HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Annex Tassajara Road Cthtg Of D 11-BOA3
AGENDA STATEMENT tZO .m2O
Meeting Date: August 23, 1982
SUBJECT : Annexation Request
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Letter from Bissell & Karn, Inc. dated June 15, 1982
Re: Annexation of 80 Acres on Tassajara Road; Aerial Photo ;
Memo from City Attorney dated August 5, 1982
RECOMMENDATION : Provide policy direction on a specific option or combination of
options, and refer the project to the Planning Commission for study
and report. ii"'
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : The purchasers and owners of 80 acres of land on Tassajara Road
request Council consideration of annexation to the City. Since the
Tassajara land is not, by itself, contiguous to the City, part or
all of Camp Parks and Santa Rita would need to be considered as part
of the overall project area. The Staff has identified five options
available to the Council :
1 . General Plan: Include this area for consideration as part of the General Plan.
2. Sphere of Influence: Request LAFCO (Local .Agency Formation Commission) to prepare
a sphere of influence plan for Dublin and to consider this area.
3. Prezoning: Initiate studies to consider prezoning this area.
4. Annexation: Initiate studies to annex this area.
5. No action: Take no action at this time.
With any of the first 4 options, or combination of options, the limits of the area to
be considered, some type of environmental document and a fiscal analysis would be needed.
Following is a brief discussion of each option:
General Plan - The General Plan is to be prepared for all the territory of the City and
such other territory outside its boundaries which, in the City's judgment, bears relation
to its planning (Gov. Code S65301 ).
Sphere of Influence - The sphere of influence is a plan for the probable ultimate
physical boundaries and service area of the City. LAFCO has the responsibility to develop
and determine the sphere of influence. The sphere of influence would consider the
maximum service area, the range of services, future population growth, types of develop-
ment, and social and economic conditions of the City (Gov. Code S54774) .
8 Copies To:
ITEM NO. •
AGENDA STATEMENT: Annexation Request Page 2
Prezoning - The City may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the City to
determine the zoning that will apply with subsequent annexation. As part of an
annexation application, LAFCO may require as a condition that the City prezone
territory to be annexed. If the City has not prezoned territory which is annexed,
it may adopt interim zoning as an urgency measure (Gov. Code S65859).
Annexation - The territory must be contiguous to the City. An area connected by a
strip of land more than 300' long and less than 200' wide is not considered
contiguous (Gov. Code S35011 and 35033) .
- An area with less than 12 registered voters is considered "uninhabited"
(Gov. Code S35038).
- The Council may initiate an annexation by resolution of application and
with a plan for providing services (Gov. Code 535100 and 35200).
- If the City's resolution of application for an uninhabited annexation
contains proof that all landowners have given their written consent,
LAFCO may approve the annexation without a LAFCO hearing. LAFCO may also
authorize the City totconduct proceedings for annexation without a City
hearing and without an election. LAFCO may then adopt a resolution of
determination (Gov. Code S35151 ) .
- The Council may then adopt a resolution ordering annexation (Gov. Code S35234) .
- The LAFCO executive officer then prepares a certificate of completion and
makes the required filings (Gov. Code S35350).
No Action The Council is not obligated to take action. The request could be
continued until some future time. Such a continuance would not prevent Council action
at some later date.
7_,. 0 0
1 ' BISSELL & KARN , INC , • CIVIL ENGINEERS
[___
2551 MERCED STREET, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 • (415)433-2170
r
June 15, 1982 #7604
The Honorable City Council
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566
Attention: Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Re: Annexation of 80 Acres on Tassajara Road
Honorable Councilmembers:
This office represents the purchasers under contract for property consisting
of approximately 80 acres located along the eastern side of Tassajara Road
and the northern side of Interstate 580 freeway. Enclosed are six prints of
a drawing which illustrates the property, the approximate eastern city limits
line for the City of Dublin, and the surrounding area, which includes the
intervening properties of Camp Parks (U.S. Government property) and Santa
Rita (Alameda County property) . The Dublin city limits line and the 80 acres
are each color-highlighted for emphasis.
In behalf of the purchasers and owners of the subject property, we request
your consideration of annexation of the subject 80-acre property to the City
of Dublin. We understand there will be required further consideration by the
City for the manner in which all or portions of the intervening properties
may be annexed to create a connecting link to the subject property and other
properties lying east of Tassajara Road, which may be considered for annexa-
tion in the future. We also understand the consideration for annexation will
require the review and approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFC) of Alameda County.
We respectfully request that the City give favorable consideration to the
requested annexation and that the City proceed with application to LAFC for
its consideration of this proposed annexation.
We would appreciate your notifying us of the date and time of your meeting
at which this consideration will be made. Representatives from our office
and the purchasers of the subject property will be in attendance at that
meeting. The owners, purchasers, and their addresses and telephone numbers
are listed below for your convenience in any contact which you may wish to
make.
OFFICES IN: ❑ SAN LEANDRO, CA ❑ MILPITAS, CA
0
The Honorable City Council
City of Dublin
June 15, 1982
Page Two
Owner: Purchaser under contract:
Tassajara Company William T. Moss
c/o Ronnie Svenhard 469 Valley Way
Svenhard's Swedish Bakery Milpitas, CA 95035
335 Adeline Street
Oakland, CA 94607 (408) 946-0126
(415) 834-5035
Respectfully submitted,
BISSELL & KARN, INC.
By
Donald M. Bissell
DMB:1
Enclosures
cc: William T. Moss
Tassajara Company
0
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin,CA 94566 (415) 829-3543
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: MICHAEL R. NAVE
DATE: August 5 , 1982
RE: REQUESTED ANNEXATION OF 80-ACRE PARCEL
ON TASSAJERO ROAD
A. request for annexation to the city has been
received from the owner of an 80-acre parcel of land which
is located on Tassajero Road. The 80-acre parcel if sepa-
rated from the City of Dublin by federal property (Camp
Parks) and county property (Santa Rita Prison) , and is thus
not contiguous .
Under MORGA (The Municipal Organization Act of
1977, Government Code § 35000 et seq. ) the city cannot
annex noncontiguous land (Government Code § 35011) . There
are certain limited exceptions to this contiguity require-
ment but none is applicable here (Government Code § 35012
allows annexation of noncontiguous territory not exceeding
160 acres which is owned and used by the city for municipal
purposes) . It is thus clear that the city cannot annex the
80-acre parcel separately because there is no contiguity.
The question then becomes whether the city can
annex the county and federal property as well as the 80-acre
parcel in order to provide contiguity. In my opinion, the
city can annex the county and federal property.
Federal courts have upheld the annexation by a
municipality of federal land. Howard v. Commissioners (1953)
344 U.S . 624 , 627 ; Rhyne, Municipal Law, § 2-35 , p. 36 .
Likewise, state statutes generally allow a city to annex
territory belonging to a county. McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations, Sec . 7 . 18 6 . (Note , however, that the city
may exercise no control over federal or county property which
will interfere with the superior authority. )
MORGA contains no prohibition against annexation
of property owned by the Federal government or the county.
The Act merely provides that territory may be annexed if it
is located in the same county and is contiguous to the city
(Government Code § 35011) . MORGA was enacted in 1977; it
J
" 1
411 4:0
To: Planning Director
August 5 , 1982
Page 2
replaced a number of annexation acts which had not been
revised for many years . Prior to 1977 the annexation laws
specifically allowed annexation of territory owned by a
public agency (i .e. , the county) with the consent of the
public agency (former Government Code § 35003) . Annexation
of territory owned by the Federal government was also
allowed with the Federal government' s consent (former
Government Code §§ 35470 and 35471) . It is important to
note that the requirement of county consent (§ 35003) was
added in 1951 (Stats . l951 , c.1702) and the requirement of
federal consent to annexation was added in 1957 (Stats .l957 ,
c. 1844) . Prior to those dates there was no requirement
that consent be obtained for annexation of county or federal
territory.
(
In Aqua Caliente Band, Etc. v. City of Palm Springs
( 1972) 347 F.Supp 42, vacated and remanded in an unpublished
order on January 24 , 1975, the court considered the legality
of including Indian lands within the City of Palm Springs
upon its incorporation. First, the court noted that " . . .so
long as the law of the state in which the land lies permits
the incorporation or annexation of federally owned land,
no federal consent is necessary. " 347 F. Supp. at '44 . The
question thus becomes whether the law of California permits
incorporation or annexation of federal land. Although
§§ 35470 and 35471 require consent of the Federal government
before federally-owned land can be annexed, the court found
that at the time Palm Springs was incorporated in 1938 there
was no such requirement (§§ 35470 and 35471 were enacted in
1957) . The court concluded that the Indian lands were
legally incorporated into the City of Palm Springs .
347 F. Supp at 46 .
As in the Aqua Caliente case, there is currently
no requirement in the law (MORGA) which requires consent for
annexation of federally-owned lands (or county-owned lands) .
Since there is no statutory prohibition against annexation
of publicly-owned property, the city may annex the 80-acre
parcel (pursuant to statutorily prescribed procedures) so
long as it is made contiguous with the city by annexation
of the Camp Parks and/or Santa Rita. This conclusion is
consistentwith the Supreme Court' s reasoning that " . . .an
annexation should not be declared invalid unless some express
-2-
To: Planning Director
August 5 , 1982
Page 3
statutory provision has been violated. " People v. City
of Palm Springs (1958) 331 p. 2d 4 ,9 .
Very truly yours ,
\CITY OF DUBLIN
/Q.(,/ i(e7
Michael R. Nave
City Attorney
MRN/jm
-3-