BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1791
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1791 (Monning)
As Amended June 22, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-15|(April 29, |SENATE: |21-15|(August 24, |
| | |2010) | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Exempts specified territory designated in the Fort Ord
Reuse Plan from being prohibited from providing direct
assistance to a development, if certain conditions are met.
The Senate amendments :
1)Clarify that only prior to the utilization of the exemption
and not the creation of a project area, would a redevelopment
agency need to adopt a resolution finding, based on
substantial evidence, all of the following:
a) The community has adopted a housing element approved by
the Department of Housing and Community Development;
b) During the three fiscal years prior to the year in which
the project area is to be established, the agency has not
been included in the list of agencies that have not
corrected a major audit violation; and,
c) The agency has not accumulated an excess surplus in its
Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund.
2)Remove neighborhood retail space and space designated for
visitor services use from the types of territory that the
exemption may be used on.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits a redevelopment agency from providing direct
assistance to specified projects within a project area,
including a parcel of land of five acres or more that has not
previously been developed for urban use and will, when
developed, generate sales tax that is not attributed to either
AB 1791
Page 2
office, hotel, manufacturing, or industrial uses unless there
is an enforceable agreement to do so prior to January 1, 1994.
2)Authorizes the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) to establish
the Redevelopment Agency
of Fort Ord (RAFO), the jurisdiction of which includes the
territory of the former Fort Ord Military Base.
3)Specifies that RAFO may not create a project area in any area
which overlays a project area which has been created by a city
or the county.
4)Provides for the distribution of tax increment moneys received
by a redevelopment agency.
5)Requires that all redevelopment plans and implementation plans
prepared in conjunction with, or operation of, a project area,
including updates, amendments, and modifications
be certified by FORA as to their consistency with the Reuse Plan
before those plans or amendments may become effective.
6)Specifies that the assessment roll last equalized prior to the
date FORA adopts the Fort Ord Reuse Plan or the effective date
of the ordinance approving a redevelopment plan for a specific
area within Fort Ord, whichever occurs first, is to be used as
the base year assessment roll for all project areas adopted
within Fort Ord. In order to accomplish this provision, the
Reuse Plan, if adopted first, is deemed to be the
redevelopment plan for the base.
7)Authorizes the waiver of the agency's Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Fund deposits
for up to five years upon an annual finding that the vacancy
rate for rental housing affordable to lower-income households
is 6% or greater.
8)Authorizes the agency to additionally waive one half of the
required 20% set aside annually for the ensuing five years,
provided the finding of a 6% affordable housing vacancy factor
continues to be made.
9)Exempts RAFO from the requirement that barracks demolished or
removed from within the territory of Fort Ord are replaced.
10)Authorizes FORA and the cities and county to use the federal
AB 1791
Page 3
environmental statement
for the draft of the state Environmental Impact Report.
11)Allows FORA to use redevelopment revenues to finance
infrastructure facilities owned and operated by the California
State University (CSU) and University of California (UC).
12)Specifically states that all provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law apply to military base conversion
redevelopment agencies.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Stated that the prohibition to provide any form of direct
assistance to a development that will be or is on a parcel of
land which has not been previously developed for an urban use
and that will generate sales or use tax does not apply to
specified territory designated in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan that
meets certain conditions.
2)Provided that the exemption applies to territory within a
project area if the Final Base Reuse Plan, as the plan existed
on January 1, 2010, designates the territory as any of the
following:
a) A planned development mixed use district;
b) A business park with light industrial, office, and
research and development mixed uses;
c) A neighborhood retail space;
d) A regional retail space; or,
e) A space designated for visitor services use.
3)Required, prior to establishing a project area and utilizing
the exemption, a redevelopment agency to adopt a resolution
finding, based on substantial evidence, all of the following:
a) The community has adopted a housing element approved by
the Department of Housing and Community Development;
b) During the three fiscal years prior to the year in which
the project area is to be established, the agency has not
AB 1791
Page 4
been included in the list of agencies that have not
corrected a major audit violation; and,
c) The agency has not accumulated an excess surplus in its
Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : By providing an exemption to current law regarding
redevelopment areas and direct assistance, this bill would allow
FORA to provide direct assistance to a development in specified
areas if certain conditions are met.
Fort Ord is located in Northern Monterey County generally
between the cities of Monterey to the southeast and Salinas to
the northeast. It borders Monterey Bay to the west and extends
from the City of Seaside in the south to the City of Marina in
the north and to the Salinas River to the east, encompassing 45
square miles and covering over 28,000 acres.
The Fort Ord Base closure announcement occurred in 1991,
generating a mixture of disbelief, economic impacts and
excitement about potential reuse. This land had been part of
the history of Monterey County on the Monterey Peninsula since
1917. Within months, a series of meetings were initiated to
discuss recovery from the significant closure impacts by
creating a "vision" for reuse. The meetings included broad
participation from the community including residents,
businesses, government, and special districts, among others.
From those meetings, it was agreed that reuse should focus on
education, environment, and economic development.
Initial efforts to organize governance for reuse faltered.
State Senator Henry Mello sponsored special legislation to
establish a local agency charged with the task of planning,
financing, and implementing reuse [SB 1600 (Mello), Chapter
1169, Statutes of 1994]. That agency was entitled the "Fort Ord
Reuse Authority," and was formed in 1994. FORA has a governing
body of 13 voting members and 11 non-voting members, and is
comprised of representatives from cities, Monterey County,
special districts, public educational institutions, the
military, and state and federal legislators. It is FORA's
responsibility to complete the planning, financing, and
implementation of reuse as described in the FORA Base Reuse Plan
(Plan) that was adopted in 1997. FORA's organizational
AB 1791
Page 5
structure is set to sunset in 2014.
The FORA Plan broadly defines the type of uses that can occur on
the former Fort Ord site and designates general areas where the
different uses can occur. It is similar to a general plan
document of a city or county. Individual projects are not
planned and approved by FORA. By law, that responsibility and
authority lies with the land use jurisdictions (cities and
county) that will receive the property. FORA, however, does
have the responsibility to assure that all projects approved by
the land use jurisdictions are consistent with the Plan, through
a "consistency determination" process. The Plan provides for a
wide range of uses - education, residential, visitor-serving,
recreation, open space, habitat conservation for endangered
species of plant and wildlife, retail, office, commercial and
light industrial, and areas for community service facilities.
The Plan requires improvements that must occur and mitigations
for uses that will occur - such as replacement of old
infrastructure including water and sewer systems, roads, utility
and communication systems, and other infrastructure that is
either antiquated, sub-standard or both. In addition, the Plan
includes improvements to support regional transportation and
transit systems and a reclaimed water distribution network
constructed.
According to FORA, delay and restrictions are probably the most
important and costly factors affecting reuse of the former Fort
Ord. There is a high demand and short supply of housing and new
jobs in the Monterey Bay area. The housing need affects all
income ranges. Over the past decade, housing prices have been
steadily rising as need for housing far exceeds the housing
supply. This is true in many areas of California, and more
recently, this trend is also affecting other areas of the United
States. It is especially critical within Monterey County and
the Monterey Bay Region.
FORA states that at the same time, development-related costs are
rising for planning and site preparation, financing,
architectural design and engineering, construction, entitlement,
fees and assessments, and with various regulatory requirements
and restrictions. With prolonged delays, it becomes more
difficult to attract investors and developers to the region.
The same situation is applicable to job availability and
creation. As business costs rise, and when a shortage of
acceptable housing at reasonable prices declines, it becomes
AB 1791
Page 6
more difficult to attract and maintain investors and businesses
in the region. FORA's goal, through the implementation of this
bill, is to help provide needed economic assistance to pay for
some of the costly infrastructure needs that are one of the
biggest reasons for project delays in the Fort Ord area.
AB 1290 (Mello), Chapter 942, Statutes of 1993, added language
to California Redevelopment Law (CRL) to explicitly prohibit a
redevelopment agency from providing direct assistance to
specified projects within a project area, including a parcel of
land of five acres or more that has not previously been
developed for urban use and will, when developed, generate sales
tax that is not attributed to either office, hotel,
manufacturing, or industrial uses. This section was enacted as
part of the Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 and
was intended to prohibit redevelopment agencies from using
redevelopment powers to assist automobile dealerships and
certain "big box" retailers.
The definition or lack there of, for "urban use" is what brings
FORA to the Legislature for this exemption. CRL does not
expressly define "urban use." However, case law, in Friends of
Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency, (2000) 82
Cal. App. 4th 511, the court said: "The term 'urban' is not
fixed, objective, or easily ascertainable (County of Riverside
v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 616, 623). At a
minimum, however, the mere fact that property is not vacant or
is developed in accordance with its zoning does not by itself
render the property developed for urban uses. Lands that are
not vacant may be developed for uses that are not urban uses"
(Ibid., at 541). The court goes on to say: "Urban is defined as
'of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking place in a city ?
constituting or including and centered on a city ? of, relating
to, or concerned with an urban and specifically a densely
populated area ? belonging or having relation to buildings that
are characteristic of cities ?' The term 'urban' thus refers
more to the location and 'varying characteristics' of a use than
to the type of use (Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of
Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1140-1141)" (Ibid., at
544-545).
Thus, applying the California appeals court's definition of
"urban use," the land occupied by the former Fort Ord would not
qualify as urban use. The former Fort Ord is not characteristic
of a city - it was a military installation. The use of the land
AB 1791
Page 7
occupied by the former Fort Ord when it was an operating
military base also is unrelated to an urban use.
As mentioned above, SB 1600 established FORA and gave it its own
set of governing statutes specific to the needs of the former
Fort Ord and its surrounding communities. In 1996 the
Legislature passed a set of laws to govern the reuse of former
military bases in order to have a comprehensive set of codes
relating to all base closures [AB 2736 (Weggeland), Chapter 221,
Statutes of 1996]. AB 2736 also added the requirement that all
military base reuse agencies follow the provisions of CRL. The
Legislature may wish to consider if the exemption that FORA is
now requesting is a result of the unintended consequences of
combining two laws that were intended to provide more clarity
but in some cases caused more confusion.
Support arguments: The many local jurisdictions within FORA
state that without the ability to provide direct assistance,
their ability to extend infrastructure to all the areas
designated for commercial development is impeded. Local
jurisdictions believe that the exemption provided in This bill
will permit redevelopment agencies to create jobs for the
Monterey Bay Region, assist in recovery from the impacts of the
current recessionary trend, and help realize the promises of
economic sustainability in the wake of the financial devastation
inflicted by the base closure on the Monterey area.
Opposition arguments: Authorizing this exemption could open the
door to a slippery slope of exemptions in redevelopment law that
move past the Legislature's intended purposes of limiting direct
assistance in order to prohibit redevelopment agencies from
using redevelopment powers to assist automobile dealerships and
"big box" retailers.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0005087