BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 244
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
SB 244 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 14, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 25-14
SUBJECT : Land use: general plan: disadvantaged unincorporated
communities
SUMMARY : Requires cities, counties, and local agency formation
commissions (LAFCOs) to plan for disadvantaged communities.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines, for purposes of LAFCO law, the term "disadvantaged
inhabited community" to mean inhabited territory with 12 or
more registered voters, or as determined by LAFCO policy, that
constitutes all or a portion of a "disadvantaged community,"
which is defined in the Water Code to be "a community with an
annual median household income that is less than 80% of the
statewide annual median household income."
2)Requires, upon the next update of a sphere of influence that
occurs on or after July 1, 2012, the inclusion of the present
and probable need for public facilities and services of any
disadvantaged inhabited communities within or contiguous to
the existing or proposed sphere of influence of the subject
city or special district, for a city or special district that
provides public facilities or services related to sewers,
municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection.
3)Allows, in the LAFCO's determination of the sphere of
influence, the LAFCO to assess the feasibility of governmental
reorganization or particular agencies and recommend
reorganization of those agencies when they are found to be
feasible and if reorganization will further the goals of
orderly development as well as efficient and affordable
service delivery.
4)Requires the LAFCO, in the written statement of its
determinations for a municipal service review to additionally
consider the following:
a) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
SB 244
Page 2
inhabited communities; and,
b) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and
adequacy of public services, including sewers, municipal
and industrial water, and structural fire protection needs
or deficiencies of disadvantaged, unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the agency's proposed
sphere of influence.
5)Allows a LAFCO, in conducting a municipal service review, to
assess various alternatives for improving efficiency and
affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within
and contiguous to the sphere of influence, including, but not
limited to, the consolidation of governmental agencies.
6)Requires, upon the next revision of its housing element, the
legislative body of a city or county to review and update one
or more elements of its general plan as necessary to include
an analysis, based on available data and analysis of the
presence of unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy
communities inside or near its boundaries.
7)Requires the updated general plan to include all of the
following:
a) In the case of a city, an identification of each
unincorporated island or fringe community, within the
city's sphere of influence.
b) In the case of a county, an identification of each
legacy community within the boundaries of the county, but
not including any area within the sphere of influence of
any city.
c) Requires that the identification include a description
of the community and a map designating its location.
d) For each identified community, an analysis of water,
wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire
protection needs or deficiencies, and if appropriate,
sidewalks and street lighting.
e) An analysis of resources and a timeline of actions.
8)Requires, on or before the due date for the next revision of
SB 244
Page 3
its housing element, the planning agency to review, and if
necessary amend its general plan to update the analysis,
goals, and actions.
9)Prohibits a LAFCO from approving an annexation to a city of
any territory where there exists a disadvantaged inhabited
community that is contiguous to the area of proposed
annexation, unless the annexation application includes a
separate application to annex the disadvantaged unincorporated
inhabited territory to the subject city.
10)Defines, for purposes of general plan law, the following
terms:
a) Defines "community" to mean an inhabited area within a
city or county that is comprised of no less than ___
dwelling adjacent or in close proximity to one another.
b) Defines "disadvantaged unincorporated community" to mean
a fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median
household income is 80% or less than the statewide median
household income.
c) Defines "unincorporated fringe community" to mean any
inhabited and unincorporated territory that is within a
city's sphere of influence.
d) Defines "unincorporated island community" to mean any
inhabited and unincorporated territory that is surrounded
or substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one
or more cities and a county boundary of the Pacific Ocean.
11)Provides that no reimbursement is required by the bill's
provisions because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated
by the bill's provisions.
12)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the procedures for the organization and
reorganization of cities, counties, and special districts
under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of
SB 244
Page 4
2000.
2)Provides that a LAFCO shall determine the sphere of influence
of each local governmental agency within the county and enact
policies designed to promote the logical and orderly
development of areas within the sphere, and provides that a
LAFCO shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of
influence every five years.
3)Provides for the process of determining the sphere of
influence, and specifies the different factors that a LAFCO
shall consider and prepare in a written statement of its
determinations.
4)Provides, in order to prepare and to update spheres of
influence, that a LAFCO shall conduct a service review (MSR)
of the municipal services provided in the county or other
appropriate area as designated by the LAFCO, and requires that
a written statement of its determinations include all of the
following:
a) Growth and population projections for the affected area;
b) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and
adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs
or deficiencies;
c) Financial ability of agencies to provide services;
d) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities;
e) Accountability for community service needs, including
governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and,
f) Any other matter related to effective or efficient
service delivery, as required by commission policy.
5)Defines "disadvantaged community," as that term is used in the
Water Code as added by Proposition 50, to mean a community
with an annual median household income that is less than 80 %
of the statewide annual median household income.
6)Requires every city and county to adopt a general plan with
seven mandatory elements including land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
SB 244
Page 5
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill contains a local planning mandate that
could result in significant non-reimbursable costs to local
governments.
COMMENTS :
1)According to the author, many 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. The intent of this bill
is to require local officials to include disadvantaged
communities in their long-range planning for land use and
public facilities.
The sponsor of the bill, the California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation, argues that "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."
2)This bill takes a two-pronged approach to new requirements for
local officials to consider disadvantaged communities. First,
the bill requires LAFCOs to consider these types of
communities in both their sphere of influence updates and
municipal service reviews (MSRs), starting after July 1, 2012.
Second, the bill requires cities and counties to review and
update general plan elements with specified data and analyses
of community needs, upon a city or county's next revision of
its housing element.
3)This bill establishes a process for the identification of
service deficiencies in disadvantaged communities through the
LAFCO planning process, therefore adding new duties to LAFCOs
in the preparation of MSRs and when reviewing and updating a
city or a special district's sphere of influence. Provisions
in the bill require a LAFCO, when preparing an MSR, to include
SB 244
Page 6
a written statement determining the location and
characteristics, including infrastructure needs and
deficiencies in disadvantaged inhabited communities.
Additionally, any update to a sphere of influence occurring on
or after July 1, 2012, must include the needs for public
facilities and services in disadvantaged inhabited communities
as defined, if that city or special district provides sewer,
nonagricultural water, or structural fire protection services
or facilities.
It should be noted, however, that some areas considered
"disadvantaged communities" actually prefer the more rural
nature of their community's environment. Not all
disadvantaged communities wish to be part of a city or desire
to receive additional services beyond what they already have.
The Committee may wish to consider whether this bill
contemplates those communities and the will of the residents.
4)This bill contains language that prohibits a LAFCO from
approving an annexation to a city of any territory where there
exists a disadvantaged inhabited community that is contiguous
to the area of proposed annexation, unless the annexation
application includes a separate application to annex the
disadvantaged unincorporated inhabited territory to the
subject city.
The Committee may wish to consider whether this language ties
the LAFCO's hands and has the unintended consequence of
limiting annexations from occurring in the future, which is
the opposite of the stated goals and the intent of the bill.
5)This bill requires the legislative body of a city or county to
update one or more elements of its general plan to address the
presence of these types of communities, and for each
identified community, the city or county is required to do an
analysis of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and
structural fire protection needs or deficiencies, and
sidewalks and street lighting, if appropriate.
This section of the bill also requires "an analysis of
resources and a timeline of actions" which implies that the
city or county, after extensive analysis, must then do
something about the deficiencies these communities have
experienced, even though that is not stated explicitly in the
SB 244
Page 7
bill's provisions.
The Committee may wish to consider whether the inclusion of
the phrase "timeline of actions" could increase the likelihood
that local governments face future legal challenges if that
city or county cannot, for financial or other reasons, extend
new services to these communities.
6)The League of California Cities, in opposition, believes that
local agencies do not have the legal authority to impose fees
to recover the costs of the new duties mandated in the bill.
The bill's provisions right now include a fee disclaimer that
says that "no reimbursement is required by this act?.because a
local agency has the authority to levy service charges, fees
or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of
service mandated by this act." The League is concerned that
cities, under the new rules dictated by Proposition 26, cannot
charge current residents of the city for the costs associated
with the considerable analysis required by the bill's
provisions since the residents of the city are not being
provided a service.
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), in
opposition, writes that by "requiring additional assessments
and reports as part of the SOI/MSR process, SB 244 would
impose a costly new mandate. As you know, LAFCOs, and the
cities, counties and special districts that fund their
operations, are facing continued financial difficulties."
Because there is no funding source identified in the bill, the
Committee may wish to consider whether it is prudent to place
new non-reimbursable duties on local governments given the
fiscal pressure currently being felt by cities, counties, and
special districts.
7)This bill contains several errors and an omission that should
be corrected, as follows:
a) Intent language in Section 1 of the bill �(a)(3)]
specifies that several funds, including the Clean Up and
Abatement Account are "robust and continuous sources of
funding for drinking water, wastewater, and other basic
infrastructure." The Clean Up and Abatement Account should
be removed from this section.
SB 244
Page 8
b) Section 6 of the bill that amends Section 56375 of the
Government Code is out of order and should become Section
3.
c) Terminology that is used in the bill is not consistent
relating to "disadvantaged communities." The bill adds the
definition of the term "disadvantaged inhabited community"
to LAFCO law, however in Section 4 of the bill that amends
another
LAFCO statute, the term "disadvantaged unincorporated
communities" is used.
Section 6 of the bill, which also amends LAFCO law, contains
a reference to "disadvantaged unincorporated inhabited
territory."
d) The bill adds a definition of "community" to Section 5
of the bill, but contains a blank space as follows:
"Community" means an inhabited area within a city or county
that is comprised of no less than __ dwellings adjacent or
in close proximity to one another.
8)SB 244 is the latest in a series of bills to insert the
concerns of disadvantaged communities into 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."
9)Support arguments: Supporters argue that few local government
land use plans focus on the existence of disadvantaged
unincorporated communities, much less how to solve their many
challenges. This bill will result in greater awareness of
these communities and their needs in local government plans.
Opposition arguments: Opposition groups argue that while the
intent of the bill is laudable, there is no identified funding
source for the new duties mandated in the bill's provisions
for cities, counties and LAFCOs. This comes at a time when
local agencies are already strained with existing fiscal
SB 244
Page 9
pressures.
10)This bill is double-referred to the Housing and Community
Development Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation �SPONSOR]
Clean Water Action
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Food and Water Watch
Having Our Say Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Prevention Institute
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action
Urban Habitat
Urban Simillas
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
SB 244
Page 10
Individual Letters (1,103)
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
County of Los Angeles
Cucamonga Valley Water District
League of California Cities
Orange County LAFCO
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Riverside LAFCO
San Bernardino LAFCO
San Diego LAFCO
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958