BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 244 HEARING: 4/27/11
AUTHOR: Wolk FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/25/11 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Detwiler
PLANNING FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Requires counties, cities, and LAFCOs to plan for
disadvantaged communities.
Background
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. The 2000 Census identified 583
census designated places in California. The Department of
Finance says that 159 of those CDPs had 2005-09 household
median incomes that were less than 80% of the statewide
household median income. The 2010 Census identified 1,043
CDPs in California and when fresh income data become
available in late 2011, many of them will be considered
disadvantaged.
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).
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 has awarded $26 million in planning grants.
Concerned about the inequities faced by disadvantaged
communities, the Council will prioritize 20% of each year's
planning grants for work that benefits economically
disadvantaged communities.
Many disadvantaged unincorporated communities lack public
services and even public facilities like domestic water,
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 2
sanitary sewers, paved streets, storm drains, and street
lights. Some cities and special districts are reluctant to
annex these areas. Advocates want legislators to require
local officials to include disadvantaged communities in
their long-range planning for land use and public
facilities.
Proposed Law
I. County and city general plans . 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.
Senate Bill 244 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 island, fringe, or legacy communities. This
requirement applies the next time that local officials
revise their general plans and each time they revise their
housing elements.
SB 244 requires the updated general plans to include:
Identifications of island, fringe, and legacy
communities, and must include descriptions and
location maps of the communities.
For each community, analyses of seven specified
services, facilities and conditions.
An analysis of the city or county's current
programs and activities to address those conditions or
deficiencies.
An identification of any constraints to addressing
those conditions or deficiencies.
An analysis that evaluates the annexation of island
or fringe communities.
A statement of the city or county's specific,
quantified goals for eliminating or reducing those
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 3
conditions or deficiencies.
A set of flexible implementation measures to carry
out those goals, including an identification of
resources and a timeline of actions.
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
geographically isolated community that has existed for
at least 50 years. ݧ5]
II. Local agency formation commissions . The
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a local agency formation
commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries
of cities and most special districts. The courts
repeatedly refer to the LAFCOs as the Legislature's
watchdog over boundary changes. To plan for the future
boundaries and service areas of the cities and special
districts, a LAFCO must prepare informational reports
called municipal service reviews and then adopt a policy
document for each city and district called a sphere of
influence. The LAFCOs' boundary decisions must be
consistent with the spheres of influence of the affected
cities or districts.
State law lists the factors that a LAFCO must consider when
it reviews proposals. One factor is the extent to which
the proposal will promote environmental justice; the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes
regarding the location of public facilities and provision
of public services (SB 162, Negrete McLeod, 2007).
Municipal service reviews . In the late 1990s, the
Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century
reviewed the LAFCOs' activities, including how they
prepared their spheres of influence. The Legislature
adopted the recommendation that LAFCOs must periodically
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 4
conduct "municipal service reviews" to inform their
decisions about spheres of influence. Municipal service
reviews must analyze and make determinations about six
topics (AB 2838, Hertzberg, 2000; AB 1744, Assembly Local
Government Committee, 2007):
Growth and population projections.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities
and adequacy of public services, including
infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
Agencies' financial abilities to provide services.
Opportunities for sharing facilities.
Accountability for community service needs.
Other matters relating to effective or efficient
services.
Senate Bill 244 adds the location and characteristics of
any inhabited communities to the required contents of
municipal service reviews. SB 244 requires the LAFCOs to
assess various alternatives, including the consolidation of
governmental agencies, for improving infrastructure and
services within and adjacent to spheres of influence. ݧ4]
Spheres of influence . Starting January 1, 2008, and then
every five years, a LAFCO must, as needed, review and
update the spheres of influence for each city and special
district in its county. For each sphere, the LAFCO must
prepare written determinations regarding:
Present and planned land uses.
Present and probable need for public facilities and
services.
Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy
of public services.
Any relevant social and economic communities of
interest.
On the next review and update of a sphere of influence
after July 1, 2012, Senate Bill 244 requires a LAFCO to
review and update the sphere of influence of each city or
special district that provides sewers, municipal and
industrial water, or structural fire protection facilities
or services to include the present and probable need for
facilities and services of disadvantaged inhabited
communities within or adjacent to the sphere of influence.
The LAFCO may assess the feasibility of government
reorganizations and recommend reorganizations. ݧ3]
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 5
" Disadvantaged inhabited community ." Senate Bill 244
defines a disadvantaged inhabited community as inhabited
territory that is all or part of a "disadvantaged
community" as defined by a specific Water Code section that
refers to a community with an annual median household
income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median
income. ݧ2]
III. Findings and declarations . Legislators sometimes
insert formal findings and declarations in their bills as
signals to the public, other officials, and the courts
about the Legislature's intent. Senate Bill 244 contains
three legislative findings and declarations in support of
its requirements and a statement of legislative intent
regarding disadvantaged unincorporated communities. ݧ1]
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . Disparities in public facilities
and services are nothing new; some communities are on the
wrong side of the tracks. 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 land use and
service planning requirements so that disadvantaged
unincorporated communities can remedy their past problems.
SB 224 tackles that challenge by inserting these concerns
into counties and cities' general plans and the LAFCOs'
municipal service reviews and spheres of influence. For
nearly 75 years, state law has required counties and cities
to adopt comprehensive land use plans. The Legislature
told the LAFCOs 40 years ago to adopt spheres of influence
to guide their thinking about cities and districts' future
service areas and boundaries. A decade ago, legislators
told the LAFCOs to examine infrastructure deficiencies in
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 6
their municipal service reviews. Nevertheless, unfair
disparities still persist. By putting the conditions faced
by disadvantaged communities squarely in front of the
counties, cities, and LAFCOs, the bill makes it harder for
local officials 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, 481 cities, and 3,300 special districts
struggle with the classic 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
neighborhoods that need expensive public works. Before
legislators tell counties, cities, and the LAFCOs what to
do about disadvantaged communities, they need to straighten
out the state-local fiscal relationship.
3. Focused attention . To help disadvantaged communities
get better public facilities and services, SB 244 changes
the contents of local general plans, municipal service
reviews, and spheres of influence. The bill inserts
disadvantaged communities' concerns in three focused ways.
First, SB 244 requires county and city general plans to
include detailed analyses of disadvantaged communities'
needs for services and facilities. Second, the bill
inserts a general reference to disadvantaged communities'
needs as part of the LAFCOs' broad municipal service
reviews. Third, based on those municipal service reviews,
the bill targets the spheres of influence for cities and
districts that provide sewers, domestic and industrial
water, and structural fire protection --- the three
services that are essential to suburban and urban
development. This focused attention adapts the structure
of the Planning and Zoning Law and the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act to the disadvantaged
communities' concerns.
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 7
4. We've propositioned ourselves . Proposition 4 (1979)
amended the California Constitution to require the state
government to pay for the local costs of new state-mandated
local programs. One legislative response was to disclaim
the state's responsibility because local officials had the
power to raise revenues by passing local taxes,
assessments, or fees. For example, when the Legislature
required San Joaquin Valley counties and cities to amend
their general plans to include air quality concerns, the
bill didn't appropriate any state funds, but instead
contained the so-called "local fee disclaimer" (AB 170,
Reyes, 2003). Proposition 26 (2010) amended the California
Constitution to define most local charges as "taxes,"
unless they fit into one of seven specific exceptions.
That constitutional amendment calls into question the
practice of charging local fees to pay for the costs of new
state-mandated planning requirements. SB 244 doesn't
appropriate state money to pay for its new mandated
planning, but recognizes that local agencies may file
claims to reimburse their costs.
5. Earlier bills . SB 244 is the latest in a series of
bills to insert the concerns of disadvantaged communities
into the land use planning statutes. SB 1174 (Wolk, 2010)
concentrated on local general plans; the bill died on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file. AB 853
(Arambula, 2010) focused on the LAFCOs' municipal service
reviews, spheres of influence, and city annexation
procedures; Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill as
"unnecessary." SB 194 (Florez, 2010) looked at
disadvantaged communities' needs for public works funding;
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill as "unnecessary."
6. Technical amendments . The Committee should adopt the
following technical amendments to improve the bill without
changing its intent:
In �56430 (a) (2), conform the list of facilities
and services to �56425 (e)(2).
In �65302.10 (b), restore the phrase "and
thereafter upon"
In �65302.10 (b), "policies and objectives" should
be next to "goals"
In �65302.10 (b) (5), "flexible" should read
"feasible."
SB 244 -- 4/25/11 -- Page 8
Support and Opposition (4/21/11)
Support : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation;
California Coalition for Rural Housing; California
Pan-Ethnic Health Network; Catholic Charities-Diocese of
Stockton; Clean Water Action California; Committee for a
Better Seville; Community Water Center; Environmental
Justice Coalition for Water; Food and Water Watch; Having
Our Say; Natural Resources Defense Council; Planning and
Conservation League; San Jerado Cooperative, Inc.; Sierra
Club-California; Southern California Watershed Alliance;
Urban Habitat; Urban Semillas; Unitarian Universalist
Legislative Ministry Network California; United for Change
in Tooleville; Winnemem Winte Tribe-Middle River People; 24
individuals.
Opposition : American Planning Association-California
Chapter; California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions; California State Association of Counties;
League of California Cities; Regional Council of Rural
Counties; County of Los Angeles; San Diego LAFCO.