City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com.

Decision Date03 January 1978
Citation76 Cal.App.3d 381,142 Cal.Rptr. 873
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCITY OF SANTA CRUZ, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent; CITY OF CAPITOLA et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 38178.

Atchison, Haile & Haight, Rodney R. Atchison, Neal R. Anderson, Santa Cruz, for petitioner and appellant.

Adams, Ball, Wenzel & Kilian, David H. Adams, San Jose, for amicus curiae County of Santa Cruz on behalf of petitioner and appellant.

C. A. Carlson, County Counsel, James M. Ritchey, Asst. County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, for respondent.

Dawson & Manning, Richard M. Manning, Scotts Valley, Wyckoff, Parker, Boyle & Pope, Philip T. Boyle, Watsonville, Pettit, Evers & Martin, Robert A. Thompson, Theodore Russell, San Francisco, for real parties in interest.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

The principal issues of this appeal concern administrative procedure, and criteria for judicial review, in relation to determinations of "local agency formation commissions" organized and functioning under authority of the Knox-Nisbet Act (hereinafter sometimes the Act), which is codified as Government Code sections 54773-54799.5.

The Act provides that there shall be a local agency formation commission in each county of the state. (§ 54780.) Among other things, the commission has the power, subject of course to judicial review, to finally approve or disapprove applications for the annexation of territory to local agencies within the county. (§ 54790, subd. (a)(3).) Among the Act's declared purposes are "the discouragement of urban sprawl," the "orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies," and the encouragement and planning of "well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns . . . ." (§§ 54774, 54774.5.) The commission is charged with the duty of making up-to-date determinations of the "spheres of influence" of the county's local governmental entities. (§ 54774.) And the "spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the commission as a factor in making regular decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction." (§ 54774.)

In addition to its continuing review, and updating, of spheres of influence, "the local agency formation commission shall initiate and make studies of existing governmental agencies," which studies "shall include but shall not be limited to inventorying such agencies and determining their maximum service area and service capacities." (§ 54774.) Among such services are fire and police protection, water supply, sewage disposal and schools. And the "commission shall make its studies available to public agencies and any interested person." (§ 54774.)

In relation to the adoption or amendment of a sphere of influence of, or a proposal for annexation of territory to, a local governmental agency, the commission is required to call and hold a "public hearing." At the hearing "the commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected local agency or county or any interested person who wishes to appear." (§ 54774.1.) And in its determination of such matters the commission is required to consider certain criteria set forth in sections 54774 and 54796.

Such a local agency formation commission was created and functioning in Santa Cruz County. We shall hereafter refer to that commission, and to such commissions generally, as LAFCO; the context will make clear which meaning is intended.

In 1975 interested parties proposed to LAFCO that approximately 58 acres of land contiguous to the City of Capitola in Santa Cruz County be annexed to that city. Thereafter, and following public hearings as provided by the Act, LAFCO made a determination that the subject land was within the sphere of influence of the City of Capitola. And then, after another required public hearing, LAFCO made its determination approving annexation of the land to the City of Capitola.

The nearby City of Santa Cruz had opposed the annexation proceedings. That city sought to set aside LAFCO's determinations by a petition for writ of mandate. It did not appear therein whether the proceedings were in the nature of "administrative mandamus" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, or the "ordinary" or "traditional" mandamus of that code's section 1085.

Following a trial the superior court upheld the determinations of LAFCO, and entered judgment denying the mandate application of the City of Santa Cruz.

The appeal before us was taken by the City of Santa Cruz from that judgment.

I. The City of Santa Cruz contends that the proceedings of LAFCO were fatally defective because of its failure to make written findings of fact. And it further insists that in any event the superior court should have remanded the proceedings to LAFCO for the purpose of making such findings of fact.

We are thus presented with what appears to be a question of first impression: Upon sphere of influence and annexation determinations by LAFCO, are written findings of fact required by law?

From our study of relevant authority we have concluded that such written findings of fact are not required by law. The reasons for our conclusion follow.

It has long been held that when a local agency determines the boundaries of a city or whether territory should be annexed to such an entity, it is acting in a quasi-legislative capacity. The concept was restated recently in Bookout v. Local Agency Formation Com., 49 Cal.App.3d 383, 386, 122 Cal.Rptr. 668, 670: "It is settled by a long, unbroken line of case authority that the matter of forming and adding new territory to municipal corporations, like cities and towns, and the extent and character of the territory to be included, are legislative matters which the Legislature has delegated to local municipalities to be performed in accordance with the appropriate legislative acts . . . because the nature of the power exercised is legislative and political rather than judicial . . . ." To the same effect see People v. City of Palm Springs, 51 Cal.2d 38, 45, 331 P.2d 4; In re Orosi Public Utility Dist., 196 Cal. 43, 59-61, 235 P. 1004; People v. Town of Ontario, 148 Cal. 625, 630-631, 84 P. 205; Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com., 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 688, 124 Cal.Rptr. 635; Del Paso Recreation & Park Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 33 Cal.App.3d 483, 498-500, 109 Cal.Rptr. 169; Wilson v. Hidden Valley Mun. Water Dist., 256 Cal.App.2d 271, 278-281, 63 Cal.Rptr. 889; Calnev Pipe Line Co. v. City of Colton, 230 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 40 Cal.Rptr. 755; Yribarne v. County of San Bernardino, 218 Cal.App.2d 369, 375-379, 32 Cal.Rptr. 847; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 166 Cal.App.2d 519, 528-530, 333 P.2d 378 (cert. den., 361 U.S. 9, 80 S.Ct. 58, 4 L.Ed.2d 49).

In the application of this rule it has consistently been held that boundary and annexation determinations of LAFCO under the Act are quasi-legislative in nature. See Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 687-688, 124 Cal.Rptr. 635; Bookout v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 383, 386-388, 122 Cal.Rptr. 668; City of Ceres v. City of Modesto, 274 Cal.App.2d 545, 550-553, 79 Cal.Rptr. 168. " '(I)n the processing of annexation petitions and determination of municipal boundaries in accord with statutory mandate, LAFCO is merely a creature of the Legislature, exercising a legislative function." (Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com., supra, 51 Cal.App.3d p. 688, 124 Cal.Rptr. p. 662.

An administrative agency such as LAFCO is nonetheless quasi-legislative in nature, though it holds public hearings and considers "testimony presented by any affected local agency or county or any interested person who wishes to appear." "[T]he fact that in the subject proceedings the (agency) was not enacting ordinances embodying rules and regulations does not make its actions any less quasi-legislative. [p] Nor does the presence of certain elements usually characteristic of the judicial process mean that (its) action was quasi-judicial. . . . [p] . . . The Legislature and administrators exercising quasi-legislative powers commonly resort to the hearing procedure to uncover, at least in part, the facts necessary to arrive at a sound and fair legislative decision. . . . Hence the presence of certain characteristics common to the judicial process does not change the basically quasi-legislative nature of the subject proceedings." (Wilson v. Hidden Valley Mun. Water Dist., supra, 256 Cal.App.2d 271, 279, 63 Cal.Rptr. 889, 893.)

"Mere ascertainment of facts as a basis for legislation does not render the process judicial or anything less than quasi-legislative." (City Council v. Superior Court, 179 Cal.App.2d 389, 393, 3 Cal.Rptr. 796, 799.) "Where the proceedings are quasi-legislative in character, a hearing of a judicial type is not required; a hearing allowed by legislative grace is not circumscribed by the restrictions applicable to judicial or quasi judicial adversary proceedings." (Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.2d 538, 549, 225 P.2d 905, 911; Brook v. Superior Court, 109 Cap.App.2d 594, 606, 241 P.2d 283.) "To restrict (a quasi-legislative) agency to evidence produced at the time and place specified in the public notice would generate undesirable inflexibility" (California Optometric Assn. v. Lackner, 60 Cal.App.3d 500, 508, 131 Cal.Rptr. 744, 750), and "it is commonly accepted practice, not at all incompatible with the concept of a public hearing, for (quasi-legislative) agencies to receive staff recommendations before the hearing. The complexity of matters before legislative bodies simply does not permit them to act only on input received at the hearing" (Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.3d 998,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1994
    ...v. Hidden Valley Mun. Water Dist., supra, 256 Cal.App.2d at p. 279, 63 Cal.Rptr. 889; accord, City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 388, 142 Cal.Rptr. 873; see Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 176, 196 Cal.Rptr. 670; Patter......
  • County of Los Angeles v. Water Resources
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 2006
    ...P.2d 848.) Further, it is presumed the regional board considered the documents before it. (City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 381, 393-394, 142 Cal.Rptr. 873.) All reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of upholding the regional board's decision. (Laure......
  • County of Los Angeles v. Water Resources
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 2006
    ...P.2d 848.) Further, it is presumed the regional board considered the documents before it. (City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 381, 393-394, 142 Cal.Rptr. 873.) All reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of upholding the regional board's decision. (Laure......
  • Tyska by Tyska v. Board of Educ. Tp. High School Dist. 214, Cook County
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 31, 1983
    ...City of Camarillo (1980), 100 Cal.App.3d 789, 808, 161 Cal.Rptr. 260, 271.) In City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County (1978), 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, 142 Cal.Rptr. 873, 878, the court stated that written findings of fact are customarily required in quas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Scope of Materials, Including E-mails, in Administrative Records for Ceqa Cases
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Environmental Law News (CLA) No. 23-2, September 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...part of the record, but in certain instances it can, and should, be included.In City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com., 76 Cal. App. 3d 381 (1978), the petitioner challenged a decision by the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to approve the annexation of......

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