Citizens v. San Mateo County Formation Com.

Citation159 Cal.App.4th 717,71 Cal.Rptr.3d 813
Decision Date31 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. A116825.,A116825.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesCITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE OPEN SPACE et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants; Midpenninsula Regional Open Space District, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Best Best & Krieger LLP, Clark H. Alsop as amicus curiae on behalf of California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions.

David W. McMurchie as amicus curiae on behalf of California Special Districts Association.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk, Gabriel M.B. Ross, Susan M. Schectman, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Midpenninsula Regional Open Space.

POLLAK, Acting P.J.

Citizens for Responsible Open Space and Californians for Property Rights (collectively, Citizens) petitioned the superior court to invalidate the annexation to the Midpenninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) of 144,000 acres along the coast of San Mateo County. They appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendants San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and San Mateo County rejecting their petition. Citizens contend the annexation should be invalidated for numerous reasons: because public notice of the hearing to protest the annexation omitted a statement of reasons for the annexation and included an ambiguous map of the affected area, and because LAFCO delegated the task of verifying the written protests to a separate county department and assertedly determined incorrectly the number of registered voters residing in the annexation area. In a cross-appeal, LAFCO contends the trial court erred in finding that it improperly excluded protests by registered voters who did not include their residence address on the protest form. We reject Citizens' claims, but agree with LAFCO that it properly excluded those protests that did not include a residence address within the annexation area.1

BACKGROUND
Summary of the Relevant Law

A local agency formation commission is an administrative body created pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (Gov. Code,2 56000 et seq.) (the Act) to "control the process of municipality expansion. The purposes of the act are to encourage `planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space [and agricultural] lands within those patterns' [citation], and to discourage urban sprawl and encourage `the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.'" (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489 495, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 981 P.2d 543; City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 480, 485, 243 Cal.Rptr. 740.) The purposes of the Act are achieved primarily through the approval or disapproval of annexation requests. (§ 56375; McBail & Co. v. Solano County Local Agency Formation Com. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1228, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 923.) Local agency formation commissions are empowered to "review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for [annexation]." (§ 56375, subd. (a); § 56021, subd. (c); City of Santa Clara v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 923, 930, 189 Cal. Rptr. 112.)

When a petition has been approved by the commission, the Act provides a procedure by which the public can protest the proposed annexation. A notice must be published advising landowners or registered voters residing within the subject territory that they "may file a written protest against the proposal with the executive officer of the commission at any time prior to the conclusion of the hearing by the commission on the proposal." (§§ 57025, 57026, subd. (g).) The notice must contain, among other things, the date and time for the protest hearing, a "description of the exterior boundaries of the subject territory," a description of the proposed annexation, and "a statement of the reason or reasons for the [annexation] as set forth in the proposal submitted to the commission." (§ 57026, subds.(b), (c) & (d).) "Upon conclusion of the protest hearing, the [local agency formation commission] shall determine the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn." (§ 57052.) If 50 percent of the registered voters residing within the area to be annexed filed valid written protests, the annexation must be terminated. (§ 57075, subd. (a)(1).) If more than 25 percent but less that 50 percent of the registered voters residing in the subject territory filed valid protests, the annexation must be confirmed by a vote. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) If less than 25 percent of the registered voters residing in the subject territory filed valid protests, the annexation may be ordered without an election. (Id., subd. (a)(3).)

Factual and Procedural History

In 1998, San Mateo County coastside voters passed an advisory ballot measure approving MROSD's annexation of approximately 144,000 acres on the San Mateo County coast extending west from the existing MROSD boundary to the Pacific Ocean, north to the southern boundary of the City of Pacifica, and south to the Santa Cruz/San Mateo County border. Over the next five years, MROSD held over 40 public hearings, prepared an environmental impact report and developed a Coastal Program Service Plan. In June 2003, MROSD certified the environmental impact report and formally initiated the annexation process by adopting a Resolution of Application.

LAFCO considered numerous reports and held three extensive public hearings on MROSD's application. Opposition to the annexation focused on "potential use of eminent domain by MROSD in the coastal area, underestimation of fiscal impacts to school districts and other agencies, lack of ability to vote on the annexation proposal, future taxation by MROSD without voter approval, lack of coastal representation on the [MROSD] Board following annexation, MROSD's lack of expertise in agricultural land management, adverse impacts of public lands on adjacent coastal agricultural lands and adverse impacts of public lands on public safety services such as fire and police protection." In response to these concerns, MROSD adopted a resolution precluding use of the power of eminent domain within the annexation area.3 MROSD also assured LAFCO and coastside residents that it could fund its basic service plan through grants and existing revenue and that no additional taxes would be imposed on coastside residents without voter approval. MROSD adopted a resolution agreeing not to seek a property tax transfer from any of the affected agencies in connection with the annexation and entered into an agreement with the affected school district to address losses in property tax revenue due to MROSD's proposed acquisition of property within the annexation area. MROSD also agreed to work with coastside residents to develop a redistricting plan that would allow representation of the coastal area on its board and to work "with [the] San Mateo County Fire Department on a [memorandum of understanding] that includes a Mutual Aid Agreement and contract for services."

On April 7, 2004 LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 960, which made findings and approved the annexation. LAFCO initiated the protest process by publishing a notice of the protest hearing in the San Mateo Times and in the Half Moon Bay Review. The notice identified the date and location of the hearing, eligibility for filing a protest, the necessary content of a protest, and the deadline for filing. A clip-out protest form was included in the published notices. The notices included a map of the area to be annexed but did not contain a statement of reasons for the annexation. At the close of.the protest period, 5,340 protests were received by LAFCO.

At the direction of LAFCO's executive officer, the task of verifying and tabulating the protest forms was performed by the San Mateo County Elections Division (elections division). The elections division issued a written protest certification in which it found that as of the close of the protest period there were 16,284 registered voters in the protest area and that 3,443 valid protests had been submitted and not withdrawn. An additional 64 protests were certified following a recount ordered in separate judicial proceedings (San Mateo County Super. Court, No. 439808).

Thereafter, LAFCO's executive officer adopted the findings in the elections division's protests certification. Based on the conclusion that less than 25 percent of the registered voters filed valid protests, the annexation was ordered to become effective without an election.

In November 2004, Citizens filed the present action seeking to invalidate the annexation. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of LAFCO. The court found that some protests had been erroneously invalidated, but concluded that even when those protests were included, less than 25 percent of the registered voters had filed valid protests. The court also concluded that other claimed deficiencies in the process, described more fully below, were not prejudicial and did not require invalidation of the annexation.

Citizens filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, LAFCO filed a timely notice of cross-appeal.

DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review

This appeal is governed by the standard of review set forth in section 56107, which provides: "(a) This division shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. No change of organization or reorganization ordered under this division...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mission Linen Supply v. City of Visalia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 5, 2019
    ......R. Evid. 201; Smith , 830 F.3d 843at n.10; Citizens for Responsible Open Space v. San Mateo Cty. , 159 ...2013) (quoting Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. County of L.A. , 433 F.3d 1260, 1265 (9th Cir. 2006)). CERCLA 42 ......
  • Laboratories v. Cnty. of San Diego
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2020
    ......et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Respondent. D074928 COURT OF ..., and County stated its intent to protect County citizens and "promote their general welfare and safety by ensuring ... San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (2008) 159 ......
  • Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission, No. B215836 (Cal. App. 4/29/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 2010
    .......         Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. 1303129, Thomas P. Anderle, Judge. .         Dennis ...669-670; see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284.) .         Assuming that LAFCO could ...(Gov. Code, §§ 56000, 56375; Citizens For Responsible Open Space v. San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Com. ......
  • Los Medanos Cmty. Health Dist. v. Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Comm'n
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 2021
    ...this issue, the matter remains vested in [the commission's] discretion." (Citizens, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 730, fn. omitted.)[3] In Citizens, the Court Appeal concluded a local agency formation commission did not abuse its discretion by using the number of registered voters as of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT