Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.9 Annexation of Camp Parks 1 Zo ,P,-® CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 8, 1984 SUBJECT Annexation of Camp Parks EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum dated May 29 , 1984 ; Agenda Statement dated August 13 , 1984 ; Map of 150 acres to be surplused will be available at City Council meeting RECOMMENDATION Consider options and direct Staff to take appropriate action FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined DESCRIPTION At the City Council meeting of August 13 , 1984 , the City Council authorized the Mayor , City Manager and City Attorney to meet with representatives from the Army and Federal Government to discuss the potential annexation of Camp Parks . On September 11, 1984 , representatives from the City met with representatives from the Department of the Army. At that meeting, the City representatives explained the City' s goals with respect to future growth and the need t.o not . only annex either all or a portion of the Camp Parks property to the City of Dublin, but also to obtain an access to construct a highway to the east through the Camp Parks property. At that meeting, the Army representatives provided the City with the following information: 1 . The Army representatives indicated that the southernmost 150 acres of the Camp Parks property was in the process of being transferred to the General Services Agency (GSA) which will be responsible for its disposal . 2 . Other lands on the Camp Parks site were presently being utilized and were under the control of the Department of Justice and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA) . The Army representatives indicated that the City should contact these other Federal agencies directly. 3 . The City should initiate its request to annex lands under the control of these Federal agencies by submitting a formal request to each agency. That request should precisely identify the area which the City wishes to annex and should also include a request for an easement to construct a public roadway. 4 . The Army representatives indicated that the request to the Army should be addressed initially to the Acting Commandant, Captain Wright at Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area . Captain Wright would then forward the City ' s request to the Presidio . 5 . The request to annex the 150 acres which is presently in transition from the Army to GSA would be forwarded by the Army to GSA. 6 . The representatives from the Army also indicated that the Army was looking at removing its exclusive jurisdiction at various bases throughout the country. This would have an impact on local agencies which annexed or had Army bases within their jurisdictions by requiring the local agency to provide certain municipal services to that Army base where the exclusive jurisdiction had been removed. At this time, the Army still has exclusive jurisdiction for those services which the City would provide over the Camp Parks base . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Captain Wright , Camp Parks ITEM NO. 19 AGENDA STATEMENT; Annexation of Camp Parks Page 2 ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVES It appears that there are 2 basic alternatives which the City Council could consider with respect to the amount of territory that it may wish to annex to the City. The first alternative would be to annex the entire portion of the Camp Parks base which is within Alameda County. The second alternative would be to annex only the southernmost 150 acres of the Camp Parks site which is presently being transferred to GSA. If the City Council decides to pursue the first alternative, there is a possibility that the City may have to provide services to the Camp Parks facility should the Army remove its exclusive jurisdiction over that site. The cost of providing those services is unknown at this time. However, the annexation of the entire Camp Parks site is a much more comprehensive approach in moving towards the City ' s ultimate sphere of influence boundaries . This approach may also be much more expeditious in .getting more territory within the City ' s jurisdiction, if the Army concurs with the annexation. This is the case because the Army controls more than 750 of the land within the proposed annexation area . It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council identify which alternative it wishes to pursue, and direct Staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor ' s signature to the various Federal agencies involved requesting their consideration of the City ' s annexation request . Upon receiving a response from the Army, it is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution petitioning LAFCO to annex the property to the City. CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600 May 29, 1984 TO: City Manager FROM: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney RE: Annexation of .Camp Parks You have asked whether the City can annex Camp Parks, which is federally owned land, without the consent or approval of the Federal Government. In my opinion the City can annex Federal land without approval of the Federal government. I. PROCEDURE FOR. ANNEXATION The annexation of territory to Dublin would proceed under MORGA (the Municipal Organization Act of 1977) , Government Code §350.00 . et.,seg. The procedure under MORGA for annexation of unincorporated territory differs slightly depending on whether the territory is inhabited (12 or more registered voters) or uninhabited (fewer than 12 registered voters) . I will briefly outline the procedure for an inhabited annexation and, where relevant, point out the differences with respect to an uninhabited annexation. Annexation can be initiated by petition signed by registered voters or landowners or by resolution of the City Council (government—Code—S35100) . The resolution must contain a plan for services (53,510 2) , including the services to be extended, improvements to be made and financing thereof. Revenue—and-Taxation. Co.de. 522.(b) requires the City and County to agree to an exchange of property tax revenues prior to any jurisdictional change, such as annexation. In addition Californ.is ..Constitution .Art_icle. ,13B (Gann Initiative) requires the City and the County to agree on a transfer of appropriate tax limitations. These agreements must be reached before LAFCO will proceed. Once agreement on tax proceeds and limitations has been reached, LAFCO then examines the petition or resolution for sufficiency and, if sufficient, schedules a hearing. After the hearing, LAFCO determines whether territory is inhabited or uninhabited and, if it approves the annexation, designates the conducting authority which, in this case, should be the City of f To: City Manager From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney Re: nnexat.ion .of.,.Camp_Parks May 29, 1984 Page Two Dublin (§.�3.515.Q.(,h).,, .,35031) . The annexation of uninhabited territory can proceed without hearing and election if all landowners consent (S351.5 After LAFCO designates the City as the conducting authority,. the City Council must adopt a resolution initiating the proceedings and set a hearing on the proposed annexation (53520 ) . At the hearing written protests can be filed. At the close of the hearing for an jnhab_ited annexation, the Council must adopt a resolution finding the value of the written protests, and: (a) terminate the proceedings if 50% or more of registered voters protest; (b) order the territory annexed subject to election within the affected territory if 25% or more of registered voters or 25% or more of owners of land who own 25% or more of assessed value of land protest; and (c) order the territory annexed without election if, neither of the above applies (53522 ) . For an uninhabited annexation (53522 ) , the Council must adopt a similar resolution: (a) terminate the proceedings if protests are filed by owners of more than 50% of land and improvements within the territory; or (b) order the territory annexed if protests are filed by owners of less than 50% of land and improvements within the territory. The election to be called if inhabited territory is annexed is only within the territory to be annexed unless the assessed value of land in the territory to be annexed is one-half (1/2) or more than than the assessed value of land within the City, or the number of registered voters within the territory to be annexed is one-half (1/2) or more than the number of registered voters within the City ( 3� 523.7 ) . After an election the territory is annexed if a majority of votes favor annexation. To: City Manager From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney Re: Annexat, _-n of ,Camp_.,Par,ks May 29, 1984 Page Three II. ANNEXATION_._OF„_f Ep,ERAL.__LAND Federal courts have upheld the annexation by a municipality of Federal lands. Uoward..v.....Comm�,ss_i.oner.s, (1953) , U. S. 624 , 627 , 73 Sup.Ct. 465; Rhyne, p. 33 . In the lgpwa.r d case, the United States Supreme _Court upheld the annexation to the City of Louisville, Kentucky, of a federally owned naval ordnance plant. The Supreme Court noted that state courts have upheld the right to annex Federal land, citing decisions by Texas and Virginia courts involving a military reservation and a navy yard, respectively. More recently, in gnited States v., ..Cty..of_ ,Bel l.ev.u__ ,._..�Tebraska, (1971) , 334 F. Supp. 881, the U. S. District Court reaffirmed the holding of Howard that the City of Bellevue had the power and authority to annex federally owned land (344 F. Supp. at 884) . However, because the Federal land involved was an U. S. Air Force base which was the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command, and because it was clear from the record that the only reason the City wished to annex the air force base was to derive more tax revenue, the court found the purported annexation invalid under Nebraska law. In so holding the court relied on the interests of national security and Nebraska law which prohibited the annexation of territory for revenue purposes only. 334 F.Supp. at 887 . The Supreme Court in Howard did note that exclusive jurisdiction of the federally owned property still remains within the United States, except as modified by Federal statute (344 US at 627 , 73 S.Ct. at 467) . The question then becomes whether California law prohibits the annexation of federally owned land or requires consent of the Federal government for such an annexation. MORGA contains no prohibition against annexation of property owned by the Federal government. 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 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 (such as 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 9§35470 and 3547.1) . It is important to note that the requirement of county consent (former 535003) was added in 1951 (Stats. 1951, c. 1701) and the requirement of Federal consent to an annexation was added in 1957 (Stats. 1957 , c. 1844) . Prior to those dates there was no requirement that consent be obtained for annexation of county or Federal territory. l To: City Manager From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney Re: Annexation of Camp Parks May 29, 1984 Page Four In Aqua Caliente Bander 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 annexaton of Federal land. Although §§35470 and 35471, which were in effect at the time, required consent of the Federal government before federally owned land could 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 MORGA which requires consent for annexation of federally owned lands. Since there is no statutory prohibition against annexation of Federal property, the City may annex Camp Parks pursuant to the statutorily prescribed procedures. This conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court' s reasoning that ". . .an annexation should not be declared invalid unless some express statutory provision has been violated. " People v. City of Palm Springs, (1958) , 331 P.2d 4, 9 . It must be remembered that the City, in annexing Camp Parks, may exercise no control over Federal property which interferes with the superior authority of the Federal government. MRN/jm AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUh _ _L MEETING DATE: August 1- , 1984 SUBJECT Annexation of Camp Parks EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from City Attorney dated May 29 , 1984 RECOMMENDATION Receive report and direct Staff to take further action FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION In accordance with the City ' s adopted Sphere of Influence and the planning which the City Council has undertaken during the General Plan process for those lands east of the City' s present boundaries, the City Attorney and Staff have been reviewing those steps which would be necessary to annex the land presently under the jurisdiction of the Army ( Camp Parks ) to the City of Dublin. The City Attorney, in his memorandum, has outlined the process which the City would have to follow if it were to annex the Camp Parks property into the City of Dublin. The procedure which the City would follow would depend on whether the annexation was an inhabited annexation or an uninhabited annexation. Staff has determined through discussions with the County Registrar of Voters that the Camp Parks property presently has 39 registered voters living at Camp Parks . Thus , if the City were to annex the entire Camp Parks property within Alameda County, the City would have to have the approval of at least 500 of the registered voters living on the property. If the City pursued an annexation which included only those areas of Camp Parks that are presently uninhabited, the consent of the property owner ( Federal Government ) would be necessary. . Staff has had preliminary discussions with the Camp Parks Commandant regarding the City' s interest and ultimate plans for those lands to the east of the City ' s present boundaries . - The local Commandant suggested that representatives from the City meet with the Commandant , Legal Staff from the Presidio and Army real estate personnel from Sacramento in order to explain the City ' s goals prior to submitting a formal request to the Army for annexation. It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council authorize the City Manager and the City Attorney to meet with representatives from the Army and Federal Government regarding the City ' s intentions and the potential annexation of Camp Parks and report back to the City Council regarding the results of that meeting .