City of Emeryville v. Cohen
233 Cal. App. 4th 293
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2011 the Legislature dissolved California redevelopment agencies via Assembly Bill 1X 26, requiring successor agencies to wind down affairs and authorizing oversight boards to approve certain actions; many prior agency–city agreements were declared invalid but successor agencies could “enter or reenter” agreements with oversight board approval (Health & Saf. Code § 34178(a)).
- Emeryville (city and successor agency) had pre-2011 redevelopment agreements; in June 2012 Emeryville and its successor executed agreements restating three project commitments and the oversight board approved three reentered agreements and included them on an amended ROPS.
- Shortly after Assembly Bill 1484 (June 27, 2012) amended the statutory review process and added § 34177.3, the Department of Finance refused to process Emeryville’s amended ROPS and effectively disapproved the reentered agreements, claiming untimeliness and later relying on AB 1484 changes.
- Emeryville sued for mandamus and declaratory relief, asking the trial court to compel the Department to recognize the reentered agreements; the trial court granted relief and the Department appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held (1) § 34178(a) unambiguously authorized successor agencies to reenter prior agreements (subject to oversight board approval and Department review), and (2) provisions of AB 1484 (notably § 34177.3) do not operate retroactively to invalidate agreements reentered before that statute’s enactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 34178(a) authorized Emeryville to reenter the three agreements | Section 34178(a) expressly permits a successor agency to “enter or reenter” agreements with the city upon oversight board approval; thus Emeryville lawfully reentered the agreements | § 34178 must be read narrowly in light of AB 1X 26’s wind‑down purpose; permitting these reentries would frustrate dissolution and enable continued redevelopment activity | Court: § 34178(a) unambiguous — “reenter” means what it says; oversight board review plus Department review guard against abuse, so reentry was authorized |
| Whether other provisions of AB 1X 26 limit § 34178 reentry authority (e.g., definitions of enforceable obligations, anti‑debt provisions) | Such provisions do not negate the specific authorization in § 34178; enforceable obligations remain those legally binding and not void on public‑policy or debt grounds | Cross‑statutory context shows Legislature intended to freeze obligations and restrict successor agency activity, so § 34178 should be narrowly construed | Court: Read statutes together; nothing creates ambiguity in § 34178 and other provisions do not nullify the reentry power; oversight board/Department roles address policy concerns |
| Whether the Department validly disapproved the amended ROPS by refusing to process it as untimely | Emeryville argued Dept. never provided substantive statutory grounds for disapproval and abandoned the untimeliness claim on appeal | Dept. initially refused to process amended ROPS as untimely and later defended nonrecognition under AB 1484 | Court: Dept.’s untimeliness theory was abandoned on appeal; Dept. did not substantively disapprove under the statutory review scheme and cannot rely on untimeliness here |
| Whether AB 1484 (§ 34177.3) applies retroactively to invalidate agreements reentered before its enactment | Emeryville: AB 1484 is prospective; the presumption against retroactivity applies and § 34177.3 does not expressly state retroactive effect | Dept.: § 34177.3 declares itself declaratory of existing law and its language shows intent to preclude post‑June 28, 2011 obligations, so it should be applied to invalidate the reentered agreements | Court: Presumption against retroactivity controls; AB 1484 changed the law and the declaratory clause cannot overcome that presumption, so § 34177.3 does not invalidate pre‑enactment reentries |
Key Cases Cited
- California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011) (upholding AB 1X 26’s dissolution scheme and interpreting redevelopment‑dissolution statutes)
- McClung v. Employment Dev. Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2004) (presumption against retroactive application of statutes; subsequent legislative declarations insufficient to overcome presumption when law has changed)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) (legislative declaration that amendment clarifies prior law may be persuasive when the prior statute is ambiguous and no change in law occurs)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (appellate burden and standards for showing error on administrative record)