FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
modified Aug. 11, 2016.
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, No.
13CECG02651, Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr., Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
& Associates and Neal E. Costanzo for Plaintiff and
Manock & Jensen and Kenneth J. Price for Defendant and
Soares & Conway, Rissa A. Stuart and Michael J. Noland for
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
by Peña, J., with Kane, Acting P. J., and Detjen, J.,
Cal.Rptr.3d 852] PEÑ A, J.
local agency formation commission sets a public hearing on a
reorganization proposal and thereafter continues the hearing
date beyond the 70-day limitation for continuances under
Government Code section 56666, subdivision (a), is the
approval of the reorganization proposal by the commission
void because it violated a mandatory provision? We conclude
the 70-day limitation is a directory rather than a mandatory
provision. As a result, we hold the violation of the 70-day
limitation in this case did not affect the validity of the
commission's actions taken at the continued hearing.
2012, the City of Kingsburg (Kingsburg) studied a proposal to
annex approximately 430 acres of land in Fresno County (the
The Annexation Territory included 350 acres that had been
developed with industrial/commercial uses, 52 undeveloped
acres, and approximately 28 acres of street rights-of-way.
The Annexation Territory is home to at least three major
facilities, including a glass manufacturing plant run by
Guardian Industries Corp., a grape processing facility run by
Vie-Del Company, and a raisin processing plant run by
Sun-Maid Growers of California.
addition to annexing the land into Kingsburg, the project
also involved detaching portions of the Annexation Territory
from the Fresno County Fire Protection District (FCFPD), the
Consolidated Irrigation District, and the Kings River
Conservation District. The project also involved annexing
portions of the Annexation Territory into the
Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District. Finally,
the project included prezoning approximately 183 acres as
" Highway Commercial" and " Light
California Environmental Quality
prepared and circulated a combined initial study and
mitigated negative declaration for the annexation project
(MND). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § § 15365,
15369.5.) Below, we discuss [204 Cal.Rptr.3d
853] certain portions of the MND in detail along with the
appellate issues to which they pertain.
September 5, 2012, the Kingsburg City Council certified the
Local Agency Formation Commission
county in California has a local agency formation commission.
(Gov. Code, § 56325.) These commissions oversee local
agency boundary changes, including municipal annexations,
under the auspices of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (hereafter
Reorganization Act). (§ 56000 et seq.; Placer County
Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency
Formation Com. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 793, 797 [37
Cal.Rptr.3d 729]; see § 56375.)
Kingsburg certified the MND on September 5, 2012, it also
requested that the Fresno County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) initiate proceedings to approve the
annexation. On October 22, 2012, Kingsburg submitted to LAFCo
application materials for approval of the annexation.
rejected the application since it had relied on a previous
application from nine years prior. LAFCo requested Kingsburg
submit a new application, and Kingsburg did so in November
2012. The application indicated no change was being proposed
to the provision of domestic water for the area.
prepared a service plan, describing how certain services
would be provided to the Annexation Territory. (See §
56653.) Kingsburg's service plan is dated July 2012.
However, in an e-mail correspondence on November 2, 2012,
LAFCo staff informed Kingsburg staff that a service plan was
required. Kingsburg staff responded by asking what a service
plan was, and they were provided an exemplar by LAFCo on
November 8, 2012. ...