Sacramento County Bd. of Sup'rs v. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Com'n (Citrus Heights Incorporation Project)

• Decision Date: 01 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. C006792,C006792
• Citation: 286 Cal.Rptr. 171,6 Cal.App.4th 475
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Previously published at 234 Cal.App.3d 1231, 6 Cal.App.4th 475 234 Cal.App.3d 1231, 6 Cal.App.4th 475 SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant; CITRUS HEIGHTS INCORPORATION PROJECT, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Page 171

286 Cal.Rptr. 171

Previously published at 234 Cal.App.3d 1231, 6 Cal.App.4th 475

234 Cal.App.3d 1231, 6 Cal.App.4th 475

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant CITRUS HEIGHTS INCORPORATION PROJECT, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

No. C006792.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Oct. 1, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1991.

Review Granted Dec. 19, 1991.

Brenton A. Bleier, Peter Mixon, Remy and Thomas, Tina A. Thomas and James G. Moose, Sacramento, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Hyde, Miller & Savage and Nancy C. Miller, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant.

Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer and Patrick J. Borchers, Sacramento, for real party in interest and appellant.

SPARKS, Acting Presiding Justice.

INTRODUCTION

In the northern portion of urbanized Sacramento County lies a stretch of suburbs mostly east of Interstate 80 and mostly north of Greenback Lane popularly known as Citrus Heights. In the words of the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Citrus Heights is "a component in the aggregate of unincorporated suburban areas which are administered by Sacramento County." In 1986 the approximate 69,000 (as of 1985) residents of this area breathed deep of the intoxicating aroma of self-determination and sought to incorporate as Sacramento County's fifth current municipality and first new city in two generations, thereby joining Sacramento (1850), Isleton (1923), Folsom (1946), and Galt (1946). ¹ Forming the Citrus Heights Incorporation Project (CHIP) to "chip" themselves out of the suburban aggregate, they ultimately received the approval of LAFCO--in the form of Resolution No. 962B--on March 28, 1988, to hold an incorporation election. As CHIP sees it, "Citrus Heights always has been and will continue to be a cash cow; the County simply wants all of the milk." In the view of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (Supervisors) and other interested parties, the incorporation proposal would radically alter the delivery of municipal services, the collection of tax revenue, and land-use planning and consequently would devastate the remaining unincorporated areas left out of the new city. This appeal involves the legal challenges launched against the efforts of CHIP to incorporate the new City of Citrus Heights.

Concerned about the impact this incorporation would have on the remaining 489,000 or so (as of 1986) residents of unincorporated Sacramento County, the Supervisors, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (Deputies), and Sacramentans to Save our Services (SSOS) filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to command LAFCO to vacate its resolution. Combined with this petition was a complaint seeking a declaration that Resolution No. 962B was invalid; a declaration that the election provisions of the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Cortese-Knox Act)--the statutes governing municipal incorporations (Gov.Code, § 56000 et seq.)--violate the guarantees of equal protection; and injunctive relief against the use of a "negative declaration" ² in connection with Resolution No. 962B.

In the aspects of its ruling relevant to this appeal, the trial court found the petitioners' challenge timely, issued a writ of mandate which both vacated LAFCO's adoption of the negative declaration and stayed any further incorporation activities in connection with Resolution No. 962B until LAFCO prepared an environmental impact report (EIR), and issued a declaration denying the constitutional challenge to the Cortese-Knox Act. The court subsequently awarded attorney's fees to CHIP in the amount of approximately $28,000 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Both sides appealed. To be more specific, the Supervisors have made a limited appeal, challenging only the declaration that the Cortese-Knox Act is constitutional as applied and the award of attorney's fees, an appeal in which CHIP takes the lead as respondent. LAFCO has cross-appealed, challenging the timeliness of the writ petition and the merits of the trial court's decision that it could not proceed by way of a negative declaration; the Supervisors are joined as respondents by the Deputies and SSOS.

In our view, the most logical manner of proceeding is to examine in turn the timeliness of the writ petition, the merits of the writ's direction to prepare an EIR, the denial of the Supervisors' additional prayer for declaratory relief on the constitutionality of the proposed incorporation, and the propriety of the award of attorney's fees. After that examination, we find ourselves in agreement with the trial court's resolution of these issues except for the constitutionality of the Cortese-Knox Act as applied and the concomitant award of attorney's fees. On those questions we conclude that the Cortese-Knox Act is unconstitutional as applied here because the equal protection clause requires all residents of the unincorporated areas of the county, and not just the residents of the proposed city, to be accorded the right to vote on the issue of incorporation. This determination necessarily invalidates the award of attorney's fees to CHIP because it can no longer be deemed the prevailing party. Accordingly, we partially reverse the judgment and affirm the balance.

For ease of comprehension, we shall omit a separate, introductory statement of facts. Instead, we will incorporate into each section of the discussion the facts relevant to that contention.

DISCUSSION

I Statute of Limitations

A.

The facts of relevance to the statute of limitations naturally are primarily procedural. We will consequently skip any overview of the substantive legal scheme underlying the following actions.

In April 1986 CHIP filed with LAFCO ³ its notice of intent to circulate a petition to incorporate Citrus Heights. In November 1986, the Registrar of Voters and LAFCO certified that CHIP had collected a sufficient number (8,848) of valid signatures to qualify the petition. Following the preparation of a formal initial study by its staff, LAFCO filed a notice in February 1987 of its intent to issue a negative declaration "indicating that significant environmental effects will not occur," and requested comments from "[a]ny agency, organization or individual that wishes to provide information to support or dispute the preliminary determination...." No opposition to the intended action was forthcoming. LAFCO issued the negative declaration and supporting initial study in March 1987. LAFCO then commenced a series of public hearings on the proposed incorporation. In May 1987, the commission members voted unanimously to adopt the negative declaration and approved Resolution No. 960 setting forth the incorporation proposal.

The Supervisors, the Deputies, and SSOS all filed requests for reconsideration of Resolution No. 960 in terms of the boundaries of the proposed city and the failure to prepare a report detailing the environmental impact of the incorporation. LAFCO held public hearings on the requests for reconsideration. In July 1987, it adopted Resolution No. 962 which excluded two shopping centers from the originally proposed boundaries of the city-to-be (which would reduce the sales tax impact of incorporation on the county by half) and made provision for a phase-in of property and sales tax transfers to the new city; Resolution No. 962 also formally certified the negative declaration. LAFCO then filed a notice of its determination to file a negative declaration.

The Supervisors received Resolution No. 962 for them to fulfill their ministerial duty under the Cortese-Knox Act, i.e., to enact the resolution subject to the confirmation of voters unless a majority of affected voters filed written protests. (Gov.Code, §§ 57077, subd. (a), 57078.) In September 1987, they opened a hearing on the matter for receipt of any written protests which continued from time to time until November.

On November 30, LAFCO adopted what it termed a "clerical" amendment to Resolution No. 962 to "avoid confusion" about the division of property tax between the new city and the county. It was the view of LAFCO that the miswording could lead to an interpretation that the new city would be entitled immediately to the full amount of property tax, rather than the phase-in which had been negotiated with the Supervisors. The amendment was termed "resolution 962A," and concluded "except as specifically amended herein, [Resolution No. 962] shall remain in full force and effect."

The Deputies and SSOS filed requests for reconsideration, stating they felt Resolution No. 962A could be successfully challenged, after which the language of Resolution No. 962 would be used to exact more money for the new city than actually agreed. Meeting that same day, LAFCO decided Resolution No. 962A was a mere correction which did not afford a new opportunity to file reconsideration requests, so it denied the requests and reconfirmed Resolution No. 962A.

On December 8, the Supervisors declined to take action on Resolution No. 962 or Resolution No. 962A. Instead, they adopted a resolution on December 15 requesting LAFCO reconsider Resolution Nos. 962 and 962A. Among the contents of the resolution were a request for the preparation of an environmental impact report in connection with the incorporation proposal and a request for a determination by LAFCO of the constitutionality of the Cortese-Knox Act. (But see Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.5.)

The incorporation proponents filed suit, challenging the failure of the Supervisors to enact Resolution Nos. 962 and 962A (Sacramento County Superior Court No. 357532). The court ruled the requests for reconsideration were timely filed because Resolution No. 962A was a substantive, indeed "essential," alteration. LAFCO then scheduled public meetings in February and March 1988. Prior to the...