CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION v. MATOSANTOS

Petitioners' Supplemental Brief

Cal.October 17, 2011

No. S194861 SUP Iz! ie COURT COPY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF sv? =Viccour THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LED 1 7 2011 CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,ET abaOy Petitioners, ANA MATOSANTOS,ET AL., Respondents. PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF STEVEN L., MAYER (No. 62030) smayer @howardrice.com EmiLy H. Woop (No. 260382) HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation Thrée Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/677-6262 Attorneysfor Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ARGUMENT I. Il. THE GOVERNOR’S VETO OF SBX18 ENSURES THAT MOST “INDEBTEDNESS” OWED BY THE RDAs TO THEIR HOST CITIES AND COUNTIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM “ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS” UNDER ABX1 26. THE LEGISLATURE’S PASSAGE OF SBX1 8 CONFIRMS THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND TO ELIMINATE REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCIES WHEN IT ADOPTED ABX1 26 AND 27. CONCLUSION Page. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases An Independent Home Support Serv. Inc. v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1418 (2006) 7 Flood v. Riggs, 80 Cal. App. 3d 138 (1978) 7 League of Women Voters v. McPherson, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1469 (2006) 7 People v. Puritan Ice Co., 24 Cal. 2d 645 (1944) 7 Constitutional Provisions CAL. CONST.art. XVI §16 1,3,4,5 Statutes HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §33690(a)(1) §33690(c)(2) §33690.5(a)(1) §33690.5(c)(2) §34171(d)(2) §34187 §34194.2 Proposed §33690(c)(3) Proposed §33690.5(c)(3) Proposed §34171(d)(2) Proposed §34194.25 “ ad B w W W N N N U N R e E e e e CAL. R. CT. 8.520(d)(1) 1 Other Authorities ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMM., Assembly Floor Analysis, Sen. 3d Reading Analysis of SBX1 8 (2011-12 ist Ex. Sess.), as amended Sept. 2, 2011 7 -li- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Governor’s veto message to Sen. on SBX1 8 (1st Ex. Sess.) (Oct. 4, 2011), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./ pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001_0050/sbx1_8_vt_20111004 -html Proposition 22 §2(d)(2) §2(f) §2.5 89 SENATE RULES COMM., Off. of Sen. Floor Analysis, Unfinished Business Analysis of SBX1 8 (2011-12 Ist Ex. Sess.), as amended Sept. 2, 2011 (Sept. 9, 2011) -iii- Page(s) N N N b d 2, 3 INTRODUCTION This brief is being filed pursuant to Rule 8.520(d)(1) to call the Court’s attention to the Legislature’s passage of SBX1 8 on Septem- ber 8, 2011, after Petitioners had filed their brief on the merits. Although the Governor subsequently vetoed the bill because of the pendencyof this litigation,’ the Legislature’s passage of SBX1 8 con- firms Petitioners’ argument that the money the dissolved RDAs’ suc- cessor agencies would receive under ABX1 26 is less than what the RDAs would have received to pay their “indebtedness” under Article XVI, Section 16, with the difference being transferred to the taxing entities and used for purposes other than redevelopment. See PartI, infra. In addition, the Legislature’s passage of SBX1 8 provides additional evidence that the Legislature does not intend, and has never intended, to eliminate the redevelopment agencies, which is exactly what would occur if ABX1 26 is upheld and severed from ABX1 27. See Part II, infra. STATEMENTOF FACTS During FY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Legislature required the RDAsto pay $1.7 billion and $350 million, respectively, to “SERAFs” or “Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds”to bene- fit the schools. §§33690(a)(1), 33690.5(a)(1). In order to make these payments, many RDAs borrowed money from their Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds. See, e.g., Candelario Decl. (3; Ridenhour Decl. §4. The Legislature authorized these loans, but provided that loans made in FY 2009-10 had to be repaid by June 30, 2015 and loans made in FY 2010-11 had to be repaid by June 30 of the following year. §§33690(c)(2), 33690.5(c)(2). ‘See Governor’s veto message to Sen. on SBX1 8 (1st Ex. Sess.) (Oct. 4, 2011), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./pub/1 1-12/bill/ sen/sb_0001_0050/sbx1_8_vt_20111004.html. *All statutory referencesare to the Health and Safety Code. Although the voters enacted Proposition 22 in November 2010 to prevent the Legislature from requiring future payments from the RDAs to the schools (see, e.g., Prop. 22, §§2(d)(2), (), 2.5, 9), ABX1 26 and 27 together require the RDAsto pay another $1.7 billion in FY 2011- 12, almostall to the schools, as a prerequisite for their continued exis- tence. (The required payments drop to $400 million in subsequent years. See Pet. Mem. 16-18.) Some RDAshave insufficient funds to make these payments because their Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds were depleted by loans used to make the payments to schools the Legislature required in FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11. See, e.g., Candelario Decl. 73; Ridenhour Decl. J4. SBX1 8 tried to amend the law to makeit easier for cities, counties and their RDAs to make the payments required by ABX1 27 during FY 2011-12. First, SBX18 would have extended the deadline for repaying loans made from an RDA’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the SERAF payments by five years. In other words, the June 30, 2015 repayment deadline for loans made in FY 2009-10 would have been extended to June 30, 2020, and the June 30, 2016 deadline for repayment of the FY 2010-11 loans would have been extended to June 30, 2021. Proposed §§33690(c)(3), 33690.5(c)(3). These extensions would have been available if the RDA was “otherwise unable to meet financial obligations in force on June 28, 2011”—the date ABX1 26 and 27 were enacted—“and commitments related to [ABX1 27’s] community remittances to education.” SENATE RULES COMM., Off. of Sen. Floor Analysis, Unfinished Business Analysis of SBX1 8, at 2-3 (2011-12 1st Ex. Sess.), as amended Sept. 2, 2011 (Sept. 9, 2011) (“SBX1 8 Senate Floor Analysis’). ABX1 27 authorized RDAsto reimburse their cities and counties for the full payments required by the statute on an annual basis. §34194.2. SBX18 would have let cities and counties make the full payment for FY 201 1-12, obtain partial reimbursement from their RDAsthis year, and receive the balance of the unreimbursed FY 2011- 12 payment from their RDAs in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 when the payments required by ABX1 27 will total $400 million rather than $1.7 billion. Proposed §34194.25. In other words, the bill tried to give the RDAs“two additional years to shift funds to a city or county for the 2011-12 remittance.” SBX1 8 Senate Floor Analysis at 2. In addition, SBX1 8 tried to expandthelist of “enforceable obliga- tions” under ABX1 26 by including debt owed by RDAsto their host cities and counties that were either incurred within two years of the date a project area was created or incurred as the result of loans made to the RDAs for the SERAF payments that the Legislature required in FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11. Proposed §34171(d)(2). However, the Governor’s veto ofthe bill ensures that these debts will continue notto be “enforceable obligations” under ABX1 26 even though they consti- tute “indebtedness” under Article XVI, Section 16. Consequently, the moneythat would have paid these debts under SBX1 8 will continue to be diverted to the taxing agencies under ABX1 26 and used for non- redevelopment-related purposes. Finally, SBX18 attempted to amend Section 34187 to let the RDAs’successor agencies keep the increment associated with paid-off debt if it was necessary to pay other “enforceable obligations” recog- nized under the statute. However, because of the Governor’s veto, these funds will not go to the successor agencies, these obligations will not be paid, and the money will go instead to the taxing entities to be used for purposes other than redevelopment. ARGUMENT I. THE GOVERNOR’S VETO OF SBX1 8 ENSURES THAT MOST “INDEBTEDNESS” OWEDBY THE RDAs TO THEIR HOSTCITIES AND COUNTIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM “ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS” UNDER ABX1 26. In their Answer to the Amici Briefs, Petitioners demonstrated that the “enforceable obligations” that must be paid by the dissolved RDAs’ successor agencies are not identical to the “indebtedness” secured under Article XVI, Section 16 with a pledge of tax increment. See Petitioners’ Answer to the Amici Briefs (‘‘Pet. Ans.”) 9-10. In particular, the “enforceable obligations” that can be paid by the successor agencies under ABX1 26 do not include most debt owed by an RDAto its sponsoring city or county. §34171(d)(2). The omission is significant, because cities and counties commonly loan money to their RDAsin the early stages of a project, before it generates tax increment. See Pet. Ans. 9-10. These loans constitute “indebtedness” under Article XVI, Section 16, and therefore may be secured by a pledge of tax increment. However, under ABX1 26, these debts are not “enforceable obligations” and the RDAs’ successor agencies will there- fore not receive the funds necessary to pay them off. See Pet. Ans. 10. In addition, some RDAs borrowed money from their cities or counties to make the payments required by the Legislature in FY 2009- 10 and 2010-11. These debts, too, are not “enforceable obligations” under ABX1 26 (see §34171(d)(2)), and therefore will not be paid off underthat statute. SBX1 8 would have eliminated these gaps in the definition of “enforceable obligations.” It would have revised Section 34171(d)(2) to provide that such obligations may include debt incurred by an RDA during the first two years of a project area and debt incurred by an RDA in order to make the payments to SERAFs mandated by the Legislature in FY 2009-10 and 2010-11. However, now that the bill has been vetoed, the successor agencies to the RDAs will not receive the funds necessary to pay this indebtedness. Instead, those funds will be diverted to the taxing agencies, which can use them for non- redevelopment-related purposes. Consequently, the Governor’s veto of SBX1 8 continues a regime in which the successor agencies to the dissolved RDAs will receive less money—and getit later—than the RDAs would have received under Article XVI, Section 16, with the difference diverted elsewhere in violation of Proposition 22. That is true for another reason, as well. ABX1 26 presently pro- vides that once a “recognized obligation” under ABX126 is “paid off or retired .. . the county auditor-controller shall distribute to the taxing entities... all property tax revenues that were associated with the payment of the recognized obligation.” §34187. However, as shown in Petitioners’ Answer to the Amici Briefs, there are numerous occasions when the tax increment an RDAreceives during a given year or six- month periodis less than the amount neededto payits existing “indebt- edness.” See Pet. Ans. 11-12 n.6. Nevertheless, Section 34187 requires that, once a particular RDA debt is paid off, the increment associated with that debt will be lost to the RDA,and distributed to the taxing agencies, even if it was needed to pay off other “enforceable obligations’ recognized underthatstatute. SBX1 8 attempted to remedy this problem, by providing that this increment would not be distributed to the taxing agencies if it was “currently required for the payment of other recognized obligations.” Proposed §34187. However, the Governor’s veto of the bill ensures that, in this situation, too, the successor agencies will receive less money under ABX1 26 than the RDAs would have received under Article XVI, Section 16, with the difference again diverted and used for non-redevelopmentpurposes in violation of Proposition 22.7 THE LEGISLATURE’S PASSAGE OF SBX1 8 CONFIRMS THAT THE LEGISLATUREDID NOT INTEND TO ELIMINATE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WHENIT ADOPTED ABX1 26 AND27. During the legislative debates on ABX1 26, the President Pro Tem of the Senate recognized that “‘this legislature, I think, believes—orthe majority believes... that we ought to keep redevelopment.” Petitioners’ MJN, Ex. 2, at 18:17-20. Moreover, he recognized that for "The same issue arises in the common situation where an RDA structures debt so that one debt payment increases when anotherdebtis paid off. For example, suppose that an RDA issues bonds (‘Series A Bonds”) to be repaid by a designated stream of tax increment. It then issues new bonds (“Series B Bonds’’) on whichit pays interest, but not principal, until the Series A Bondsare retired, at which point the same stream of tax increment is used to pay the Series B Bonds. Under ABX1 26 the increment associated with the Series A Bonds will be unavailable to pay the Series B Bonds, becauseit will be diverted else- where under Section 34187 once the Series A Bondsare paid off. some agencies “the moneythat hasto go to the schools orto the special districts... may leave the redevelopment agencies with nothing,” so that “you might be really eliminating without any ability to recreate.” Id. at 19:20-25. Accordingly, the President Pro Tem “pledged to [the Senators] as their leader that we will bring forth legislation that protects against that.” Jd. at 20:1-3. These assurances were necessary for ABX1 26 to pass. For exam- ple, Senator Lowenthal, whostated that ‘““I did not know how I was going to vote until I listened to the Pro Tem,” told the Senate that he was going to vote for the bill only because the President Pro Tem had given the Senate three “assurances.” Jd. at 30:13-16. Thefirst of these was the President Pro Tem’s assurance that “the formulas that will be provided in the cleanup bill will enable redevelopmentto continue. We will not divide up the moneysothat there is not money for redevelop- ment.” Id. at 30:19-22 (Sen. Lowenthal). Similarly, Senator Hancock, whoalso said that she “did not know how I was going to vote”(id. at 31:17), stated that she now supported the bill because the President Pro Tem had said “that he will, in the legislation that we do, move to pro- tect cities that may not have the revenues to make the schools whole and also to continue to run their cities.” Jd. at 32:1-4. The assurances from the President Pro Tem that ABX1 26 and 27 would be modified to prevent cities and counties who did not have the funds to make the ABX1 27 payments for FY 2011-12 were necessary for the bill to pass, because it cleared the Senate with no votes to spare. See Pet. Rep. Mem.30. SBX1 8 attempted to fulfill the President Pro Tem’s promise to amend ABX1 26 and 27 to prevent RDAs from being dissolved only because neither the agencies nor their host cities or counties had enough money to make the payments required bythe latter statute. While it did not attempt to accomplish this goal in the precise manner envisioned by the President Pro Tem—he apparently envisioned per- centage formulas that would provide money for both schools and RDAs (see Petitioners’ MJN, Ex. 2, at 20:4-10)—the two changes that SBX1 8 attempted to make were both intended to give the RDAs “new flexibility’ (SBX18 Senate Floor Analysis at 2) or “additional financial flexibility’ (ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMM., Assembly Floor Analysis, Sen. 3d Reading Analysis of SBX1 8, at 1 (2011-12 Ist Ex. Sess.), as amended Sept. 2, 2011), to make the payments required by ABX1 27. In other words, the Legislature was trying to minimize the possibility that RDAs would dissolve due to lack of funds.* Accordingly, the Legislature’s approval of SBX1 8 provides further evidence that the Legislature did not intend to eliminate redevelopment—as would occur if ABX1 26 is upheld and found severable—butto permit it to continue as long as the payments required by ABX1 27 were made. Courts have often recognized that vetoed legislation can be relevant in determining legislative intent. See, e.g., People v. Puritan Ice Co., 24 Cal. 2d 645, 653 (1944); League of Women Voters v. McPherson, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1469, 1483 n.12 (2006); An Independent Home Support Serv. Inc. v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1418, 1434 n.4 (2006); Flood v. Riggs, 80 Cal. App. 3d 138, 152-53 (1978). The case for relevance is particularly strong here. SBX1 8 was passed by the same Legislature that enacted ABX1 26 and 27; it addressed the same subject; and the former bill attempted to amendthelatter two. Indeed, it would be wildly improbable if the Legislature’s goals in passing SBX1 8 were not the same goals that it had earlier tried to achieve in enacting ABX1 26 and 27. Because SBX1 8 waspassed bythe Legis- lature to makeit less likely that any RDAs would beforced to dissolve “It is noteworthy thatall the legislative discussions of what would happen to those agencies that did not make the payments under ABX1 27 and would therefore be dissolved under ABX1 26 were framed in terms of choice rather than compulsion. See, e.g., Petition- ers’ MJN, Ex. 2, at 2:18-22 (“So what [ABX1 26] specifically does is eliminate[] ... the RDAs in the case where a community chooses not to participate in the alternative RDA program”) (Sen. Leno) (emphasis added). In other words, even if the Legislature thought that a few RDAs would be dissolved under ABX1 26, dissolution was intended to be the result of a considered policy decision, not economic necessity (or, for that matter, the invalidation and severing of ABX1 27). _ under ABX1 26,it is fair to assume that ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were enacted with precisely the sameintent. CONCLUSION Vetoed or not, SBX18 highlights the constitutional flaws in ABX1 26 and 27. For the reasons set forth above, and those in Peti- tioners’ prior brief, the Petition for Writ of Mandate should be granted. DATED:October 17, 2011. Respectfully, STEVEN L. MAYER EMILY H. Woop HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation By STEVEN L. MAYER Attorneysfor Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANTTO CAL.R.CT. 8.204(c) and 8.486(a)(6) Pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.204(c) and 8.486(a)(6), and in reliance upon the word count feature of the software used, J certify that the attached Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief contains 2,552 words, exclusive of those materials not required to be counted under Rules 8.204(c) and 8.486(a)(6). DATED:October 17, 2011. fee “STEVEN L. MAYER” W03 101411-112080007/PB10/1661310/F PROOF OF SERVICE I, Myrna M. DaCunha, declare: I am resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action; my business address is Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4024. On October 17, 2011, I served the following document(s) described as: PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF C1 BY FACSIMILE:bytransmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. k] BY U.S. MAIL: byplacing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed as set forth below. Ol BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: bytransmitting via email the document(s) listed above to the email address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. C1 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: byplacing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. Cl BY MESSENGER: served the documents described above on the parties listed below by causing them to be delivered by hand to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. PROOF OF SERVICE -1- Jennifer K. Rockwell Chief Counsel Department of Finance State Capitol, Room 1145 915 “L” Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-4142 Fax: 916) 323-0060 Attorneysfor RespondentAna Matosantos, Director ofFinance Richard R. Karlson Interim County Counsel Brian E. Washington Assistant County Counsel Claude F. Kolm Deputy County Counsel State of California Office of the Alameda County Counsel 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 272-6700 Fax: 510) 272-5020 Attorneysfor RespondentPatrick O’Connell, Auditor-Controller, County ofAlameda Miguel Marquez County Counsel Orry P. Korb Assistant County Counsel Lizanne Reynolds Deputy County Counsel James R. Williams Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel 70 West HeddingStreet East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: (408) 299-5900 Fax: 408) 292-7240 Attorneysfor Vinod K. Sharma, Auditor-Controller ofthe County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Clara Richard J. Chivaro, Esq. Office of the State Controller State of California Legal Department 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-2636 Fax: 916) 322-1220 or Respondent JohnAttorneys alifornia State ControllerChiang, Kamala D.Harris Attorney General Ross C. Moody Deputy Office of the Attorney General State of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 703-1376 Fax: 415) 703-1234 Attorneysfor Respondents Ana Matosantos, Director ofFinance and John Chiang, California State Controller Murray O. Kane, Esq. Susan Y. Cola, Esq. Donald P. Johnson, Esq. Kane, Ballmer & Berkman 5158, Figueroa Street Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-617-0480 Fax: 213-625-0931 Attorneysfor Community Redevelopment Agencyofthe City ofLos Angeles, Southern California Association ofNon-Profit Housing and Betty Yee PROOF OF SERVICE -2- Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney Kelly Martin, General Counsel and Senior Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 1200 West 7th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-977-1927 Fax: 213-617-8199 Attorneysfor Community RedevelopmentAgency ofthe City ofLos Angeles Jeffrey M. Oderman,Esq. Dan Slater, Esq. Mark J. Austin, Esq. Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 Phone: 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Attorneysfor Amici Curiae City of Cerritos; Cerritos Redevelopment Agency; City ofCarson; Carson Redevelopment Agency, City of Commerce; Commerce Community Development Commission; City of Cypress; Cypress Redevelopment Agency; City ofDowney; Community Development Commission ofthe City ofDowney; City ofLakewood; Lakewood Redevelopment Agency; City of Paramount; Paramount Redevelopment Agency; City of Placentia; RedevelopmentAgency ofthe City ofPlacentia; City of Santa Fe Springs; Community Development Commission of the City ofSanta Fe Springs; City of Signal Hill; Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency; Cuesta Villas Housing Corporation, and Bruce W. Barrows Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel Michelle D. Blakemore, Chief Assistant County Counsel 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 4th Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0140 Phone: 909-387-5445 Fax: 909-387-5462 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae County ofSan Bernardino Karen Getman, Esq. Margaret R. Prinzing, Esq. Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP 201 Dolores Avenue. San Leandro, CA 94577 Phone: 510-346-6200 Fax: 510-346-6201 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae California Teachers Association PROOFOF SERVICE -3- William M. Marticorena, Esq. Philip D. Kohn, Esq. Jeffrey T. Melching, Esq. Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 Phone: 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Attorneysfor City ofIrvine, California Peter L. Wallin, Esq. Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, LLP 2800 28th Street, Suite 315 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-450-9582 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Long Beach Central, West and North Project Area Committees Miguel Marquez, County Counsel Lori E. Pegg, Dist. General Counsel, Assistant County Counsel Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel James R. Williams, Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing. 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: 408-299-5900 Fax: 408-292-7240 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Santa Clara Unified School District Michael Rawson,Esq. Deborah Collins, Esq. Craig Castellanet, Esq. California Affordable Housing Law Project of the Public Interest Law Project 449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-891-9794 (ext. 145) Fax: 510-891-9727 Attorneysfor Amici Curiae The: Public Interest Law Project, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Legal Services ofNorthern California, Public Counsel, Western Center on Law & Poverty Robert V. Wadden,Jr., Esq. Law Offices of Robert V. Wadden, Jr. 1031 Avenue C Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Phone: 310-251-7660 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Long Beach Central, West and North Project Area Committees M.Louis Bobak, Esq. Thomas F. Nixon, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, APC 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Phone: 714-558-7000 Fax: 714-835-7787 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Association of California Cities — Orange County PROOF OF SERVICE -4- John C. Eastman, Esq. Anthony T. Caso, Esq. Karen J. Lugo, Esq. Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman Univ. School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA 92886 Phone: 714-628-2530 Attorneysfor Amici Curiae Centerfor Constitutional Jurisprudence and California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights Christopher Sutton, Esq. Law Office of Christopher Sutton 586 La Loma Road Pasadena, CA 91105-2443 Phone: 626-683-2500 Fax: 626-405-9843 Attorneyfor Municipal Officialsfor Redevelopment Reform and Chris Norby PROOF OF SERVICE 5- Gregory G. Luke, Esq. Byron F. Kahr, Esq. Strumwasser & Woocher LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-576-1233 Fax: 310-319-0156 Counselfor Amicus Curiae Los Angeles Unified School District Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel Anita C, Willis, Deputy County Counsel County of Riverside Office of County Counsel 3960 Orange Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3674 Phone: 951-955-1272 Fax: 951-955-9177 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae County ofRiverside Sayre Weaver, Esq. Steven R. Orr, Esq. Toussaint S. Bailey, Esq. Andrew J. Brady, iS. Richards, Watson & Gershon, APC 355 South Grand Avenue,40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-626-8484 Fax: 213-626-0078 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae Association ofBay Area governments, City ofArtesia, Artesia Redevelopment Agency, Brea Redevelopment Agency, City ofBuena Park Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Calimesa, Calimesa Redevelopment Agency, Fairfield Redevelopment Agency, City ofHawthorne, Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency, La Mirada Redevelopment Agency, Manteca Redevelopment Agency, City of Monterey, Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, City ofSeal Beach, Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency, Temecula Redevelopment Agency, Turlock Redevelopment Agency, and Whittier RedevelopmentAgency Catherine A. Rodman Affordable Housing Advocates 4305 University Avenue Suite 110 San Diego, CA 92105 Phone: 619- 233-8441 Fax: 619-233-4828 Attorneyfor Amicus Curiae Affordable Housing Advocates PROOF OF SERVICE -6- Thomas W.Hiltachk, Esq. Abe Hajela Bell McAndrews & Hiltachk General Counsel 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 California School Boards Sacramento, CA 95814 Association 3100 Beacon Boulevard Phone: 916-442-7757 P.O. Box 1660 Fax: 916-442-7759 West Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorneyfor Amicus Curiae Phone: 916-371-4691 California Professional Firefighters Fax: 916-371-3407 Counselfor Amicus California School Boards Association I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one dayafter date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on October 17, 2011. Leno ©. Cb. Myma M. Da Cunha PROOF OF SERVICE -7-