Fig Garden Park No. 2 Ass'n v. Local Agency Formation Commission

162 Cal. App. 3d 336, 208 Cal. Rptr. 474, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2741
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 30, 1984
DocketF001613
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 162 Cal. App. 3d 336 (Fig Garden Park No. 2 Ass'n v. Local Agency Formation Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fig Garden Park No. 2 Ass'n v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 162 Cal. App. 3d 336, 208 Cal. Rptr. 474, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2741 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Opinion

BROWN (G. A.), P. J.

The City of Fresno (City), the County of Fresno (County) and Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Fresno (LAFCO) appeal from a judgment invalidating the annexation to the City of Fresno of an occupied unincorporated area, designated Shaw-West No. 2 Annexation, without an election. The suit to invalidate the annexation was commenced by residents of the area under the name of Fig Garden Park No. 2 Association (Association) and the North Central Fire Protection District, a special district, from which district the annexed area was concurrently detached. The suit is authorized by Government Code section 35005 and Code of Civil Procedure section 860.

The facts are stipulated. The area to be annexed consists of 77 developed acres, bordered generally by Shaw Avenue on the north, Teilman Avenue on the east, Gettysburg Avenue on the south, and West Avenue on the west. (See attached diagram.) Shaw Avenue is a main east-west business thoroughfare. Except for businesses, condominiums and apartments along Shaw Avenue, the balance of the area consists of single family dwellings. *340 It is comprised of approximately 156 developed lots, and there are approximately 269 registered voters in the area.

The entire area was at all times pertinent 1 surrounded by the City with the exception of a gap along Shaw Avenue at the northeast corner approximately 230 feet in length. The total perimeter of Shaw-West No. 2 is approximately 8,000 feet. Thus, the distance represented by the 230-foot gap constitutes approximately 3 percent of the total perimeter. The property north of the gap was county property extending for miles.

The entire area surrounding Shaw-West No. 2 was a fully developed residential area.

The annexation was conducted under the provisions of Government Code section 35000 et seq., 2 the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). The act sets forth the procedures for the incorporation of cities, annexations, detachments, and other municipal boundary changes. The statutory scheme of MORGA is that changes of municipal organizations constituting annexations are to be initiated by a proposal by the local governmental legislative body desiring to annex. The proposal is submitted to LAFCO, which conducts preliminary proceedings and, after notice and hearing, approves or disapproves the proposal by resolution. After approval by LAFCO, the county board of supervisors initiates the actual annexation proceedings, conducts its own hearing, and then either (1) orders the proceedings terminated, (2) orders an election to submit the proposal to the voters, or (3) orders the completion of the proposal without an election. (§§ 35200-35315.) Most of the proceedings under MORGA include the right of citizens in the affected area to submit written protests, requiring an election on the annexation or reorganization. However, Government Code section 35150, subdivision (f), allows the annexation of territory without an election if the conditions of that section are met.

Section 35150, subdivision (f), 3 and allied sections, are commonly known as the island annexation provisions of MORGA. At the times relevant, section 35150, subdivision (f), stated in pertinent part: “The commission shall have the powers and duties set forth in Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5, and such additional powers and duties as are specified in this part, including the following:

*341 “(f) To approve the annexation after notice and hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to order annexation of the territory without an election if the commission finds that the territory contained in an annexation proposal:
“(1) Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area constitutes the entire island;
“(2) (A) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or [f] (B) Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities;
“(3) Is substantially developed or developing;
“(4) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; and
“(5) Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.”

LAFCO found the territory “1. Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such territory constitutes the entire unincorporated island of territory; [and] 2. [i]s substantially surrounded by the City of Fresno, which is proposing the annexation; ...”

The trial court found the annexation to be invalid because the property being annexed did not constitute the entire island and because the annexation, when considered in conjunction with the Shaw-Teilman No. 4 Annexation, constituted a municipal reorganization (§ 35042), which always requires an election. We disagree and will uphold the annexation.

Discussion

The trial court concluded that Shaw-West did not constitute the entire island and exceeded 100 acres in area because the 230-foot gap at the northeast corner of the area made all the county property north of the gap part of the island. This interpretation renders the term “substantially surrounded” meaningless and surplusage. If the entire island concept is determinative and is met, the area will always be substantially surrounded. We think it more consistent with the legislative purpose as expressed in the statute and with the rules of construction and precedent to interpret the statute so as to give effect to both the terms “substantially surrounded” and *342 “entire island.” The provisions of a statute should be construed in context and harmonized whenever possible, and rendering some words surplusage is to be avoided. (California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844 [157 Cal.Rptr. 676, 598 P.2d 836].)

A cardinal rule in interpreting a statute is to “ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) Here the statute itself expresses the legislative purpose and decrees that the statute “shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” (§ 35006.) 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Selma v. Fresno County Local Agency etc.
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Weissberg v. Weissberg CA1/2
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Citizens Ass'n v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
209 Cal. App. 4th 1182 (California Court of Appeal, 2012)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1997
Opinion No. (1997)
California Attorney General Reports, 1997
Sylva v. Board of Supervisors
208 Cal. App. 3d 648 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Ohio Farmers Insurance v. Quin
198 Cal. App. 3d 1338 (California Court of Appeal, 1988)
California Highway Patrol v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
178 Cal. App. 3d 1016 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 Cal. App. 3d 336, 208 Cal. Rptr. 474, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fig-garden-park-no-2-assn-v-local-agency-formation-commission-calctapp-1984.