California Acts of the 2006 Legislative Session
SB 1206, Chapter 595
BILL NUMBER: SB 1206 CHAPTERED 09/29/06
CHAPTER 595
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2006
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2006
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 29, 2006
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 24, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 22, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 8, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 7, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 19, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 9, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 18, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 14, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 27, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Senator Kehoe
(Coauthors: Senators Dunn and Machado)
JANUARY 26, 2006
An act to amend Sections 33030, 33031, 33320.1, 33328.7, 33352,
33367, 33378, 33445, 33485, 33486, 33500, and 33501 of, and to add
Sections 33328.1, 33360.5, 33451.5, 33501.1, 33501.2, 33501.3, and
33501.7 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to redevelopment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1206, Kehoe Redevelopment.
(1) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment
of redevelopment agencies in communities in order to address the
effects of blight in those communities and defines a blighted area as
one that is predominantly urbanized and characterized by specified
conditions.
This bill would revise the definition of "predominantly urbanized"
and revise the conditions that characterize a blighted area. The
bill would prohibit the inclusion of nonblighted parcels in a
redevelopment project area for the purpose of obtaining property tax
revenue from the area without substantial justification for their
inclusion.
(2) Under existing law, county officials are charged with the
responsibility of allocating taxes levied upon the taxable property
in a redevelopment project each year by or for the benefit of
specified state or local taxing agencies and are required to prepare
and deliver to the redevelopment agency and each of the taxing
agencies a specified report that contains, among other information,
the total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the
redevelopment project area as shown on the base year assessment roll,
the identifications of each taxing agency levying taxes in the
project area, and the amount of tax revenue to be derived by each
taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the project
area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory,
and similar subventions. Existing law also requires a redevelopment
agency to reimburse a county for costs incurred by the county in
preparing the reports.
This bill would require these county officials to prepare and
deliver a specified report to the Department of Finance that would,
in addition to the information specified above, contain specified
projections of these tax revenues and would also require the
redevelopment agency to prepare and deliver an additional, specified
report to the Department of Finance when the agency transmits the map
of the project area, as specified. By increasing the duties of local
public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The bill would require that the redevelopment agency also
reimburse a school district, a county office of education, or a
community college district for the preparation of any of these
specified reports.
(3) Existing law requires that every redevelopment plan submitted
by a redevelopment agency to the legislative body of the local agency
contain a report with specified information, including a description
of the physical and economic conditions that cause the project area
to be blighted.
This bill would require that the description contain specific,
quantifiable evidence that documents specified physical and economic
conditions in the project area.
(4) Existing law requires the legislative body to consider the
adoption of a redevelopment plan submitted by the redevelopment
agency at a public hearing.
This bill would require the redevelopment agency, no later than 45
days prior to the hearing, to deliver a copy of the preliminary
report and notice of the date of the hearing to the Department of
Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development for
an estimate of the proposed plan's effect upon the General Fund.
(5) Existing law specifies the contents of the ordinance adopting
a redevelopment plan, including the findings and determinations of
the legislative body about the blighted area that is to be
redeveloped.
This bill would require the findings to be based on clearly
articulated and documented evidence, and would add an additional
finding and determination that the implementation of the
redevelopment plan will improve the physical and economic conditions
of blight in the project area.
(6) Existing law makes an ordinance that adopts, modifies, or
amends a redevelopment plan subject to referendum and requires the
referendum petitions circulated in cities and counties over 500,000
population be submitted to the clerk of the legislative body within
90 days of the adoption of the ordinance subject to referendum.
This bill would, notwithstanding any other provision of law, make
this 90-day requirement applicable to all cities and counties.
(7) Existing law prohibits a redevelopment agency from using tax
increment funds for the construction or rehabilitation of a city hall
or county administration building.
This bill would include land acquisition, related site clearance,
and design costs in the prohibition against using tax increment funds
for the construction of a city hall or county administration
building.
(8) Existing law requires the redevelopment agency to hold a
public hearing on a proposed amendment of the redevelopment plan
before recommending the amendment.
This bill would require the agency, no later than 45 days prior to
the public hearing, to notify the Department of Finance and the
Department of Housing and Community Development of the hearing and
the proposed amendment and to prepare a report containing specified
information about the proposed amendment. The bill would also require
the Department of Finance to estimate certain effects of the
proposed amendment. These requirements would apply only if the
proposed amendments would make any one of 6 specified changes to the
redevelopment plan.
(9) Existing law authorizes a redevelopment agency to merge
project areas under its jurisdiction without regard to contiguity of
the areas.
This bill would require the legislative body of the redevelopment
agency that intends such a merger to find, based on substantial
evidence, that significant blight remains within one of the project
areas and that the blight cannot be eliminated without the merger.
(10) Existing law authorizes the bringing of a civil action to
determine the validity of proceedings taken by a legislative body
related to the establishment of a redevelopment agency and specified
actions taken by a redevelopment agency and makes the Department of
Finance an interested person in action brought with regard to the
validity of an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan.
This bill would permit the civil action to be commenced within 90
days from the date of the decision of the legislative body or
redevelopment agency and would also make the Attorney General an
interested person in a civil action brought to determine the validity
of these matters. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to
intervene as of right in these civil actions.
The bill would prohibit an action from being brought against a
redevelopment agency or legislative body unless the grounds for
noncompliance with the Community Redevelopment Law are presented to
the agency or legislative body orally or in writing before the close
of the required public hearing.
The bill would require any party filing a pleading or brief in an
action challenging the validity of a finding and determination that
the project area is blighted to serve a copy of the pleading or brief
on the Attorney General and would prohibit a court from granting
relief to a party unless proof is filed with the court that the party
has complied with this requirement.
The bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency or legislative body
from permitting or requiring a property owner or real party in
interest to indemnify the agency or legislative body against these
civil actions as a condition of adopting or amending a redevelopment
plan.
(11) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. In enacting this act, the Legislature finds and
declares all of the following:
(a) The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of
New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005), noted that many states already
impose "public use" requirements on the power of eminent domain that
are stricter than the federal baseline. Some states have eminent
domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
may be exercised. The Supreme Court specifically noted that under
California's redevelopment law local officials may only take land for
economic development purposes in blighted areas. The Kelo decision
also noted that the Court's opinion does not preclude a state from
placing further restrictions on the exercise of the taking of power.
(b) The Senate Local Government Committee held a hearing on August
15, 2005, in Sacramento that explored how the Kelo decision affects
California's local governments. On October 26, 2005, the Senate Local
Government Committee, the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee, the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee,
and the Assembly Local Government Committee held a joint hearing in
San Diego that examined redevelopment law and practices...
