Chapter 2 - Continued Agency Existence

California Health and Safety Code — §§ 34193-34193.3

Sections (4)

Added by Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 6, Sec. 2. (AB 27 1x) Effective June 29, 2011. Ruled unconstitutional per California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.

(a)Notwithstanding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161), Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170), or any other law, a redevelopment agency may continue to exist and carry out the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000)) only upon the enactment of an ordinance enacted by the community to comply with this part on or before November 1, 2011, except as provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (L) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 34194.

(b)If a city or county intends to enact the ordinance provided for in this section after October 1, 2011, it shall indicate that intention by adopting a nonbinding resolution of intent to that effect prior

to October 1, 2011, and notify the Department of Finance, the Controller, and the county auditor before October 1, 2011, concerning the resolution. This action shall delay the dissolution of a redevelopment agency until November 1, 2011. If a city or county does not enact an ordinance pursuant to this part, Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) shall apply, as applicable, to a redevelopment agency.

§ 34193.1

Added by Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 6, Sec. 2. (AB 27 1x) Effective June 29, 2011. Ruled unconstitutional per California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.

On or before November 1, 2011, a city or county that has created a redevelopment agency and enacted an ordinance pursuant to Section 34193 shall notify the county auditor-controller, the Controller, and the Department of Finance that the city or county agree to comply with the provisions of this part.

§ 34193.2

Added by Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 6, Sec. 2. (AB 27 1x) Effective June 29, 2011. Ruled unconstitutional per California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.

The community remittances that are made under this part are intended to benefit the community by ensuring improved educational and other community services in the areas served by the redevelopment agency.

(a)A city or county’s agreement to remit revenues to school entities and special districts under this part is a precondition to continue redevelopment pursuant to this part.

(b)Participation in the alternative voluntary redevelopment program shall also constitute an agreement, on the part of a city or county, that it assigns its rights to any payments owed from a redevelopment agency, including, but not limited to, payments from loan agreements, to the

state, in the event that the city or county fails to make a remittance required pursuant to this part.

§ 34193.3

Added by Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 6, Sec. 2. (AB 27 1x) Effective June 29, 2011. Ruled unconstitutional per California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.

The actions of any redevelopment agency of a participating city or county that has enacted an ordinance pursuant to Section 34193, taken after the date of the adoption of that ordinance, and which are subject to the provisions of Sections 33500 or 33501, shall not be subject to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 33500 or of subdivision (c) of Section 33501. Instead, these actions shall be subject to the other provisions of those sections notwithstanding that the actions occurred after January 1, 2011.