BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 684
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 684 (Hill)
          As Amended  August 13, 2013
          2/3 vote.  Urgency

           SENATE VOTE  :34-0  
          
           GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 15-0   HOUSING                7-0       

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Hall, Nestande, Bigelow,  |Ayes:|Chau, Beth Gaines,        |
          |     |Campos, Chesbro, Cooley,  |     |Atkins, Brown,            |
          |     |Gray, Hagman, Roger       |     |Maienschein, Quirk-Silva, |
          |     |Hernández, Jones-Sawyer,  |     |Mullin                    |
          |     |Levine, Medina, V. Manuel |     |                          |
          |     |Pérez, Salas, Waldron     |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      17-0                                         
                         
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow,   |     |                          |
          |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |     |                          |
          |     |Calderon, Campos,         |     |                          |
          |     |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez,  |     |                          |
          |     |Hall, Holden, Linder,     |     |                          |
          |     |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Recasts the redevelopment agency exemption to the Outdoor  
          Advertising Act (OAA) to reflect the elimination of redevelopment  
          agencies.  Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Allows an existing advertising display to be considered on-premise  
            if the display:

             a)   Advertises those businesses and activities developed within  
               the former redevelopment agency project area boundaries, as  
               those boundaries existed on December 29, 2011;

             b)   Is located within the boundary limits of the project;

             c)   Was constructed, was under construction, or had been  








                                                                  SB 684
                                                                  Page  2


               approved for construction by the designated agency of the  
               project on or before January 1, 2012;

             d)   Does not cause the reduction in federal aid highway funds.

          2)Authorizes, on and after January 1, 2022, the designated agency to  
            request from the California Department of Transportation  
            (Caltrans) an extension beyond January 1, 2023, not to exceed the  
            expiration of the redevelopment project area.

          3)Specifies that the designated successor agency shall be  
            responsible for ensuring these advertising displays are  
            advertising qualifying businesses, are otherwise being operated  
            lawfully, and remain in the public's best interest, but does  
            specify that nothing in this provision shall be construed to  
            preclude any enforcement authority by Caltrans. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,  
          there are no significant costs associated with this legislation.

           COMMENTS  :   

           Purpose of the bill  :  According to the author, this bill would  
          authorize the extension, preservation and retention of existing  
          redevelopment signs with approval of the local city or county.   
          Current law allows special signs identifying businesses and  
          activities developed within the boundaries of redevelopment agency  
          projects, for a period up to ten years.

          The bill does not authorize any new signage, but instead seeks to  
          retain the investment-backed expectations of public and private  
          entities which either own or operate existing signs in former  
          redevelopment areas.  

          Due to the elimination of redevelopment agencies, one of the  
          unintended consequences is that the sign agreements, formerly  
          authorized by redevelopment agencies, can no longer be extended  
          because there is no redevelopment agency to authorize the extension.  
           Currently, there are approximately 95 such signs in California  
          which have Caltrans permits.  Some of these will be expiring in the  
          near future, including several this year.

           History  :  Historically, the Community Redevelopment Law allowed a  
          local government to establish a redevelopment area and capture all  








                                                                  SB 684
                                                                  Page  3


          of the increase in property taxes generated within the area over a  
          period of decades.  These tax revenues were intended to address the  
          blighted nature of a project area, and if used effectively,  
          therefore, should have eventually ended the blight and become  
          unnecessary.  Because of this, over time these projects areas were  
          given expiration dates, generally up to 40 years following their  
          inception, until which they were able to collect tax revenues and  
          pay off debt.

          In 2011, the Legislature enacted AB 26 X1 (Blumenfield), Chapter 5,  
          Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session.  AB 26X eliminated  
          redevelopment agencies and established procedures for winding down  
          agencies, paying off enforceable obligations, and disposing of  
          agency assets.  In addition, AB 26X established successor agencies,  
          typically the city that established the agency, to take control of  
          all redevelopment agency assets, properties, and other items of  
          value.  Successor agencies are to dispose of an agency's assets as  
          directed by an oversight board, made up of representatives of local  
          taxing entities, with the proceeds transferred to the country  
          auditor-controller for distribution to taxing agencies within each  
          county.

           Permits after the Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies  :  As  
          mentioned earlier, Caltrans enforces the OAA, which includes  
          activities such as maintaining a list of landscaped freeways,  
          issuing permits for signs allowed by statute to exist, and fining  
          owners of non-compliant signs.  Many of these signs are currently or  
          will soon be in existence longer than 10 years and therefore have  
          permits which need to be extended.

          On April 11, 2013, Caltrans issued a "Notice of Redevelopment  
          Display Status Change."  The notice indicates that successor agency  
          permission will allow continued operation of the previously approved  
          display, but that no new exemptions or extensions will be given  
          absent legislative action.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Felipe Lopez / G. O. / (916) 319-2531 


                                                                    FN: 0002036











                                                                  SB 684
                                                                  Page  4