Californians for Property Rights

On March 11, 2008 Californians for Property Rights and Citizens for Responsible Open Space appealed to the California Supreme Court for its review of the Court of Appeal’s Decision in CROS/CPR v. LAFCo/MROSD.

A copy of the Decision and the above-mentioned Petition for Review are available as a pdf file here.

Four issues are cited in the petition for review: failure of LAFCO to comply with statutory public notice, failure to include reasons for a proposed annexation, failure to accurately describe and depict the annexation area, and requiring a residence address on the filed written protests rather than the address appearing on his or her affidavit of voter registration.

The issues presented are of statewide concern. California law is replete with statutory notice provisions, such that every citizen of the state is affected by the First Appellate District’s decision in this case. Because the appellate court has essentially ruled that statutory notice requirements do not have to be followed, there is conflict with other appellate decisions. Accordingly, CROS/CPR respectfully requests that this Supreme Court grant review to settle inconsistencies in the case law and to declare which standard agencies must meet when giving public notice pursuant to statute.

Note that the protest by CROS/CPR in April-June 2004 was merely seeking a vote of the people in the annexation area, and because of flawed public notice issues, CROS/CPR has been seeking an invalidation of the annexation. This protest is the largest in the history of California and the first protest in the history of San Mateo County.

The following is a summary of the issues having to do with the filing of an appeal by CPR and CROS. CPR and CROS are pursuing an appeal because they believe that many valid signatures on petitions they circulated were considered invalid. Was yours one of them?

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

Please read the complete summary. Briefly, the issues are:

1. Standard of Review Exercised by the Trial Court
2. Notice Defects
3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
4. Protest Counting Issues : Total Number of Registered Voters and Standards for Determining Value of Written Protests

For Immediate Release
Contact: Ronald A. Zumbrun
Todd M. Ratshin
(916)486-5900

293 Word Count

_{(download pdf here)}

CITIZEN GROUPS FILE APPEAL CHALLENGING OPEN SPACE DISTRICT’S ANNEXATION OF COASTAL SAN MATEO COUNTY

Sacramento, California [January 30, 20071: Today Citizens for Responsible Open Space (CROS) and Califomians for Property Rights (CPR) announced that they have filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal in their challenge to the annexation of coastal San Mateo County by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD).

The appeal asserts that the annexation is defective by virtue of numerous errors committed by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the agency responsible for overseeing the annexation process. The appeal maintains that LAFCO failed to follow applicable legal requirements regarding its public notice, and that LAFCO and San Mateo County Elections applied erroneous legal standards when reviewing written protests which resulted in the improper rejection of hundreds of valid protests.

Why Californians for Property Rights filed a lawsuit.

For nearly ten years, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) has engaged in a plan to annex the entire coast of San Mateo County into its district. This annexation impacts the land use policies and the rights of the land owners over the entire San Mateo Coast. As such, it is a fairly important step that MROSD seeks to take.

During the process, the notice published to the public did not contain most of the elements required by law. The notice did not correctly state the area that was to be annexed, did not state the reasons why the land was to be annexed as well as other violations.

In the spring of 2004, the public was allowed to submit written protests to LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission). If more then 25% of the voters submitted protests…