BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 244
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 244 (Wolk)
As Amended August 15, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3 HOUSING 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Skinner, Bradford, |Ayes:|Torres, Atkins, Bradford, |
| |Campos, Davis, Gordon, | |Cedillo, Hueso, Jeffries, |
| |Hueso | |Miller |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
unincorporated 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."
SB 244
Page 2
2)Prohibits, in specified circumstances, a LAFCO from approving an
annexation to a city of any territory greater than 10 acres, or as
determined by LAFCO 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 executive officer.
3)Requires the LAFCO, in determining the sphere of influence of each
local agency, to additionally consider, for a city or special
district that provides public facilities or services related to
sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection, the present and probable need for those public
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the existing sphere of
influence, beginning with the next sphere of influence update on
or after July 1, 2012.
4)Allows the LAFCO, in determining a sphere of influence, to assess
the feasibility of governmental reorganization of particular
agencies and recommend reorganization of those agencies when
reorganization is found to be feasible and if reorganization will
further the goals of orderly development and efficient and
affordable service delivery.
5)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
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere
of influence; and,
b) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and
adequacy of public services, and deficiencies including needs
or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial
water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged,
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the agency's
proposed sphere of influence.
6)Allows the 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
SB 244
Page 3
to, the consolidation of governmental agencies.
7)Requires, on or before the due date for the next adoption of its
housing element, each 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) 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,
e) An analysis, based on then existing available data, of
benefit 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 for each subsequent revision
of its housing element, each city or county to review, and if
necessary amend, its general plan to update the analysis, as
specified.
9)Defines, for purposes of general plan law, the following terms:
a) "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) "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) "Unincorporated fringe community" to mean any inhabited and
unincorporated territory that is within a city's sphere of
SB 244
Page 4
influence; and,
d) "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 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.
11)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
12)Contains chaptering out provisions in order to avoid conflicts
with AB 54 (Solorio).
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.
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
SB 244
Page 5
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
this bill has a negligible state fiscal impact. There would be
significant local planning costs, but these are not a state mandated
local program and would not be reimbursable.
COMMENTS : 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."
This bill takes a two-pronged approach to new requirements for local
officials to consider disadvantaged communities. First, the bill
SB 244
Page 6
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 the land use
element within the general plan with specified data and analyses of
community needs, upon a city or county's next revision of its
housing element.
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 a written statement determining the
location and characteristics, including infrastructure needs and
deficiencies in disadvantaged unincorporated 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 unincorporated communities.
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 Legislature may wish to consider
whether this bill contemplates those communities and the will of the
residents.
This bill contains language that prohibits a LAFCO, in specified
circumstances, from approving an annexation to a city of any
territory greater than 10 acres 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 Legislature 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.
This bill requires each city or county to update the land use
element 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.
SB 244
Page 7
The League of California Cities (League), 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.
Additionally as part of this year's budget package, SB 89 (Budget
and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2011, stripped
approximately $186 million from Vehicle License Fee (VLF) funding
for local governments, part of which had been used to assist cities
with the costs of annexing a new territory or incorporating a new
city. The League argues that one of the main goals of this bill is
to annex disadvantaged communities, thus there is a clear disconnect
between SB 89 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), and the stated
goals of this bill.
The County of Los Angeles opposes this bill because it is both
costly and burdensome. They argue they already have a long term
plan for all unincorporated areas and that the bill does not
adequately address the fiscal strains the bill would place on
already distressed counties, cities, communities and taxpayers.
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to insert the concerns
of disadvantaged communities into land use planning statutes. SB
1174 (Wolk) of 2010 concentrated on local general plans; the bill
died on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file. AB
853 (Arambula) of 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) of 2010 looked at disadvantaged communities' needs for
public works funding; Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill as
"unnecessary."
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
SB 244
Page 8
bill will result in greater awareness of these communities and their
needs in local government planning documents.
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 pressures.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0002010