Placer County Lafco v. Nevada County Lafco

• Decision Date: 13 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. C047697.,C047697.
• Citation: 135 Cal.App.4th 793,37 Cal.Rptr.3d 729
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PLACER COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; Northstar Community Services District, Intervenor and Appellant; Truckee Sanitary District, Intervenor and Respondent.

37 Cal.Rptr.3d 729

135 Cal.App.4th 793

PLACER COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent;

Northstar Community Services District, Intervenor and Appellant;

Truckee Sanitary District, Intervenor and Respondent.

No. C047697.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

January 13, 2006.

Law Offices of William M. Wright and William M. Wright; Scott H. Finley, Placer County, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of P. Scott Browne and P. Scott Browne, Grass Valley, for Defendant and Respondent.

Law Office of Neil A. Eskind and Neil A. Eskind and Neil A. Eskind, Tahoe City, for Intervenor and Appellant, Northstar Community Services District.

Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Joseph M. Quinn, K. Scott Dickey and Ruthann G. Ziegler, Sacramento, for Intervenor and Respondent, Truckee Sanitary District.

SIMS, Acting P.J.

This case is a turf battle between neighboring Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov.Code, § 56000 et seq.¹ (the Act)).

"[LAFCOs] oversee local agency boundary changes, including the incorporation and disincorporation of cities, the formation and dissolution of most special districts, and the consolidation, merger, annexation, and reorganization of cities and special districts. Each county in California has a LAFCO. In California, 58 LAFCOs are working with nearly 4,000 government agencies in 58 counties, 477 incorporated cities, and 3,000-plus special districts.

"LAFCOs have been described as watchdogs, guarding `against the wasteful duplication of services that results from indiscriminate formation of new local agencies or haphazard annexation of territory to existing local agencies.' [Citation.] The primary objectives of LAFCOs are as follows: (1) to facilitate orderly growth and development by determining logical local agency boundaries; (2) to preserve prime agricultural lands by guiding development away from presently undeveloped prime agricultural preserves; and (3) to discourage urban sprawl and encourage the preservation of open space by promoting development of vacant land within cities before annexation of vacant land adjacent to cities....

"LAFCOs review proposals for the formation of new local government agencies as well as boundary changes for existing agencies. Given the extraordinary number of government agencies, cities, and special districts in the state, it is no surprise that agency boundaries often do not logically relate to one another, resulting in an overlap of service responsibilities and inefficiencies in service provision. The overarching goal of LAFCOs is to encourage the orderly formation and extension of government agencies, while balancing the competing needs in California for affordable housing, economic opportunities, and the preservation of natural resources.

"When making determinations, LAFCOs must consider the effect that any proposal will have on prime agricultural lands and open space. Specifically, LAFCOs seek to protect these resources by encouraging development away from these preserves and towards vacant urban sites.

"Moreover, LAFCOs work to discourage the irregular and chaotic growth referred to as urban sprawl, which often results in inefficient service delivery and the unnecessary loss of prime agricultural lands and open space." (Curtin & Talbert, Curtin's Cal. Land Use and Planning Law (24th ed.2004) pp. 381-382; fn. omitted.)

The precise issue in this case is: When two counties receive services from a multicounty service district, which county's LAFCO has jurisdiction over planning matters-"spheres of influence" (§ 56076²) and "service reviews" (§ 56430³) — concerning that district's work within an individual county. The trial court determined the "principal county"⁴ LAFCO, rather than the local LAFCO of affected territory, is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to establish the sphere of influence and conduct service reviews for a multicounty district within the boundaries of the local LAFCO's county. Plaintiff Placer County LAFCO (Placer LAFCO) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant Nevada County LAFCO (Nevada LAFCO), following the submission of a stipulated set of facts, trial briefs, and oral argument to the trial court. Intervenor Northstar Community Services District (Northstar), which aligns itself with Placer LAFCO, also filed an appeal from the judgment. Since the interests of plaintiff and Northstar are aligned, our reference to "plaintiff" or "Placer LAFCO" encompasses Northstar's position unless otherwise indicated. Intervenor Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) has filed appellate briefs taking the same position as Nevada LAFCO.

We shall affirm the judgment.⁵

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 15, 2002, Placer LAFCO filed a complaint for declaratory relief, asking the trial court to construe the Act and determine (1) whether, for a multicounty district, the principal county LAFCO or the local LAFCO of affected territory is the appropriate agency to determine the sphere of influence for the portion of the district in the local LAFCO's county, and (2) which agency — Placer LAFCO or Nevada LAFCO — has jurisdiction to prepare the municipal service review for sewer services within Placer County and the sphere of influence plan for TSD within the boundaries of Placer County.

The stipulated facts, as summarized in the statement of decision, included the following:

Placer LAFCO and Nevada LAFCO are public agencies organized and existing pursuant to the Act, which establishes a local agency formation commission for each of California's 58 counties.

Intervenor TSD is a special district formed under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. (Health & Saf.Code, § 6400 et seq.) TSD is an example of a multicounty district. TSD provides wastewater collection service to territory within both Placer County and Nevada County. Because a greater portion of the assessed value of the TSD's taxable property lies within the boundaries of Nevada County, Nevada LAFCO is the "principal county" for TSD under the Act. (See fn. 4, ante.)

Intervenor Northstar is a special district formed under the Community Services District Law. (§ 61000 et seq.) Northstar is an example of a single county district and is located solely within the boundaries of Placer County. In addition to wastewater collection service, Northstar also provides fire protection/emergency services, potable water, snow removal, road maintenance, street lighting, and solid waste disposal to the territory within its boundaries.

There are nine multicounty districts that provide services in both Placer and Nevada Counties. Placer LAFCO is the principal county for three of these districts — Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency, and Truckee Tahoe Airport District. Nevada LAFCO is the principal county for the other six districts — Donner Summit Public Utility District, Nevada Irrigation District, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, Truckee Fire Protection District, and TSD.

In 1993, Placer LAFCO and Nevada LAFCO entered into a joint powers agreement (JPA) whereby the two commissions adopted a joint meeting procedure to insure greater cooperation between the two commissions in actions that could have effects in both counties. The two commissions adopted an update of the sphere of influence for Donner Summit Public Utility District on June 21, 1999, and adopted an update of the sphere of influence for Truckee Fire Protection District on December 13, 1999. The JPA was terminated by Placer LAFCO in 2002 due to concern about its legality.

TSD's current sphere of influence was adopted by (principal county) Nevada LAFCO in 1983 and updated by Nevada LAFCO for territory within Nevada County in 1998.

Placer LAFCO says in its appellate brief that there is presently no conflict within Placer County between TSD's sphere of influence as adopted by Nevada LAFCO and Northstar's sphere of influence as adopted by Placer LAFCO, but TSD has proposed that its sphere in Placer County be expanded to include territory to the east of Northstar's physical boundaries, overlaying a substantial portion of Northstar's existing sphere of influence.

As described in the complaint:

"Placer LAFCo [we use the abbreviation "LAFCO" while the parties use "LAFCo," with a small case "o"] is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that TSD has submitted a request to Nevada LAFCo to review, update and modify its sphere of influence plan for its territory in Placer County and that Nevada LAFCo may act upon the request in the near future. In conjunction with such request, Nevada LAFCo is preparing a municipal service review of wastewater services within the current and prospective service area of TSD as provided by Section 56430 of the Act. A dispute has arisen between Placer LAFCo and Nevada LAFCo with respect to acting on these requests. Nevada LAFCo claims that it is the appropriate agency to conduct the municipal service review for wastewater services in order to determine the sphere of influence plan for the entirety of TSD both in Nevada County and Placer County, pursuant to its role as the principal county under Sections 56123 and 56387 of the Act. Placer LAFCo, on the other hand, disputes this interpretation of the statutes and contends that the principal county concept only applies to changes of organization or reorganization. Placer LAFCo further contends that it is the appropriate agency to prepare a separate municipal service review for sewer services and sphere of influence plan for TSD within the boundaries of Placer County pursuant to Section 56425 and 56430 of the Act. The parties agree that the issue regarding which agency is the appropriate agency to develop municipal service reviews and sphere of influence plans will arise again...