Cohen

This is another case arising out of the 2011 legislation that brought about the “Great Dissolution” of California’s redevelopment agencies. (See City of Pasadena v. Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1463 [ 176 *45 Cal.Rptr.3d 729 ] (Pasadena).) This enactment (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5X (hereafter chapter 5X)), which focused chiefly on the Health and Safety Code, 1 barred any new obligations for redevelopment activity and provided a process to wind up the obligations of the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies then existing, in order that the ever-encroaching “tax increment” share of property taxes paid to the redevelopment agencies could then be redistributed instead to the counties, cities, special districts, and school districts otherwise entitled to these revenues. (Pasadena, supra, at p. 1463 & fn. 2; California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246-247 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 , 267 P.3d 580 ] {Matosantos).)

Plaintiff County of Sonoma (Sonoma), in its capacity as the “successor agency” (§§ 34171, subd. (j), 34173, 34177) to the former Sonoma County Community Redevelopment Agency (Sonoma Redevelopment Agency), “reentered” into…

Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in the disposition. The result is based on an interpretation of relevant statutory language that controlled during a finite period of time: a time when the statutory scheme expressly authorized a successor agency to “enter or reenter” into agreements with its sponsoring entity regarding redevelopment activities if the successor agency obtained the approval of its oversight board. (Health & Saf. Code, § 34178, subd. (a).) 1 That window of opportunity came to an end when the Legislature and the Governor subsequently amended the statutory scheme to eliminate such authority.

Assembly Bill No. IX 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5, § 7) (Assembly Bill 26) was enacted on June 29, 2011. Among other things, Assembly Bill 26 added section 34178, which authorized the reentered agreements in this case. But the Legislature and the Governor subsequently amended the Assembly Bill 26 statutory scheme when they approved Assembly Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2012, ch. 26, §§ 6-35) (Assembly Bill 1484), a law that took effect on June 27, 2012. Assembly Bill 1484 eliminated the authority of a successor…

Filed 3/12/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

COUNTY OF SONOMA, as Successor, etc., C075120

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2013-80001378-CU-WM-GDS) v.

MICHAEL COHEN, as Director, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Eugene L. Balonon, Judge. Affirmed.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Beckington and George M. Waters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant.

Goldfarb & Lipman, Juliet E. Cox; Bruce D. Goldstein, County Counsel, Steven S. Shupe, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is another case arising out of the 2011 legislation that brought about the “Great Dissolution” of California’s redevelopment agencies. (See City of Pasadena v.

1 Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1463 (Pasadena).) This enactment (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5X (hereafter chapter 5X)), which focused chiefly on the Health and Safety Code,1 barred any new obligations for redevelopment…