BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 244
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Norma Torres, Chair
SB 244 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 23, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 25-14
SUBJECT : Land use: general plan: disadvantaged unincorporated
communities.
SUMMARY : Requires cities, counties, and local agency formation
commissions (LAFCOs) to analyze infrastructure deficiencies in
unincorporated disadvantaged communities. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Prohibits a LAFCO from approving an annexation to a city of
any territory greater than 10 acres, or as determined by
commission policy, where there exists a disadvantaged
unincorporated community that is contiguous to the area of
proposed annexation, unless an application to annex the
disadvantaged unincorporated community to the subject city has
been filed with the LAFCO.
2)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,"
as 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."
3)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.
4)Allows, in a LAFCO's determination of a sphere of influence,
the LAFCO to assess the feasibility of governmental
reorganization of particular agencies and recommend
reorganization of those agencies when reorganization is found
SB 244
Page 2
to be feasible and if reorganization will further the goals of
orderly development and efficient and affordable service
delivery.
5)Requires a LAFCO, in the written statement of its
determinations for a municipal service review, to additionally
include the following:
a) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
inhabited communities; and,
b) Sewer, 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.
6)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.
7)Requires, on or before the due date for the next revision of
its housing element, a city or county to review and update the
land use element of its 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) A description of each unincorporated island, fringe
community, or legacy community and a map designating its
location;
d) For each identified community, an analysis, based on
available data, of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage,
and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies; and
e) An analysis, based on available data, of benefit
SB 244
Page 3
assessment districts or other financing alternatives that
could make the extension of services to identified
communities financially feasible.
8)Requires, on or before the due date each subsequent revision
of its housing element, a city or county to review, and if
necessary amend its general plan to update the analysis.
9)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 10
dwellings 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; and
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.
10)Provides that no reimbursement is required because local
agencies have 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.
11)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
2000 (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.).
2)Provides that a LAFCO shall determine the sphere of influence
of each local governmental agency within the county and enact
SB 244
Page 4
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 (Government Code Section 56425).
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 (Government Code Section 56425, et seq.).
4)Provides, in order to prepare and to update spheres of
influence, that a LAFCO shall conduct a review 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.
(Government Code Section 56430)
5)Defines "disadvantaged community" to mean a community with an
annual median household income that is less than 80 % of the
statewide annual median household income (Water Code Section
79505.5).
6)Requires every city and county to adopt a general plan that
includes seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety
(Government Code Section 65300, et seq.)
7)Requires the housing element of the general plan to be updated
every eight, five, or four years depending on the jurisdiction
SB 244
Page 5
(Government Code Section 65588).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill contains a local mandate that could result
in significant non-reimbursable costs to local governments.
COMMENTS :
Background
The U.S. Census Bureau identifies a "census designated place" as
the statistical counterpart of a city in that 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).
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 LAFCOs as the Legislature's watchdog over boundary changes. A
LAFCO must determine a sphere of influence for every local
government agency within its county and must review and update
the spheres as necessary every five years. In addition, any
person or local agency may apply to LAFCO to update a sphere of
influence at any time. A LAFCO's boundary decisions must be
consistent with the spheres of influence of affected cities and
special districts. Bringing territory into a sphere is generally
considered to be a precursor to annexation.
In determining a new or amended sphere of influence, the LAFCO
must hold a public hearing and must prepare a statement of its
determinations with respect to the present and planned land uses
in the area; the present and probable needs for public
facilities in the area; the present capacity of public
facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide, and the existence of any
SB 244
Page 6
social or economic communities of interest in the area, if
relevant.
In the late 1990s, the Commission on Local Governance for the
21st Century reviewed LAFCOs' activities, including how they
prepared spheres of influence. The Legislature adopted the
recommendation that LAFCOs must periodically conduct municipal
service reviews (MSRs) to inform their decisions about spheres
of influence. MSRs must analyze and make determinations about
six topics:
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.
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. Because the general
plan is a long-range planning document, in preparing these
documents cities typically plan for their entire sphere of
influence rather than just their current physical boundaries.
Purpose of the Bill
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 unincorporated
communities in their long-range planning for land use and public
facilities.
SB 244
Page 7
SB 244 takes a two-pronged approach to bringing more attention
to disadvantaged unincorporated communities in the planning
process. First, the bill requires LAFCOs to consider these types
of communities in both their sphere of influence updates and
MSRs, starting after July 1, 2012. Second, the bill requires
cities and counties to include information about disadvantaged
unincorporated communities in their general plans.
With respect to LAFCOs, the bill requires a LAFCO, when
preparing an MSR, to include a written statement determining the
location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities. Additionally, in updating a sphere of influence of
a city or special district that provides public facilities or
services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and
structural fire protection, the LAFCO must prepare a written
determination of the present and probable need for public
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the existing or proposed
sphere of influence of the city or special district. Finally,
the bill prohibits a LAFCO from approving an annexation to a
city of any territory greater than 10 acres where there is a
disadvantaged unincorporated community contiguous to the area
proposed annexation, unless an application to annex the
disadvantaged unincorporated community has also been filed with
the LAFCO.
With respect to general plans, SB 244 requires each city and
county to include in the land use element of its general plan an
identification of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities,
including a description of each community and a map designating
its location; an analysis of water, wastewater, stormwater
drainage, and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies
in each identified community; and an analysis of benefit
assessment districts or other financing alternatives that could
make the extension of services to the identified communities
financially feasible.
A city would be required to include the above information and
analysis for any disadvantaged unincorporated communities that
are within its sphere of influence, and counties would be
required to address any disadvantaged unincorporated communities
that are not within a city's sphere. A jurisdiction's land use
element would have to be updated to include the required
information and analysis by the due date for the update of its
next housing element, and the information would have to be
SB 244
Page 8
reviewed and updated as necessary by each subsequent housing
element due date.
Arguments in Support
The sponsor of the bill, the California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation, argues that disadvantaged unincorporated 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." Supporters further 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.
Arguments in Opposition
The opposition argues 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 agency budgets are
already strained.
The League of California Cities 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
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.
Committee Amendments
1.In the sections amending the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the
bill alternates between the terms "disadvantaged inhabited
community" and "disadvantaged unincorporated community." For
the sake of clarity and consistency, the term "disadvantaged
SB 244
Page 9
unincorporated community" should be used throughout.
2.In Section 5 of the bill, amend Government Code 56430(a)(2)
and (3) as shown in the June 23, 2011, version of the bill as
follows:
(2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
inhabited unincorporated communities within or contiguous
to the sphere of influence.\
(3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, and
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or
deficiencies, including needs or deficiencies related to
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire
protection needs or deficiencies of in any disadvantaged ,
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the
agency's proposed sphere of influence.
3.On page 9, line 18, delete "Upon the next update of a sphere
of influence" and delete lines 19-26. After line 31 insert a
new (5) to read as follows:
(5) For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or
special district that provides public facilities or services
related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or
structural fire protection that occurs pursuant to subdivision
(g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need
for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the
existing or proposed sphere of influence.
Previous Legislation
SB 244 is the latest in a series of bills aimed at addressing
the infrastructure deficiencies in disadvantaged unincorporated
communities. 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 LAFCO
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."
Double Referral
This bill was also referred to the Local Government Committee,
where it passed on June 22 with a 6-3 vote.
SB 244
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor)
PolicyLink (co-sponsor)
California League of Conservation Voter
Clean Water Action
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Food and Water Watch
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Urban Habitat
Urban Semillas
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies
County of Los Angeles
Cucamonga Valley Water District
League of California Cities
Orange County LAFCO
Riverside LAFCO
San Bernardino LAFCO
San Diego LAFCO
Analysis Prepared by : Anya Lawler / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085