Could a LAFCO add land to a proposed new city beyond the petition boundaries?

Plain-English summary

The California Attorney General concluded in 2008 that a Local Agency Formation Commission could enlarge the proposed boundaries of a new city beyond those in an incorporation petition. Petitioners had to identify the initial boundaries, but the commission's authority to approve a change of organization with amendment included changing them.

The question arose because excluding a disputed area could leave the county with difficult service obligations. The AG said adjusting boundaries to promote efficient extension of services was an appropriate use of the commission's amendment power. The opinion also described other reasons a commission might change boundaries, including environmental concerns and avoiding overlapping services.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Were petitioners' proposed city boundaries final? A: No. The AG said the petition supplied the initial boundary proposal, but the commission could approve it with amendments.

Q: Could the commission include an area that petitioners left out? A: Yes. The opinion concluded that enlarging the proposed incorporation was within the commission's authority.

Q: Why might a commission add land to a proposed city? A: The opinion identified efficient extension of services, environmental concerns, and avoiding overlapping government responsibilities as possible reasons for changing boundaries.

Q: Did the commission have to draw the first set of boundaries? A: No. The petitioners were required to specify the proposed boundaries initially; the commission reviewed and could amend them.

Background and statutory framework

The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg local government reorganization law established county formation commissions and gave them authority to review and approve or disapprove organization changes with or without amendment. The AG applied that amendment power to a proposed city incorporation where a disputed area's exclusion would affect county service responsibilities.

Citations and references

The opinion discusses Government Code section 56375 and the local government reorganization law.

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly-index
• Original PDF: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/07-206.pdf

Original opinion text

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General

OPINION
of
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
TAYLOR S. CAREY
Deputy Attorney General

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 07-206
June 27, 2008

THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. RYAN, JR., COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, has requested an opinion on the following question: Does a Local Agency Formation Commission have the authority to enlarge the boundaries of a proposed incorporation beyond those set forth in the petition for incorporation?

CONCLUSION
A Local Agency Formation Commission has the authority to enlarge the boundaries of a proposed incorporation beyond those set forth in the petition for incorporation.

1

07-206

ANALYSIS
This question arises from a situation in which there is a proposal for the incorporation of a new city, but there is some dispute about where the boundaries of the new city should be drawn. The petition for incorporation excludes a certain area that the surrounding county believes should logically be included within the city’s boundaries. The county believes that leaving the area unincorporated would create significant problems for the county, which would retain responsibility for providing services to that area. May the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) enlarge the proposed boundaries of the new city to include the disputed area? We conclude that it may. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Act) of 20001 establishes a LAFCO in each county to encourage orderly growth and development and the assessment of local community services needs.2 After a LAFCO has reviewed a proposal, held hearings on it, and made any appropriate decisions, the proposal is normally submitted to the affected residents or landowners for a vote.3 When a petition is presented to a LAFCO for the incorporation of a city, the petitioners are required to specify the exact boundaries of the proposal.4 Hence, it is not a LAFCO’s responsibility to establish the boundaries of a proposed incorporation in the first instance.5 While the Act does not expressly authorize a LAFCO to change the boundaries of a proposed incorporation, it does authorize a LAFCO “[t]o review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with written policies, procedures, and

1

Govt. Code §§ 56000-57550.

2

Id. at §§ 56325-56337; see Placer County Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Com., 135 Cal. App. 4th 793, 798 (2006) (LAFCOs described as “watchdogs,” guarding against “indiscriminate” or “haphazard” organization of governmental functions). 3

Govt. Code §§ 56880, 57100.

4

Id. at § 56700(a)(3).

5

Accord 57 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 423, 433 (1974) (concluding it was not a LAFCO’s duty to draw preliminary boundaries, under former Knox-Nisbet Act, Govt. Code §§ 54773 et seq.). 2

07-206

guidelines adopted by the commission.”6 This statutory authorization has been interpreted to include the authority to change the boundaries proposed by the petitioners.7 Naturally, a LAFCO’s authority to change proposed boundaries is not without limitation. To begin with, the Act requires that any amendment to a proposal be “consistent with written policies, procedures, and guidelines adopted by the commission.”8 Additionally, a LAFCO may not amend a proposal in a way that changes the fundamental nature of the proposal.9 Within these limits, there may be any number of reasons why a LAFCO would consider changing the boundaries of a proposed incorporation area. For example, a LAFCO is required to “review the boundaries of the territory involved in any proposal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of those boundaries, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.”10 Thus, if the boundaries described in the petition are imprecise or do not properly reflect assessment or ownership boundaries, the LAFCO may be required to correct them. In Tillie Lewis Foods, Inc. v. City of Pittsburg, the court of appeal remarked that a LAFCO may be required to “redraw the proposed boundaries by way of amendment or as a condition of its approval” in order to check the practice of manipulating the boundaries of annexation proposals “with the objective of bringing the affected territory within the purview

6

Govt. Code § 56375(a).

7

Tillie Lewis Foods, Inc. v. City of Pittsburg, 52 Cal. App. 3d 983, 1003 (1975) (“It is true that LAFCO may ‘establish’ new boundaries by altering those proposed pursuant to its power to approve a proposal ‘with . . . amendment.’); see also id. at n. 17 (“Such action, taken on an ‘ad hoc’ and case-by-case basis, has been a common occurrence in the LAFCO experience.” (Citing Richard T. LeGates, Cal. Local Agency Formation Commissions, 64-65 (U. Cal. Berkeley Inst. Govt. Studies 1970)). 8

Govt. Code § 56375(a).

9

Fallbrook Sanitary Dist. v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Com., 208 Cal. App. 3d 753, 765 (1989) (“[T]he alteration made by LAFCO cannot be said to have changed the general purpose or effect of the incorporation proposal.”). 10

Govt. Code § 56375(l).
3

07-206

of one annexation Act or the other for spurious political purposes.” 11 Another reason why a LAFCO might change a petitioner’s proposed boundaries is to deal with environmental concerns. Like any other governmental agency, a LAFCO must address itself to environmental considerations in accordance with the procedures set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for any project that will have a significant effect on the environment.12 Or again, a LAFCO may change the boundaries of a proposal to prevent “‘an overlap of service responsibilities and inefficiencies in service provision’”13 or “to bring about a unified and accountable government.”14 Indeed, these purposes lie at the heart of the policy that underlies the entire local government reorganization scheme.15 11

Tillie, 52 Cal. App. 3d at 1005-1006.

12

Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. 3d 263, 282 (1975); see id. at 276 (LAFCO is governmental agency within meaning of CEQA); see generally Public Resources Code § 26000 et seq. (CEQA). 13

Placer, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 798 (quoting Daniel J. Curtin, Curtin’s Cal. Land Use and Planning Law, 381-382 (24th ed., Solano Press 2004)). 14

Fallbrook, 208 Cal. App. 3d at 760.

15

Govt. Code § 56001:

The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state. The Legislature recognizes that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services. The Legislature also recognizes that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development. Therefore, the Legislature further finds and declares that this policy should be effected by the logical formation and modification of the boundaries of local agencies, with a preference granted to accommodating additional growth within, or through the expansion of, the boundaries of those local agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary governmental services and housing for persons and families of all 4

07-206

In light of these authorities, we believe that a decision to enlarge the boundaries of an incorporation proposal to promote the efficient extension of services would be an appropriate exercise of a LAFCO’s powers to approve, disapprove, or amend a proposal.16 We therefore conclude that a Local Agency Formation Commission has the authority to enlarge the boundaries of a proposed incorporation beyond those set forth in the petition for incorporation.

incomes in the most efficient manner feasible.
The Legislature recognizes that urban population densities and intensive residential, commercial, and industrial development necessitate a broad spectrum and high level of community services and controls. The Legislature also recognizes that when areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the full range of community services, priorities are required to be established regarding the type and levels of services that the residents of an urban community need and desire; that community service priorities be established by weighing the total community service needs against the total financial resources available for securing community services; and that those community service priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions, and limited financial resources. The Legislature finds and declares that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities especially in urban areas. Nonetheless, the Legislature recognizes the critical role of many limited purpose agencies, especially in rural communities. The Legislature also finds that, whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a singlepurpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services. 16

Id. at § 56375(a).
5

07-206