SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) The City of Los Angeles (the City) is experiencing a severe housing crisis that is impacting the health, safety, and welfare of its people.
(b) Since 1948, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) was the City’s public partner in housing, commercial, neighborhood, and economic development in communities that suffered from blight and catastrophic events. Redevelopment agencies, such as CRA/LA, were dedicated to revitalizing, refurbishing, and renewing economically disadvantaged
communities.
(c) Effective June 29, 2011, Assembly Bill 26 of the First Extraordinary Session (Chapter 5 of the 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) (AB 26) deemed, upon dissolution of a redevelopment agency, any property taxes that would have been allocated to the redevelopment agency to no longer be deemed tax increment, and instead to be deemed property tax revenues and to be allocated first to successor agencies to make payments on the indebtedness incurred by the dissolved redevelopment agencies, with remaining balances allocated pursuant to applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. Pursuant to Section 34167 of the Health and Safety Code, Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) of the Health and Safety Code added by AB 26 is intended to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the revenues and assets of redevelopment
agencies so that those assets and revenues that are not needed to pay for enforceable obligations may be used by local governments to fund core governmental services including police and fire protection services and schools.
(d) The dissolution of the former CRA/LA pursuant to AB 26 took effect on February 1, 2012. At that time, the City elected not to become the successor agency of the former CRA/LA. As a result, the Governor appointed a three-member governing board as the designated local authority (DLA) to wind down the operations of the former CRA/LA.
(e) On June 27, 2012, the Legislature and the Governor enacted Assembly Bill 1484 of the 2012 Regular Session (Chapter 26 of the Statutes of 2012) (AB 1484), which, among other things, did both of the following:
(1) Amended Health and Safety Code Section 34189 to make inoperative all provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code) that depended on the allocation of tax increment to redevelopment agencies with limited exceptions.
(2) Amended Health and Safety Code Section 34173 to allow a city or county that authorized the creation of a redevelopment agency to request transfer of all land use related plans and functions of the former redevelopment agency to that city or county.
(f) The City does not receive any tax increment to implement any requirements, goals, or objectives of the redevelopment project plans.
(g) On June 21, 2012, the governing board of the CRA/LA, the duly established successor agency to the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, approved a resolution applicable to certain specified redevelopment plan project areas that resolved the following: “For purposes of determining whether land uses proposed in development applications for any property located in the Project Areas are permitted uses, it is hereby determined that any land uses permitted for such property by the applicable provisions of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, Community Plan and Zoning Ordinance, all as they now exist or are hereafter amended or supplanted from time to time, shall be permitted land uses for all purposes under the applicable Redevelopment Plan [and] [t]he land use designation for any property in a Project Area set
forth in the Redevelopment Plan Map and the land use regulations for such property set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the applicable Project Area shall defer to and be superseded by the applicable City of Los Angeles General Plan, Community Plan and Zoning Ordinance land use designations and regulations for such property, all as they now exist or are hereafter amended or supplanted from time to time.”
(h) On September 24, 2019, the City Council of the City of Los Angeles adopted a resolution requesting transfer of all land use related plans and functions of the former redevelopment agency to the City pursuant to Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code, to be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 186325.
(i) On September 27, 2019, Mayor Eric Garcetti signed Ordinance
No. 186325 and Ordinance No. 186325 became effective upon November 11, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code, an action by the City to amend or repeal any land use related plan or function of the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles transferred to the City of Los Angeles upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 186325 and those land use related plans and functions are subject to only those procedures, reports, and other requirements that would be applicable to amending or repealing a land use plan, or zoning ordinance, as applicable, independent of any procedure, report, or other requirement of Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code. Additionally, pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code, the City is prohibited from creating a new project area,
adding territory to, or expanding or changing the boundaries of a project area, or taking any action that would increase the amount of obligated property tax (formerly tax increment) necessary to fulfill any existing enforceable obligation beyond what was authorized as of June 27, 2011.
(j) On October 23, 2019, the City was sued on the following:
(1) Under Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, the City’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) in adopting the ordinance to request transfer of all land use related plans and functions of the former redevelopment agency.
(2) The adequacy of the City’s request to transfer all land
use related plans and functions of the former redevelopment agency under subdivision (i) of Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) The City’s practice of approving projects with density greater than the density restrictions in redevelopment plans under processes under state and city law to allow greater density in exchange for affordable housing, as violating and unlawfully amending the redevelopment plans.
(k) In the last few years, petitioners and project opponents have brought multiple lawsuits or threatened challenges on the approval by the City` City of housing projects that involved over
3,000 housing units, including affordable housing units, on the basis that they do not conform to redevelopment plan requirements.
(l) The City is unique compared to other cities in the state for both of the following reasons:
(m)
(1) The City elected not to become the successor agency to its redevelopment agency, which was done by only six other cities, including the Cities of Los Banos, Mendota, Merced, Pismo Beach, Riverbank, and Santa Paula.
(2) In the City, there
are 19 active redevelopment plans which include project areas of approximately 851 acres, including plans with extensive land use and development regulations that are different from the City’s own existing land use and zoning regulations.
(3) The City has extensive existing and newly adopted land use regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations required by local voter initiative and designed to increase the supply of affordable housing, which have been challenged as conflicting with certain of the land use related plans and functions transferred to the City from the former redevelopment agency.
(n)
(m) The City is not the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency.
(o)
(n) The ambiguity about the status of the redevelopment plans in the City, including under state law, is delaying and preventing urgently needed housing, including affordable housing, in the City.
(p)
(o) The unique circumstances of the City described in this section require special legislation that applies to the City.
(p) It is the intent of the Legislature that this act does not affect obligations, if any, of the City of Los Angeles to comply with the Judgement After Appeal in County of Los Angeles v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, consolidated with Wiggins, et al v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles et al, (Los Angeles Superior Court Nos. BC 276472, related with Case No. BC277539).