and
other methods to encourage the development of regional
and local land use plans that are designed to promote water
conservation, reduce automobile use and fuel consumption,
encourage greater infill and compact development, protect
natural resources and agricultural lands, and revitalize urban
and community centers."
4. Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are required
under current law to complete a municipal service review (MSR)
prior to a sphere of influence update, which occurs every 5
years or whenever needed. The MSR process assesses the ability
of local government
1
agencies (cities, special districts and counties) to effectively
and efficiently provide
services to residents and users. The form and content of the MSR
is provided for in the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of
2000 and the
State of California's LAFCO MSR Guidelines. The purpose of the
MSR is to provide information to the LAFCO to use in updating
the sphere of influence (SOI) for each local agency. LAFCO is
not required to initiate boundary or sphere changes as part of
this service review. LAFCO, local agencies, or the public may
use the service reviews together with additional studies, where
necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries,
including annexations, reorganizations, district formations,
etc. LAFCO may also use the information in this report in
reviewing future proposals related to changes of organization or
reorganizations. The MSRs examine factors including growth and
population projections, capacity of public facilities,
infrastructure needs related to basic public services such as
police, fire, and water.
5. SB 375 already requires that the metropolitan planning
organizations in California must consider the spheres of
influence that have been adopted by the LAFCOs within its
region. This provision is in section 65080(b)(2)(F) of the
Government Code.
PROPOSED LAW
AB 2624 adds LAFCOs to the list of eligible applicants for
financial assistance grants and loans made by the Strategic
Growth Council for the purpose of developing, adopting, and
implementing a regional plan or other planning document to
support the development of sustainable communities as that term
is defined in SB 732 (Steinberg).
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author and the LAFCOs that are in support, this
bill is necessary because, with grant funding, LAFCOs would be
able to prepare more extensive MSRs in collaboration with MPOs
to provide data to complete regional transportation plans or
sustainable communities strategies under SB 375. The second
major point made by the author is that direct grant funding of
LAFCOs would avoid the need for MPOs to expend funds to develop
information that LAFCOs could provide and that such an outcome
would foster greater collaboration among the MPO and the LAFCOs
in a given region.
2
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
The following comments are unusual for a bill that passed the
Assembly on consent, but staff is compelled to bring some
concerns to the attention of the Committee.
1. The text of Prop 84, cited earlier, requires grants to
support regional and local land use plans. Moreover, those plans
must include the referenced series of topics contained in Item 3
of the Existing Law section. LAFCOs do not themselves propose
land use plans (although their work contributes to those plans)
and their statutory duties to not extend to all of the criteria
contained in the text of Prop 84 that defines eligibility for
these planning grants. The Legislature is not able to change the
text of Prop 84 which was approved by the voters. LAFCOs seem
therefore to be ineligible for such grants not only because they
do not prepare land use plans but because many of the issues
required to be addressed in those land use plans exceed the
jurisdiction of LAFCOs.
2. The dire economic conditions facing local governments and
special districts, the source of funds for LAFCOs across the
state, are well-known. As a consequence, LAFCOs are also in dire
economic straits. The question this bill raises is whether, as
the end approaches for the existing grant-making process of the
Strategic Growth Council, is it reasonable and fair to expand
that process by making LAFCOs eligible for grants? As noted
earlier, about $12 million is left for grants. Applications for
funding outpace available funds by at least 3:1 and perhaps 4:1
according to the Strategic Growth Council.
3.. The statutory entities that are required to develop
sustainable communities strategies and local land use plans that
are subject to SB 375 are the metropolitan planning
organizations and cities and counties. LAFCOs are not
specifically directed to do anything in SB 375. On the other
hand, the work of LAFCOs with regard to updating spheres of
influence within their jurisdictions is already required by SB
375 to be considered by the MPO when a sustainable communities
strategy is developed.
4. The bill seeks grant funding for the existing statutory
duties of LAFCOs. The Committee should consider whether that is
or is not an acceptable use of grant funding. This concern is
magnified when considered in light of the unmet planning funding
3
needs of MPOs who are directed to achieve certain outcomes in SB
375 that do not apply to LAFCOs, even though LAFCOs can and do
provide valuable information to the SB 375 process.
5. SB 732 provides that the grants should go to those entities
that work on regional plans or other planning documents that
improve air and water quality, natural resource protection,
affordable housing, transportation, meets the climate goals of
AB 32, and encourages sustainable land use. Some, but clearly
not all, of these topics may be handled by some LAFCOs, but, as
with the discussion above referencing the text of Prop 84, there
is no explicit statutory provision that LAFCOs should include
each of these topics in their work products. The bill also does
not provide any direction for LAFCOs to expand their work to
include these topics or to provide any direction to the council
on how to evaluate applications from LAFCOs that may include
some but not all of these topics in the work for which the
proposes grant funding.
6. The existing law from SB 732, reflected on page 2, lines
18-21 of AB 2624, clearly states that the first priority of a
grant application shall be for funding that adds or enhances
elements of a regional plan that are not funded with federal
moneys. SB 732 defines "regional plan" as a regional
transportation plan or a regional planning blueprint, either of
which may benefit if an MPO includes information from a region's
LAFCO's, but which is not a requirement in developing such
planning documents.
SUPPORT
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Butte LAFCO
Santa Barbara LAFCO
Orange County LAFCO
Santa Clara LAFCO
Stanislaus LAFCO
Amador LAFCO
OPPOSITION
None Received
4
5