HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Prezoning & Annexation of Camp Parks AGENDA STATEMENT �p�b
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 11, 1985
SUBJECT: Prezoning and annexation of Camp Parks, Tassajara
Creek Regional Park and County-owned property.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1 Map of affected area;
2 - General Plan designations of affected area;
3 - Letter from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
dated 12/17/84 ;
4 - Letter from East Bay Regional Park District dated 11/21/84 ;
5 - Letter from Federal Bureau of Prisons dated 11/5/84 ;
6 - Letter from Department of the Army dated 11/2/84 ;
7 - Letter from County Administrator dated 10/30/84 ;
8 - Letter from Department of Air Force dated 2/11/85
RECOMMENDATION:
1 - Hear Staff Report
Question Staff
- Deliberate
Y4 - Determine if lands owned by Alameda County should be
included in the annexation
5 - Direct Staff to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR will adequately serve
as the environmental document for this prezoning and
annenxation
6 - Authorize Staff to initiate prezoning proceedings which
would prezone the public land area designated in the General
Plan to Agricultural and both industrial areas to M-1, with
an overlay zone which would require a Planned Development to
be approved before any development proceeds.
7 - Direct Staff to begin annexation proceedings for Camp Parks,
Tassajara Creek Regional Park and the County-owned
property.This will involve meetings with affected Federal
and County agencies and Special Districts to determine
service needs and responsibilities for services; working
with ABAG to develop a city services and financial plan; and
preparing associated reports, maps and legal descriptions .
8 - Authorize and appropriate from reserves in the amount of
$16, 700 to cover the costs associated with the annexation.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
l - City Engineer costs to prepare maps and legal. descriptions
$2 , 500
2 - ABAG fee for a possible study of service demands and City
costs for providing services $12 , 800
3 - LAFCO and State filing fees $1, 400
4 - Planning Staff processing time
A budget transfer of $16, 700 from reserves would be required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. 7Z / COPIES TO:
All Property Owners
DfsCRIPTION: At its meeting of October ..,-8, 1984, the
Dublin City Council voted unanimously to proceed with the
annexation of those lands within the Parks Reserves Training Area
and Tassajara Creek Regional Park. The City Council authorized
the initiation of this process by first securing the - consent of
those government agencies who own land in these areas. ,. Letters
were sent explaining the City' s position and requesting -.consent • .
for annexation of these areas to the following property owners:
1) U.S. Department of the Army
2 ) U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons
3 ) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
4 ) U.S. Department of the Air Force
5) East Bay Regional Park District
Since October of 1984 , the City has received varying responses
from these various property owners (See attached) .
In summary, both the Army and Air Force have indicated , their
intention to process our request. The U.S. Department of Justice
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have
indicated their support of this annexation of their properties .
East Bay Regional District has declined to take a position and
has indicated that the District would neither support nor oppose
the City ' s annexation of this area.
Since it may still be some time until the City receives a
response from the U.S. Department of the Army and the U.S.
Department of the Air Force with respect to their review of the
City' s request for annexation, and since the state law governing
annexations addresses only protests and their impact on
annexation proceedings, Staff would propose that the City
commence processing the annexation of these properties
immediately. As indicated in the tentative schedule for the
completion of the annexation, the annexation process could take
up to six months before a protest hearing would be held. This
period should give these federal agencies sufficient time to
review and respond to the City' s request.
In addition, it is Staff ' s recommendation that . the City Council
consider adding those lands owned by the County of Alameda to the
annexation proposal so that the proposal would include all
publicly owned lands to the east of the City. It is Staff ' s.
belief that consolidating these properties into one annexation
proposal might provide a better forum for discussing roadway
access to the east and also the County of Alameda' s ultimate
plans for its property and how those plans may or may not be
impacted by the City' s annexation of this area.
If the City Council is in agreement, the City should initiate .
annexation proceedings at this time. 1
The balance of this report lists the various issues and options
associated with the annexation of Camp Parks ( 1, 288 acres) ,
Tassajara Creek Regional Park (457 acres) , and the County-owned
property east of Dougherty Road and west of Tassajara Road (951
acres) , which the City Council needs to consider. Further, the
report identifies - City resources required to undertake the
annexation proceedings and lists a tentative time schedule to
complete the annexation.
The specific project would include the prezoning and annexation
of approximately 2 , 696 acres, roughly 4 .2 sq. miles, of
publicly-owned property . The proposed annexation is within the
City ' s Sphere of Influence previously approved by LAFCO.
-2-
Staff has identified three principal issues associated with this
annexation: environmental review, prezoning and the annexation
itself . Each issue, and the various options associated with that
issue, are discussed below..
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The prezoning and annexation is classified as a "project" under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .and as such
requires an environmental document to be prepared. The
environmental document could be one of the following:
- A Negative Declaration
- An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
- A Supplement to the General Plan EIR
- The General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR
A Negative Declaration is not feasible considering the size and
scope of the project, which would double the size of the city.
Further, a Negative Declaration could lead to challenges to the
annexation on the basis of an inadequate environmental review.
An EIR could be prepared, but would provide no more information
than what is already contained in the General Plan EIR,
particularly since no specific development projects are proposed
in this area at this time .
A Supplement to the EIR could be prepared but this approach has
the same problem as noted immediately above.
Staff would recommend that the General Plan EIR and Supplemental
EIR be used as the environmental document for this project. CEQA
allows a city to use an EIR prepared for a previous project if
the circumstances of the project are essentially the same . In
this case, the prezoning of the property does not result in any
different impacts than those which may occur from the General
Plan designations . The annexation itself will not have any
adverse environmental impacts . Detailed environmental reviews
will be conducted as specific projects are proposed in this area.
If the City Council determines to proceed with this approach,
Staff would conduct an Initial Study of the prezoning and
annexation, after which a notice would be prepared which .
describes the project and states that the City plans to use the
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR as the environmental
document for this project. This notice begins a 45-day review
period for affected agencies and individuals. At the end of the
review period, Staff prepares responses to comments and schedules
• hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council to make ;
• formal determination that the environmental document is in
compliance with CEQA.
PREZONI.NG
One of LAFCO' s policies is to require a City to prezone property
prior to submitting a petition to annex territory. The purpose
of this policy is to make it clear to LAFCO, affected agencies
and individuals the City ' s future intent for the subject area.
The prezoning also establishes the zoning that will be effective
at such time the annexation is completed.
Staff has identified the following six options for the prezoning:
1- prezone the site to Public Lands, Business,
Park/Industrial and Business Park/Industrial : Low
Coverage as provided in the General Plan. /
2- prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural and the
Industrial areas to M-1, Light Industrial
-3-
3 prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural, and the
Business Park/Industrial and the Business
Park/Industrial Low Coverage areas to an interim
ordinance. '
4- prezone the entire area to an interim ordinance.
5- request LAFCO waive the prezoning requirement.
6- prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural and
prezone both industrial areas (Business Park/Industrial
and Business Park Industrial : Low Coverage) to M-1 ,
with an overlay that states no development shall be
allowed in this area unless a Planned Development is
approved.
The disadvantage associated with option one is that the City does
not presently have a Public Lands Zoning District or a Business
Park Low Coverage District. These ordinances will have to be
developed separately or as part of the comprehensive revision of
the Zoning Ordinance . The City Council could delay the
annexation until these zoning districts were developed, but this
could be a lengthy process .
The disadvantage associated with option two is that the existing
M-1 ordinance is much too broad for the Low Coverage and Business
Park .Industrial areas . The Scarlett Court area is reflective of
M-1 uses .
Option three is a valid option because it enables the city to
adopt an interim ordinance for both industrial areas. In essence,
an interim ordinance precludes or substantially restricts most
uses within a designated area until a specific ordinance is
adopted. State law allows a city to adopt an interim ordinance,
provided it is done by a four-fifths vote of the legislative
body. The interim ordinance is initially valid for 45 days and
can be subsequently extended for ten months and 15 days and thee:
again for one more year, for a total of two years. While the new
ordinance is being adopted, the city could process individual
development proposals with a Conditional Use Permit. The
Conditional Use Permit process would ensure that the proposed
development would not conflict with the future ordinance. If a
specific ordinance was not adopted within the two year period,
the City Council could zone the Business Park/Industrial areas to
M-1, with a PD overlay.
Option four would result in adopting an interim ordinance for the
entire area. This approach would give the city two years to
develop specific zoning ordinances for the Public Lands area and
both Industrial areas and would allow certain uses to proceed
with a Conditional Use Permit.
Option five would result in a formal request by the city to
request LAFCO to waive the requirement to prezone the annexed
area. This request, if approved, would eliminate the problem of
prezoning for the near future, but the city would be faced with
the zoning issue after the annexation was completed. If the city
did not prezone the property, an interim zoning ordinance would
almost have to be adopted when the annexation was completed. The
waiving of the prezoning requirement would not result in a
shorter time period to complete the annexation. The reason that
time would not be saved is because the prezoning process could be
done in conjunction with the environmental review, which has a
45-day review period. Prezoning the property at this time would
clearly establish the City ' s intent for this area and would avoid
the need to have an interim ordinance once the annexation was
completed.
Staff recommends that the City Council choose option six, which
would include the prezoning of the public lands properties to
Agricultural and the Business Park/Industrial and Business
Park/Industrial Low Coverage areas to M-1 . An overlay district
would be established in both business park/industrial areas which
would require a Planned Development (PD) to be approved for all
new development proposals . The Planned Development process would
-4-
ensure 'that development is consistent with the objectives and
policies for the business park/industrial areas as identified in
the .General Plan. Further refinements would . be done to the
zoning districts after the property. was annexed. : . In . the -long
term, it may be best to develop a specific plan in this area %to
further implement the policies of the General Plan. , : The
Agricultural designation for Camp Parks, Tassajara Creek Regional
Park and ' the northerly portion of the county property is
consistent with the existing county designation of Agricultural .
It is a fairly common practice for cities to designate large
federal facilities or parks as agricultural . Camp Parks, being a
federal facility, is exempt from any local zoning, environmental
or building regulations .
ANNEXATION
At the end of the 45 day review period for the environmental
document, Staff would schedule a public hearing before the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the environmental
document, prezoning and annexation. The City Council would then
make a formal determination on the same items as . well as a
property tax distribution agreement. (There may be no property
taxes to distribute since the annexed area would only involve
public lands that are typically not on the tax rolls) .
If the City Council determines to proceed with the annexation,
Staff would prepare an application for LAFCO. That application
would include, but not be limited . to, a plan for city services, a
financial plan for providing said services, legal descriptions,
maps, and council resolutions.
The plan for services and financial plan will have to be
developed over the next three or four months with the Federal
Agencies at Camp Parks, the East Bay Regional Park District, the
County and the special service districts , principally Dublin San
Ramon Services District.
After the application is submitted to LAFCO, a determination is
made as to whether the application is complete. If found to be
complete, LAFCO holds a public hearing where it determines
whether to approve, deny, or modify the annexation.
If LAFCO approves the application, it will refer the application
back to the City to set and hold a protest hearing. At a
regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council would
adopt a resolution which sets forth the date, time and place for
a protest hearing. At the protest hearing, the City Council
would have to terminate the annexation if 50% or more of the
registered voters protest. (Staff has tentatively identified 39
registered voters within the Camp Parks area) . If 25% or more of
the registered voters or 25% or more of the property owners who
own 25% or more of the assessed value of land protest, the City
would have to hold an election before the territory could be
annexed. The election would be held only within the area to be
annexed. After an election, the territory is annexed if a
majority of votes favor annexation.
If a majority protest is not registered, the City 'Council orders
the territory annexed and a Certificate of Completion is filed
with the State.
RESOURCE NEEDS
The City Council should be aware that this project will result in
the committment of both time and resources . The City Engineer
will have to prepare the maps and legal descriptions for the area
to be annexed. The City Engineer has estimated it will cost
approximately $2, 500 . 00 to complete these materials.
Staff has met with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
to determine if their models could be of any use in projecting
future service demands or costs for the annexed area. It does
appear their models would be useful in providing necessary
information. The estimated cost of that study is $12, 800 .00 .
-5-
Finally, the projA will require a signif, it amount,,,of;,;the
Planning Staff time. The project will involve several %months .of
meetings, research, coordination and report writing.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
March 4-7 -Prepare City Council Staff Report
March 11-15 -Prepare Initial Study
March 18 -Send out environmental review notices and
begin 45 day review period
May 2 -Environmental Review period ends
May 7 -Notice Planning Commission Hearing of
May 20th
May 14 -Notice City Council hearing of May 27th
May 14-17 -Prepare Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20 -Planning Commission hearing on annexation
May 20-23 -Prepare City Council Staff Report
May 27 -City Council hearing on annexation
May 28-June 7 -Prepare application for LAFCO
June 10 -Submit LAFCO application
July 17 -LAFCO public hearing on annexation request
July 22 -City Council sets the date, time, and place
for a protest hearing
August 19 -City Council holds protest hearing and
orders the territory annexed, or orders an
election or terminates the proceedings
It should be noted that this schedule represents an extremely
tight timeline. The schedule assumes that there will be no
unforseen obstacles and no significant opposition to the
environmental review or annexation.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to:
1 - Determine if lands owned by Alameda County should be
included in the annexation
2 - Direct Staff to prepare on Initial Study to determine if the
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR will adequately serve
as the environmental document for this prezoning and
annexation
3 - Authorize Staff to initiate prezoning proceedings which
would prezone the public land area designated in the General
Plan to Agricultural and both industrial. areas to M-1, with
an overlay zone which would require a Planned Development to
be approved before any development proceeds.
4 - Direct Staff to begin annexation proceedings for Camp Parks,
Tassajara Creek Regional Park and the County-owned property.
This will involve meetings with affected Federal and County
agencies and Special Districts to determine service needs
and responsibilities for services ; working with ABAG to
develop a city services and financial plan; and preparing
associated reports, maps and legal descriptions .
5 - Authorize and appropriate from reserves in the amount of
$16, 700 to cover those costs associated with the annexation.
-6-
;47z.{
f,,.',I r •i:: ^sr..3�1 5a S� .> I. ,. T'� r'f' 1 _ 4 l p. Y"�'. at''Yr (•,�,yid ;.v,' f'. ,, ib i:� ' i.. •. t. 'c
•. M .� V 7 '4 , t ,. r 4 ''f i ,r1 y 1 -K` Y 1 t 8h
15 :nJl� �• loan• .. i "!}z� � +,rte ; fb. N....t�!!:��.._CI,�T-_
. , •`, ice.-, r rt �.- t +1�•1 ..�� r# ,•
1!
Rancho San Ramon(J M.Amodor) Oo1 E� A•'Fq I,I) �' ; •,
i ,
,r 4 Amended Map of the'?own of Dodghe'rty(E-
s
rou
m- }
6n 0
iv Boa CEO
X JI
c a [t
J 1
A55-A ARA
Cl
�m ' _1--K..
,.°I ..._ --- -- - ___ --- --- -- .. o61JC.c1 QJ64:�1�r,.i!: •1 l
X500
.JJ
,LB •� •,.y. 4
C.
tQ :.h•�., :;�.e' - 9:191 Ac
7,yam c
•t o. 1J94.J9—o) ti
Tye i'n
fa. !e X17.7e.
25-005
�!_ ._'•--. tN--`N sad
—CA'TRJ valLE i - \
aECE1Y
UC 1
O I 0 ` DUBI N PLANT
i i v,, ,
f
ATTAC i.....
'. • . '. • t •••
f
•
• � rc
0
s
6
5
•
•
•
1
1111111111111 J1'1`11��1 1`1111111111111111111�1 c 11�`1�1 W4i11111� 111 T�
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1.1111111111•1;1:1'�.
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/1 11/111111111111111/11111/111111111/111
♦♦1111111111111111111111111111111111111♦111111111111111111111111111111
1 1 11j1j1j1j1j1j1 1111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111•j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1j1111111111111111111111111111/11111/11111111111111111111/1111111/111111111/11111111111/1/11111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 s 11111111111111111111111111111/111111111111 s 1
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/1111111111111111111111111111/1111111111111r
• + 11111111�1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/11111111111111111111"+11.1111111
111hA�d111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111{l11�{�11f 11111.1
11d1{11111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 11•{tl
1.1/11111h�11.��,1 t1 11�1�111111.11111111111111111111111111111111111/1111111x/1111.111111111111 h 0 h 1 h 1<1•,111
� ' 1
• • !lmmm•
gnomon
i1 i1 i 1 i�i1 i1 h 1 i'�101
• • — • — ,11111111111111111111
- National Aeronautics and JffiA'
Space Administration ; C r R E C E D .L tr ''
Ames Research Center u `"
Moffett Field,California 94035 DEC 2 01984
CITY OF DUBLIN =
Reply to Attn of: AA:241-11 December 17, 1984
Mr. Richard Ambrose
City Manager -
City of Dublin , r
P. -0. Box 2340
Dubl i n,-,CA 94568 .. . � _..._.
Dear Per. Ambrose: _
In response to your letter of October 34-1984, concerning annexation of
NASA owned property at the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, NASA Ames .
Research Center has no objections to your annexation process of this prop-
erty. Currently, there is one general purpose storage warehouse (600' X 200' )
on 8.46 acres of land, located within the fenced boundaries of the U. S. Army
Camp Parks. Sewage is provided by the Dublin-San Ramon Service District. All
other services, e.g. , fire, refuse collection and disposal services are pro-
vided by the Department of the Army.
It is understood there will be no direct costs involved with the annexation.
Should there be additional considerations , please contact Jeanne Clemson,
Real Property Officer, at (415) 694-5140.
Sinc ly,
Louis H. Brennwald
Director of Administration
T T A C da
��
� ,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WALTER COSTA,President
ENO^�� Ba�, NoV I� r TED RADKE.Vice President
1 JOHN J.LEAVITT.Secretary
CITY ^ l r LYNN BOWERS.Treasurer
CI i CP Vr�BL74 1 ,MARY LEE JEFFERDS
Regional Park District , , . . .s
" HARLAN KESSEL
JOHN O'DONNELL
11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE(415)531-9300
RICHARD C.TRUDEAu
General Manager
November 21, 1984
Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin CA 94502
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
At its meeting of November 20, Directors of the East Bay Regional Park
District reviewed your request to our consent to have you annex the area
known as the Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Both the Board and the
staff are sympathetic with your desire to annex the Camp Parks Reserve
Force Training Area.
We are on notice from the U. S. Army that they intend to "recapture" the
land donated to us many years ago which is now the Tassajara Creek Regional
Park. In fact, I met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul
Jchnson on this subject when I was in Washington D. C. several weeks ago.
I also met with Presidential Counselor Ed Meese on the same subject. What
we have been seeking is an effective compromise by which the Army can take
back the property previously donated and reimburse us for private lands
purchased in the area and other related costs so that such funds can go into
another regional park in the .area. To accomplish this we need both the
cooperation of Alameda County and the U. S. Army.
As a result, we find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma. We may well have no
jurisdiction over Tassajara Creek Regional Park by the time you approach
LAFCO. Hence the Board has suggested that we defer our judgment in this
matter to the U. S. Army and possibly also to Alameda County.
We would be happy to discuss this further with you if you so desire.':;
Ccc�—j—lt)rdially,
Richard C. Trudeau
General Manager
RCT/bd
U.S. Department of ce
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 366 L V E D
Pleasanton, CA 94566
NOV 7
Ci7y cp f� 3i'ZI
November 5, 1984
Mr. Richard Ambrose
City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566
RE: Annexation
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1984, concerning the City's interest
in annexing Camp Parks and the Federal Correctional Institution.
I have been involved in annexation discussions since the early 1980's
when the subject first came up. In discussions with my staff and superiors,
we have agreed to not oppose annexation of this property. We attended
the County Commissioners' hearings some 3-4 years ago and publicly agreed
at that time to not oppose annexation.
I understand there will be no direct costs associated with this action.
We are already served by the Dublin-San Ramon Services District for sewage
services, and are hoping to convert over to Zone 7 water in the near future.
Our local fire protection is provided by contract with the Camp Parks Fire
Department. Our trash services are currently under contract with the
Oakland Scavenger Company. -.
Unless there is a tangible financial or legal impact with annexation, we
;:.: stand ready'to cooperate in your move to annex this area. ';Should _here
µ.' be cost or jurisdictional considerations,` I would request you contact
me for .further discussions.
erely..
les A. Turnbo,
Warden
cc: Ogis Fields
Jimmy Powell
Capt. Wright, Camp Parks
U
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,
PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA NO`I
POST OFFICE BOX DD V J
DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568
Ct rY
CF
REPLY TO November 2, 1984
ATTENTION OF:
Office of the Post Commander
SUBJECT: Annexation Of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
City of Dublin . .
6500 Dublin Blvd, Suite 101
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Sirs:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 31, 1984.
Your letter for annexation of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area has
been forwarded thru Army channels for action. I cannot give you an estimate
as to when a final decision will be made.
As I have stated before, the Army does not object to annexation by a
city bordering an installation; however, the approving authority to your
action will be the Department of the Army level.
Sincerely,
r -
Charles R W t
Captain, .S."Army
Acting Post Commander
T
AT1ACHM >L
RECEIVED
NOV 5 i93,:�
�. '/ •` COUNTY ADMINISTRATO(B;YQFFX.*W74
STEPHEN A HAMILL
MEL HING
ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR October 30, 1984
Commander, Presidio of San Francisco
Attention: AFZM-DEH (Lieutenant Colonel Tom Edgerton)
San Francisco, Ca. 94129 .
SUBJECT: Annexation of Camp Parks
Dear Colonel Edgerton: '
It is my understanding that the City of Dublin has requested the Army's
permission to annex Camp Parks to the City.
On October 30, 1984, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in public
session, voted to oppose such an annexation. Since Camp Parks is currently in
the County's unincorporated area, the Board of Supervisors believes that the
Army' s, as well as the County' s, best interests would be served by leaving
Camp Parks within County jurisdiction. If the Army intends to take an
affirmative action on the City of Dublin's request, we wish to be advised and
be provided with an opportunity to discuss the matter further with the Army.
It is our request that you either refuse to take a position or that you reject
the City of Dublin's request in view of the current jurisdictional dispute
between the City and the County over the governmental jurisdiction of Camp
Parks.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss the matter further, I suggest
you contact Jerry Burke of my office.
Very truly yours,
MEL HING
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MH/JB:ph
cc: Each member, Board of Supervisors
Colonel Sam Collins, Presidio
Randy Beckett, Presidio
0238c
.4 �AiACHIf DENT
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94612 14151 874.6252
��PARTMENT OF THE AIR FOI._�
HEAOOUARTERS AIR FORCE SATELLITE CONTROL FACILITY(AFSC) f
SUNNYVALE AIR FORCE STATION,PO BOX 3430
SUNNYVALE,CALIFORNIA 94088-3430
- RECEIVED
11 February 1986 FEB 131985
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose CITY OF DUBLIN
Dublin City Manager
P.O. Box 2340 -
Dublin, California 94568 : .
Dear Mr. Ambrose
I am still collecting information concerning your annexation request, Zhe
decision to consent to or oppose annexation will be ultimately made by
Headquarters,' United States Air Force. However, there are a few more issues
-that must be addressed before a report -is forwarded for their action.
Apparently, we are using few, if any, county services at the Communications
Annex mw. We have well water and a septic tank. We do our own road main-
tenance and provide our own fire protection and security services. , However,
we think it necessary to address the possibility of provision of services by
the City of Dublin. Consequently, I ask for your continents sbout the avail-
ability of:
a. Police and fire protection services
b. Trash and garbage removal
c. Street maintenance '
In our telephone discussion last month, one issue we did not discuss was city
established pollution standards, ordinances, or codes. If you have any, please
send me a copy. The federal government does generally comply with local govern-
mental standards.
Finally, as I understood your position, the City of Dublin has m tax, license
fee, permit fee, or any other charge which would impact on any .construction or
other activity on that installation, whether by the government or contractors.
If I am wrong,- let me kmw. .. E
I look forward to hearing from you about +these questions. <�'Of course,' I_invite
you to furnish any other information, such as Dublin's city growth plan or other
benefits to be derived fran this annexation, which you consider relevant. I may
be reached at (408) 752-3587.
Sincerely
CHARD PE NNINGTON, Ma j r, USAF
Asst Staff Judge Advocate
T-8-