Del Paso Recreation & Park Dist. v. Board of Supervisors

• Decision Date: 18 July 1973
• Citation: 33 Cal.App.3d 483,109 Cal.Rptr. 169
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DEL PASO RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT and James D. Wheat, Jr., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 13535.

Page 169

109 Cal.Rptr. 169

33 Cal.App.3d 483

DEL PASO RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT and James D. Wheat, Jr., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 13535.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

July 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 7, 1973.

Hearing Denied Sept. 26, 1973.

Benjamin D. Frantz, Sacramento, for plaintiffs and appellants.

John B. Heinrich, County Counsel by Robert S. Shelburne, Deputy County Counsel, Sacramento, for defendants and respondents.

JANES, Associate Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal following a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants' general demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The action, brought pursuant to Government Code section 56008 ¹, attacks the validity of a reorganization of recreation and park districts within a defined geographic area of Sacramento County. The reorganization of districts was accomplished under the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (Gov.Code, § 56000 et seq. sometimes hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). One of the results of reorganization was the detachment of a portion of plaintiff Del Paso Recreation and Park District ('Del Paso') and annexation of the detached area to defendant Citrus Heights Recreation and Park District ('Citrus Heights').

Fairly summarized, together with matters which we may judicially notice, the second amended complaint (with its numerous attachments and exhibits) discloses the following: Del Paso was organized in 1959 under Article 1, Chapter 4, Division 5 (§ 5780 et seq.) of the Public Resources Code as an 'autonomous district' (governed by its own elected board of directors) the district contains nonresident landowners and voters; plaintiff James D. Wheat, Jr., is a resident of and property owner in Del Paso, and also president of its board of directors. Citrus Heights is a recreation and park district organized under a predecessor act--Article 1, Chapter 3, Division 5 (former §§ 5400--5428) of the Public Resources Code. Unlike Del Paso, Citrus Heights chose not to have a separate board of directors; its governing body is the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. (See, Pub.Res.Code, § 5781.4.) At all times here relevant the 'principal act' governing both districts has been Article 1, Chapter 4, Division 5 (§ 5780 et seq.) of the Public Resources Code.

Plaintiffs duly allege the existence and qualifications of defendants Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento ('Board') and the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission ('LAFCO').

Pursuant to the District Reorganization Act of 1965 the Board, on June 18, 1969, adopted Resolution No. 69--459, making application to LAFCO for a reorganization of recreation and parks districts within a defined geographic area of Sacramento County, including a proposal to detach the area here contested from Del Paso and to annex that territory to Citrus Heights.

On September 16, 1969, LAFCO established, by resolution, a reorganization committee which included representatives from the various recreation and park agencies within the area proposed for reorganization, including Del Paso; LAFCO directed the reorganization committee to study, report on and make recommendations on the plan for reorganization contained in the Board's Resolution No. 69--459.

Pursuant to statutory mandate (§§ 56220--56236), the reorganization committee made its study, which included several alternative plans of reorganization. One plan of reorganization studied, and ultimately preferred by most committee members (the 'majority' plan), included a recommendation that the boundaries of Del Paso presently remain unchanged; another plan (the 'minority' plan) studied by the committee recommended detachment of specified territory from Del Paso and annexation of that portion to Citrus Heights. A staff report of the reorganization committee recommenced to LAFCO the adoption of the minority plan, calling for the detachment and annexation here in question. The staff report accurately described the boundaries of the proposed detachment and annexation.

Upon receiving the full report of the reorganization committee, LAFCO noticed a public hearing upon the proposal, in accordance with the provisions of section 56262. Both plaintiff Wheat, in his capacity as a director of Del Paso, and Del Apso itself, as an affected district, received written notice of the planned hearing. The notice of hearing advised of the filing of the 'report and recommendation' of the reorganization committee and afforded all interested persons an opportunity to be heard.

At the hearing, and several continuances thereof, testimony was taken and oral and written protests were received and considered by LAFCO bearing upon the efficacy of the alternative plans of reorganization. Thereafter, on September 22, 1970, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. LAFC--216 approving a reorganization which included the detachment and annexation of which plaintiffs complain. The particular detachment and annexation are only two of fourteen changes of organization included in and contemplated by Resolution No. LAFC--216. The resolution recites, as a reason for reorganization of the territories, the need 'to permit the establishment of logical and feasible boundaries and service areas for (the geographic area under study), so that the residents within the affected territories may be provided with adequate and economical local park and recreation services.' Resolution No. LAFC--216 purported to set out the correct legal descriptions of the multiple changes of organization, designated Board as the 'conducting District (sic),' and directed the Board 'to initiate reorganization proceedings involving annexations and detachments in accordance with' the LAFCO resolution.

Pursuant to section 56430, the Board on October 26, 1970, adopted a resolution initiating proceedings for the proposed reorganization, setting a public hearing on the matter before the Board. Notice of the hearing was given by publication and posting as required by section 56431, and by mail to all the affected public agencies, including Del Paso and Citrus Heights, as provided in section 56432. Although subdivision (a) of section 56432 requires that mailed notice of hearing must be given to 'all landowners owning land within any territory proposed to be formed into or to be annexed to or detached from (i) a benefit district, or (ii) an improvement district within any district,' the Board did not mail notice to each landowner within the affected territory because the Board did not deem either Del Paso or Citrus Heights to be a 'benefit' or 'improvement' district within the meaning of sections 56025, 56043, or 56432(a).

At the public hearing on December 14, 1970, the Board considered the resolution adopted by LAFCO, heard protests, and determined, pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 56438, that less than 25% Of the landowners and voters had filed written protests to the proposed reorganization. On that date, however, the Board declared a preference to submit the question of detachment of the territory from Del Paso to the voters of that district in a confirmatory election. The complaint further alleges that Del Paso 'relied upon said action.'

Thereafter, following communication between the Board and LAFCO, there developed a disagreement between those two entities as to the manner in which the voting franchise would be exercised, i.e., as to which district's voters, or whether voters of both districts would be permitted to vote in the proposed confirmatory election. Consequently, by Resolution No. 71--184, adopted March 29, 1971, the Board asserted and exercised its power under the District Reorganization Act of 1965 without extending the voting franchise and without calling a confirmatory election. The Board by that resolution reiterated its finding of the insufficiency of protests to require an election, and ordered consummation of the multiple reorganization (including the Del Paso-Citrus Heights detachment and annexation) without a confirmatory election.

On April 20, 1971, there was filed with the Secretary of State a certificate of completion recognizing the detachment and annexation here in question. The certificate of completion recited the same legal description of the Del Paso-Citrus Heights detachment and annexation set out in LAFCO Resolution No. LAFC--216. At no time during any of the proceedings did plaintiff Wheat or Del Paso, in the manner required by section 56430, subdivision (f), complain of any inaccuracy in the description of the territory to be detached from Del Paso and annexed to Citrus Heights.

Plaintiffs assign numerous errors and irregularities in the procedures taken during the reorganization proceedings, all of which--they urge on appeal--impaired the proceedings and require invalidation of the reorganization. We will refer to other matters pleaded during the discussion of several of plaintiffs' contentions. We turn first, however, to the statute and a brief discussion of its need and purpose.

District Reorganization Act of 1965

The constant pressures of population growth and community expansion in California had brought, by 1963, a confusing maze of varied and often conflicting statutory provisions applicable to the state's special districts. Aware of the complexities presented in the consolidation and dissolution of unnecessary and obsolete districts, and--even more importantly--of the barriers facing districts which were functioning well but contemplated necessary organizational changes in response to future community needs, the Legislature provided in 1963 for a broad committee study of the need for uniform procedures for special district consolidation, dissolution, detachments, and annexations. (See, 1965 Appendix to Journal of the Assembly, Vol. 1, 'Municipal and County Government,' Part II, pp. 39--42.)...