(The Center Square) – A California bill nearing the governor’s desk would create “Climate Resilience Districts” to in part finance income-restricted “affordable” housing in disaster-impacted areas such as the Pacific Palisades and Altadena, similar to the “Resilient Rebuilding Authority” bill put on hold in July.
According to the bill’s analysis by the State Assembly Committee on Local Government, the CRDs would bypass some existing public input requirements and lack a formal protest process residents could use to block a CRD’s adoption.
SB 782, authored by State Sen. Sasha Perez, D-Alhambra and sponsored by Los Angeles County, has passed the State Senate and its first State Assembly committee — all without any “no” votes.
The bill would allow for the creation of “Climate Resilience Districts” that could issue bonds or use other revenue to replace lost “low- and moderate-income housing,” and fund “affordable housing development pursuant to the provisions of Section 53398.52.”
California Government Code Section 53398.52 requires that housing built using this kind of special district financing must be deed-restricted as affordable to “persons of very low, low, and moderate income” for at least 45 years if owner-occupied, or 55 years if rented out.
The funding could also be used for “prevention of displacement,” which often refers to rental assistance programs, and “workforce development and job training programs.”
LA County argues that the bill is necessary to “accelerate rebuilding through emergency procurement and expedited approvals,” and will “support housing, infrastructure, risk mitigation, small business recovery, and workforce development—ensuring communities like Los Angeles County can rebuild stronger and more resilient.”
The bill would also allow these districts’ funds to be used for “water and energy resource access and availability during emergencies and natural disasters,” and the “undergrounding and hardening of electrical lines and other utilities,” which could both limit wildfire risk, and improve wildfire responses.
Early investigations indicate that the Eaton Fire, which devastated Altadena, Pasadena, and Sierra Madre, may have been sparked by an abandoned power line, highlighting the need to upgrade energy infrastructure in fire-prone areas.
As noted by the Assembly Committee on Local Government, the Climate Resilience Districts would have limited opportunity for public input regarding their creation, which would only require the passage of resolutions by the municipal governments seeking to create them.
“Under existing law, before CRDs can use tax increment financing, they have to go through various meetings and notices,” wrote the committee’s analysts. “The measure allows a city or county to bypass some of these meeting and notice requirements.”
The standard protest requirement via California financing district law mandates that a financing district can be blocked if a majority of residents and property owners over 18 and older file a protest; a protest of 25-50% triggers an election on whether or not to proceed with a financing district. SB 782 would do away with this requirement for CRDs.
“This bill condenses the meeting and notice requirements … reducing the number of meetings from three to two and forgoing the opportunity for the public to weigh in during a formalized protest process,” continued the committee’s analysts. “Is posting a notice on its website and holding two public meetings sufficient to inform the public on the potential CRD’s formation?”
CRD boundaries would be limited to areas with “prevalent and substantial” disaster damage, along with “adjacent” areas, though “adjacent” areas can be no more than 20% of the CRD.
In the context of LA County, the Pacific Palisades and Altadena disaster areas would have different barriers to CRD adoption. Because the Pacific Palisades is governed by the City of Los Angeles, creating a CRD for the area would require resolutions from the from the city, and if involving county-wide taxes and fees, the county as well.
However, because Altadena — a community of more modest means than the Pacific Palisades — is governed directly by LA County and its five-member Board of Supervisors, local residents fear that SB 782 would limit their ability to direct how their community is rebuilt.
“We believe the residents and businesses of unincorporated communities deserve the same rights and privileges held by residents and businesses of incorporated municipalities,” said California (un)Incorporated, a coalition representing residents and businesses in the state’s incorporated areas, in opposition to the bill. “Altadena, being unincorporated, does not have a Mayor and City Council.”
“SB782 would continue the state’s unfair and undemocratic treatment of Californians whose voices, needs and hopes are often overlooked because their communities are unincorporated,” continued California (un)Incorporated.
Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom allocated $101 million in taxpayer funds for “multifamily low-income housing development” that will “contribute to a more equitable and resilient Los Angeles,” with a priority for “geographic proximity to the fire perimeters of the Eaton, Hughes, and Palisades fires.”
A few weeks later, a similar bill to SB 782, SB 549 — which would have created a “Resilient Rebuilding Authority” centralizing rebuilding power for the Los Angeles fires within the Los Angeles County government — was placed on hold after community pushback.
Perez’s office did not respond to The Center Square’s inquiries by the time of publication.
