Californians for Property Rights

The following is a summary of the issues having to do with the filing of an appeal by CPR and CROS.

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE OPEN SPACE;
CALIFORNIANS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION;
SAN MATEO COUNTY; and ALL PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE ANNEXATION OF COASTAL SAN MATEO TO THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT

SUMMARY OF ISSUES ON APPEAL

1.Standard of Review Exercised by the Trial Court

The trial court adopted a very deferential standard of review for evaluating the Local Agency Formation Commission’s (LAFCO) determinations. This played a significant role in the result reached by the trial court regarding LAFCO’s defective notice and its determination of the total amount of registered voters in the affected area.

Government Code section 56107 prescribes the standard of review to be applied by a trial court reviewing a LAFCO decision. That section prescribes an “abuse of discretion” standard of review, a standard which affords much deference to the administrative agency.

However, the trial court ignored the pertinent language in section 56107 that allows for invalidation of a LAFCO determination based upon a procedural defect adversely and substantially affecting the rights of affected persons. That language is consistent with the remaining language of section 56107 prescribing a deferential standard of review, while not affording too much deference to LAFCO’s own defective processes substantially affecting individual rights.

Because the standard of review determines exactly how much deference the trial court will give to the agency, applying the correct standard will have significant impacts on the substantive challenges asserted in the appeal.

2.Notice Defects

The trial court concluded that LAFCO’s Notice of Public Hearing, although defective, substantially complied with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (CKH Act).

Government Code section 57026 clearly identifies the contents required in a notice of public hearing. LAFCO’s notice included a vague and incomplete map of the affected area. Because significant confusion existed throughout the protest proceedings as to exactly what territories were being annexed, the map provided by LAFCO failed to impart proper notice to those affected.

Furthermore, LAFCO’s notice failed to provide a statement of the reasons for the proposed annexation. Such a statement of reasons is plainly required by Government Code section 57026, subdivision (e).

The trial court, however, found that the defective notice provided by LAFCO was in “substantial compliance” with the specific legal requirements. That determination completely disregards detrimental effect such defects had in failing to properly inform the public and hindering the ability of annexation opponents to gather sufficient protests. But even more significantly, the trial court’s determination totally ignores the plain and unmistakable notice requirements set out by the relevant statutes.

3.Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The trial found that challenges to various map and boundary issues were barred from litigation by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. That doctrine is rooted in the principle that an administrative agency should have the first opportunity to hear and respond to certain objections, and that where no such objections have been made, a court will not then entertain them.

The record evidences the various questions, concerns and objections to the map and boundary issues raised throughout the process. Such questions, concerns and objections were sufficient enough to permit LAFCO an opportunity to respond to them. However, LAFCO did not.

By finding that administrative remedies were not exhausted before LAFCO, the trial court was able to avoid addressing and resolving the many problems and inconsistencies with the various maps relied on throughout the administrative process.

4.Protest Counting Issues

(a)Total Number of Registered Voters

The trial court, showing much deference, found no abuse of discretion in LAFCO’s determination that the total number of registered voters in the affected territory came to 16,284. This number corresponds, according to LAFCO, to the number of registered voters residing in the affected territory at the close of the protest proceedings. Finding no provision in the CKH Act regarding when the total number of registered voters must be determined, the trial court deferred to LAFCO’s determination.

Government Code section 56046 defines the term “inhabited territory” for purposes of the CKH Act. Section 56046 also provides that “[t]he date on which the number of registered voters is determined is the date of the adoption of a resolution of application by the legislative body pursuant to Section 56654, if the legislative body has complied with subdivision (b) of that section, or the date a petition or other resolution of application is accepted for filing and a certificate of filing is issued by the executive officer.”

A certificate of filing was issued by the Executive Director for LAFCO on January 9, 2004. As of that date, the registered voter count totaled 16,077. This number is also found in the Executive Director’s reports dated March 2 and April 2, 2004, both of which recommend adoption of the annexation application.

However, LAFCO and San Mateo Elections determined, after the close of the protest period, that the total number of registered voters in the affected area jumped to 16,284. Neither LAFCO nor Elections has ever been able to substantiate this calculation.

(b)Standards for Determining Value of Written Protests

The trial court explicitly found that both LAFCO and Elections applied erroneous legal standards when determining the value of written protests submitted. The court then conducted its own review of the disputed protests. This review turned up almost 300 additional protests as valid.

However, the trial court’s count failed in many respects for the same reasons as the original counts by Elections. The trial court, like Elections, scrutinized the protests in such a manner that demanded perfection in every respect from dotting the “i’s” to crossing the “t’s,” with the slightest imperfection rendering the protest invalid. Such a scrutinizing review is without precedent, and effectively disenfranchised hundreds of voters and silenced the voices of thousands of citizens of coastal San Mateo County.