CC - Item 9B - SB 1206 KEHOE Redevelopment Reform•
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
•
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANDY LAZZARETTO, CITY MANAGE
DATE: MARCH 23, 2006
RE: SB 1206 (KEHOE) REDEVELOPMENT REFORM
Senator Kehoe has introduced SB 1206 a bill to amend the State Redevelopment law.
This legislation would limit the ability of communities to identify and clean-up blight. It
would abolish many of the current factors used by redevelopment agencies to show the
existence of blight, such as: defective design or physical construction; lack of parking;
abandoned buildings and excessive vacant lots.
Attached are copies of sample correspondence in opposition to the bill and a legislative
update from the California Redevelopment Association (CRA).
The CRA recommends that the bill be opposed based on the adverse impact that it would
have on the ability of Redevelopment Agencies to fulfill the requirements of California
Redevelopment Law.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take action to oppose SB 1206 and direct staff to
prepare the appropriate correspondence to the author, the members of the Senate Local
Government Committee and the City's legislators.
•
February 24, 2006
Honorable Name
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room XX
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Legislator,
&DRAFT
E
On behalf of the NAME, I urge you to oppose SB 1206 (Kehoe) when it is heard in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
NAME supports responsible reforms but SB 1206 represents the most far-reaching changes to
Community Redevelopment Law in over a decade and would threaten local governments' ability to
eradicate blight, clean-up environmentally polluted properties, build affordable housing, and create jobs
and economic opportunity.
As you know, redevelopment has played a vital role in XXX by redeveloping Give example of good
redevelopment project that legislator will know.
But, SB 1206 will make revitalization projects like these much harder to accomplish. SB 1206 would
abolish many of the current factors used by redevelopment agencies to show the existence of blight.
Remaining blight factors would have to meet specific numerical or percentage tests severely limiting a
community's ability to eradicate blight by creating arbitrary distinctions and eliminating any flexibility in
methodology for demonstrating the existence of blight.
SB 1206 will also make it much harder to keep commitments to communities that are made at the time of
plan adoption, including requirements to provide affordable housing. That's because the bill requires new
blight findings after 10 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan as a condition of issuing new
bonds. The typical redevelopment plan has a 30 year life span and is developed and approved with
community involvement. Many times, bonds for affordable housing and other community improvements
are issued in the latter stages of a project area life span, when the majority of blight has already been
eradicated. If agencies have to re-find blight every time they issue bonds after the 10 years, it is
extremely unlikely they will be able to fulfill their commitment to these communities (and under state
law) to provide affordable housing and other improvements.
Again, we hope you will oppose SB 1206 and instead work with us on reforms that protect the ability of
state and local governments to complete important public works, infrastructure, housing and community
revitalization projects that are critical to our communities.
Sincerely,
DRAFT
Untitled Document
California Redevelopment
Association
Legislative Update
Legislative Update - March 21, 2006
Page 1 of 2
SB 1206 (Kehoe), which would make significant adverse changes to redevelopment law, will be
heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28. Please contact members of the Committee
to Oppose the bill.
Senate Local Government Committee:Joe Dunn (Chair) (D-Santa Ana), Dick Ackerman (Vice
Chair) (R-Irvine), Martha Escutia (D-Whittier), and Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica).
While the author has amended SB 1206 in recent days to remove some of CRA's objections to the
bill, we remain opposed to it. The Committee members need to hear from CRA members
about the negative consequences of Sill 1206 on redevelopment projects in communities
throughout California. Below are the major concerns that have been identified:
1. Greatly limits communities' ability to identify and. clean-up blight: SB 1206 would
abolish many of the current factors used by redevelopment agencies to show the existence of
blight, such as "defective design or physical construction," "impaired investments," "high
turn-over rates, abandoned buildings and excessive vacant lots," and "lack of parking."
Remaining blight factors would have to meet specific numerical or percentage tests (i.e.
metrics) severely limiting a community's ability to eradicate blight. Some of the problems
with this approach are as follows:
1. Numbers in the metrics are arbitrary.
2. Some data for the metrics are not readily available.
3. Eliminates any flexibility in methodology for demonstrating the existence of blight.
4. Ignores the reality that in one proposed project area several blight factors may
characterize the total area and not just one or two.
2. Creates a new cause _of_action against redevelopment agencies that could be used to
prevent or delay the issuance of bonds.
3. Requires new findings of blight if bonded indebtedness is_incurred after 10 years.
An agency would be prohibited from issuing bonds after 10 years from the adoption of the
redevelopment plan unless the agency finds that significant blight remains within the project
area. This requirement would also apply to bonds issued for financing low- and moderate-
income housing.
In addition, AB 2197 (DeVore) has been scheduled for a hearing on April 5 in the Assembly
Housing & Community Development Committee. This bill would require that any redevelopment
plan adoptions, plan amendments or mergers be approved by the respective county board of
supervisors. Please contact members of the Committee to oppose the bill.
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: Gene Mullin (Chair) (D-South
San Francisco), Bonnie Garcia (Vice-Chair) (R-Cathedral City), Joe Baca (D- Rialto), Loni Hancock
(D-Berkeley), Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa), Simon Salinas (D-Salinas), and Alberto Torrico (D-Newark)
The bill provides that the county board of supervisors shall hold a public meeting within 60 days of
receiving the request for approval and must make a decision within 90 days of the request and that
the redevelopment agency may appeal a negative decision. It provides that the county board
http://www.calredevelop.orgfLeg/updates/update032106.htm1 3/23/2006
Untitled Document
0
3/23/2006
Ll
Page 2 of 2
invite all the affected school districts, special districts, and the State Treasurer to attend and
present written or verbal testimony.
No case has been made as to why county governments should be given, in effect, veto authority
over the decisions and actions of redevelopment agencies, besides their own county redevelopment
agencies. This bill would give one type of local government extraordinary power over another. It
is intended to frustrate, hamper, and eliminate activities of redevelopment agencies.
http://www.calredevelop.org/Leg/updates/update032106.html