Laserfiche WebLink
04/23/2012 <br /> ORIGINAL <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 15185 <br /> A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD <br /> CITY CONFIRMING THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO <br /> THE REDEVELOPMENT DISSOLUTION OVERSIGHT BOARD TO SERVE <br /> AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT <br /> AGENCY <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redwood City ("City") approved and <br /> adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No. 2("Redevelopment <br /> Plan"), covering certain properties within the City (the "Project Area"); and <br /> WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redwood City ("Agency") has <br /> been engaged in activities to execute and implement the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to <br /> the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code § <br /> 33000, et se�c..) ("CRL"); and <br /> WHEREAS, since adoption of the Redevelopment Plan the Agency has undertaken <br /> redevelopment projects in the Project Area to eliminate blight, to improve public facilities <br /> and infrastructure, to renovate and construct affordable housing, and to enter into <br /> partnerships with private industries to create jobs and expand the local economy; and <br /> WHEREAS, as part of the 2011-12 State budget bill, the California Legislature <br /> enacted, and the Governor signed , companion bills AB 1 X 26 and AB 1X 27, requiring that <br /> each redevelopment agency be dissolved unless the community that created it enacts an <br /> ordinance committing it to making certain payments; and <br /> WHEREAS, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in the Supreme Court of the <br /> State of California on July 18, 2011 (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana <br /> Matosantos, et al., Case No. S194861), challenging the constitutionality of AB 1X 26 and <br /> AB 1X 27 on behalf of cities, counties and redevelopment agencies; and <br /> WHEREAS, on December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its final decision in <br /> the aforesaid litigation, upholding AB 1X 26, invalidating AB 1X 27, and extending all <br /> statutory deadlines under AB 1X 26, essentially dissolving all redevelopment agencies <br /> throughout the State effective February 1, 2012; and <br /> WHEREAS, AB 1X 26 provides that successor agencies be designated as <br /> successor entities to the former redevelopment agencies, and provides that, with certain <br /> ATfY/RES0.2226/OVERSIGHT BOARD MAYORS APPOINTMENT RESO. # 15185 <br /> REV:04-16-12 VR MUFF # 301 <br /> Page 1 of 3 <br />