Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MINUTE ITEM
ANNEXATION OF TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS CITY OF DEL MAR
2/9/82 w 2400.135 Fossum
Calendar Item 49 attached was pulled from the agenda prior to the meeting.
Attachment: Calendar Item 49.
lCAlENOAR MOE
MINUTtt PAGE 255
CALENDAR ITEM
ANNEXATION OF TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS CITY OF DEL MAR
1/28/82 w 2400.135 Fossum
On June 21, 1981, the State Lands Commission approved the propriety of the description of the boundaries of Del Mar's proposed annexation of lands adjacent to its city limits including tide and submerged lands. The City of Del Mar seeks to annex the subject property pursuant to Government Code Sections 35QO et seq. These sections require approval by the State Lands Commission of any annexation by a City of State or trustee owned tide and submerged lands.
The City of Del Mar a11d San Diego County LAFCO have requested that the State Lands Commission give its approval to the a1mexation of the lands owned by the State of California arid under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. It should be further noted that the proposed annexation would only affect a change in the police power jurisdiction status of these lands from an unincorporated to incorporated area of San Diego County and not effect in any manner property interests or the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission over public trust lands. A portion of the lands proposed to be annexed are off shore tide and ~ubmerged lands lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. Another portion of the annexation area includes present and historic tide and submerged lands within San Diegueto Lagoon -- the exact location of the boundaries to these lands and extent of State interest has not been determined. At the July 23, 1981 meeting of the State Lands Commission) the consent of the Commission to the annexation was sought
by staff. During consideration of Calendar Item 28 (attached as Exhibit Cl, Mr. Robe•rt c. Hight, Chief Counsel, explained that: the
A 76
22nd Agricultural District (Del Mar Fairgrounds) had opposed this annexation. He further explained there was a disagreement between che City and that agency over. the annexation, but he indicated the staff of the State Lands Commission had no objection. However, the Commission was concerned about approving an annexation that had been opposed by another governmental agency which is utilizing the area.
-1-
s 38
\c.'\UHDAA PAGE
tl~U~PAGE
CALENDAR ITEM N01• 4 9 (.CONTD)
Based on the above, the Commission then voted 3-0 to object at that time and until stc\f f could further analyze the position of the 22nd Agricultural District and clarify the procedural mechanics of the annexation·.
Staff of the Commission has since discusied the mat~2r with the Agricuitural District and the City of Del Mar and based on the information obtained in those communications and documents submitted regarding the dispute {Exhibit D) believes that the basis for the objection has been adequately dealt with. The City has requested reconsideration without waiver of any procedural rights it may have.
Staff therefore suggests revocation of che July 23) 1981 objection, waiver of any procedural error, and approval of the annexation to the City of Del Mar of all land and interests in lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission within the proposed annexation area.
AB 884: N/A.
EXHIBITS: A. Land Description. B. Location Map. ,C. Calendar and Minute Item 28, July 23,
1981. D. Supporting Documents.
IT IS RECOMMENDED !HAT THE COMMISSION:
1. REVOKE ITS JULY 23, 1981 OBJECTION, WAIVE ANY POSSIBLE PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF HISTORIC AND PRESENT, FIU~ED AND UNFILLED, TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS OR INTERESTS THEREIN UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION, DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A11 ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND APPROiPRIATE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
c.'\t.ENDAA PAOE - -j 21 _ \ . 5 7 ~ MINU'rE PAO:a - \
-2-
EXHIBll\ 11 A11
LANO DESCRIPTION w 2400.135
All that portion of Section 2, Township 14 South, Range 4 Weist, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Oiego, State of Ca1ifr"'nia, according to United States Government Survey, and that portion of adj,acent ti de 1 !lnds lying within the followfng described boundaries.
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 2;
1. Thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Section to the Northerly line of Via De La Valle as it existed on May 22, 1981, and a portion of which is shown as Road Survey No. 443, map on file in the Count!' Engineer's Office of said County;
2. Thence Westerly along the Northerly line of said Via De La Valle, of varing widths, to the Westerly 11ne of the 200.00 foot Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way;
3. Thence Westerly in a straight line to a point on the Northerly line of Border Avenue, Road Survey No. 1589, on file in the County Engineer's Office of said County, being North 89° 49' 32" East, 125.87 feet from the most Southerly Southeast Corner of lot 1 of Del Mar Beach C1ub East according to Map No. 7402, records of said County;
4. Thence Westerly along said Northerly lina of Border Avenue and the prolongation thereof to the Westerly line of Sierra Avenue being also the Easterly line of Lot 1 of Del Mar Beach Club East according to Map No. 6838, records of said' County;
5. Thence Southerly along said Easterly line of Lot 1 to the Southerly line of· said Map No. 6838 being also the Northerly line of the Southerly 660.00 feet of Lot 5 of said Section 2.
6. Thence South 89° 49' 32" West, 562.32 feet a1ung said South line to the mean high tide line as shown on said Map N<.>. 6838;
7. Thence South 89° 49' 32" \.lest, three miles to the Westerly boundary of the State of Californ)d.
8. Thence Southerly along said boundary to an intersection with the Westeriy prolongation of the South line of said Section 2;
9. Thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation and along said South line to the point of beginning.
END OF DESCRIPTION
REVIE\·JED JUNE 10, 1981, BY TECHNICAL SERVICES UNIT, ROY MINNICK, SUPERVISOR
A ~!~·i= .. /. ' -~-.~-.
.... ~ ·-.. ''....,j,l ......
,• ..
-Is A N
CAt.!NDAA PAGI
MIMl'rt Pi\GE
" \
ci.· '~ \.
___ 2=2..;::;...3 =i 25.9 _,
.. ~ ~
• MINUt~ ITEM T. F.XHIBIT (C) This Calendar Item No. iti " • was !QJ!iJOVed as Minute Item
• No.(jjYJ_ by the State La~s Commission by. SAO~?f MINUTE ITEM
. to 0 at Its ..!./. ... !!!; ~-~· 7f23/Sl Fossum
meeting. !W 2400.135
•
A 76 s 38
28. PROPOSED Ai.~~TION/CITY OF DEl .• MAR
-···---- ----·- ---- ·-----------During consideration of Calendar Item 29 attached, ~r. Robert c. Hight, Chief Counsel, t:tj,lained that the Twenty-Second Agricultural D:i.:strict (Del Mar Fairgrounds) has opposed this annexation. lie further explained there is disagreement between the Ci~y and other public agencies over this annexation, but since the area to bl annexed is relatively small, he indica~ed the staff has no objection. However, the Commission was con~erned about approving an annexation that has been opposed by another governmental e~ency which is utilizing the area.
Based on the above, the Coumission voted 3-0 for the following resolution :
THE f,Qi-1MISSION:
1. uBJECTS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.SECTION 35009 TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS OWNED BY THE STA'rE AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE LAMDS. COMMISSION, DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AUD BY REFERENCE MADE A P AR'r HEREOF, AND AUTHORIZES STAFF TO SEND A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND THE LOCAL AGE~CY FORMATIQN.CC!1MISSION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
Attachment: Calendar Item 28
0
CA-L-EN-D-AR-P-AG_f!_-,. 2? ~ J. ~lNUTE PAG! - ~ -
.. .... .. '
•
• • CAL:E:NDAR ITEM'
38
CONSENT OF STATE LANDS COMMISSION AS LANDOWNER ro THE PROPOSFD ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF DEL MAR
T/8:i. W· 2400.135 FoSS1,lm
On June 21, 1'981, the State Lands Commission'approved- the boundaries <.lf Df!l Mar's pr9posed annexation of· land~ adjacent to tts city Umits including tide and submerged· lands. The Ci·t;11 o~ ~)~l Mat wishes to annex the subject property pu~euab:t \:!o Gpv.:1rnmet'lt Corte Sections 3500 et seq. These sections require approval by. the State Lands Commisaion of any ann~xati6n by a Ci~y of state or t't1ls~ee own~d tide and ·~ubmerged land'·s.
i'~e C.tt3r of' Del Mar and San Diego eounty LAFCO h~ve r~quest:ed t'hat tl;le State Lands Co1nmission give its approvai p~rsuant t6 California Government Code Section 35009) supporting the ::tnnexatiory of the lands owned by the State of California un<ler the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commiss'ion. It should be further noted that the proposed anne;ation would only ~f fect a change in the police power jurisdiction status of -tqese lands from an unincorporateJ to incorporated area of 'San Diego Cour,ty and· not effect in a41y man-oer P'i"operty interests or the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission ov-er public trust lands.
A portion of the lands proposed to be annexed are off shore tioe ~nd submet·geq lands lying below the mean high tide line of the PaGific Ocean. Anot~:r portion of the annexation area incl~des present and historic tide and submerged lands wit:hi Sa'. Di~gueto Lagoon -- the exact location of the bound~~ies to these lands and extent of State int~rest has not been determined.
Therefore, staff suggests approval of the annexation of all lands and interests in lands under the jurisdiction of the Stace Lands Ccmmission and within the proposed annexation arfas be approved for annexation to the City of Del Mar.
AB 884:
EXHIBITS:
A 76
s 38
N/A.
A, Land De~cription.
-:!.-
B. Locatio. Map.
C.lL!NDAR PAGE -=-~ MINUTE PAGI! ~
. . . .
•
•
•
• CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 8 .('CONT!?J.
IT IS RECOMME;NDED THAT TiiE COMMISSION:
1 '•· GIVE CONS EU;; PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SE~TIQN 35009~ ~O THE APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF TIDE AND SUBMERGED LA~DS OWNED BY THE STATE AND UNDER THE.JURISDICTION OF THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION, DESCRIB~D IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED A.ND- BY REFERENCE MAD£ A PART HEREOF, AND AUTiiORiZE STAF~ TO SEND A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY OF liEL MAR A~D THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION or S~N DIEGO ~OUNTY •.
-2-CAl.ErmAn PAGE -
MINUTE PAGE
6 2 , .... 'i
0.l..
• , " 4
•
•
• . --··· ... .. ""
EXHIBIT "A"
LAND DESCRIPTION W24QQ,,l35
All of the present and historic t,ide and submerged lands within that portion of Section 2, ToWtish~p 14 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, accorr.~~ng to United States Govet'nment Survey, and that por.tion of adjacen,t tic,i;e and submerged lands 1ying within the following described boundaries.
Beginning ~t the Southeast c9rner of said Section 2;
1. Thence Northerly along the Easterly line of saitl Sec~ion to the Northerly line of Via De La Valle as it existed on May 22, 1981, and a portion of which is shown as Road Survey No. 443, map on file in the County Engineer's Office cf said County;
2. Thence westefly along the Northerly line of said Via De La Valle, of varing widths, to the Westerly line of the 200.00 foot Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way;
3. Thence Westerly in a straight line to a point on the Northerly line of Borde~ Avenue, Road Survey No. 1589, on file in the County Engineer's Office of said County, being North 89° 49' 32" East, 125.87 ~eet from the most Southerly Southeast Corner of Lot l Qf Del Mar Beach Club East according to Map No. 7402, records of said County;
4. 11-:.c;ance Westerly along said Northerly line of Border Avenue and the prolongat~on thereof to the Westerly line of Sierra Av~nue being also the Easterly line of Lot 1 of Del Mar Beach Club East according to Map No. 6e38, records of said County;
5. Thence Scutherly alon9 said Easter1/ line of Lot 1 to the Southerly line of said Map No. 0838 being also the Northe~ly line of the Southerly 660.00 feet of Lot S of said Section 2.
6. Thence South 89° 49' 32" West, 562.32 feet along said South line to the mean high tide line as shown on said Map No. 6838;
7. Thence South 39° 49' 32" West, three miles to the Westerly boundary of the State of California.
8. Thence Southerly along said boundary to an intersection with thn Westerly prolongation of the South line of said Section 2;
9. Thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation and along said $..}uth line to the point: of begi.nning.
END OF DESCRIPTION
REVlEWEJ JULY 10, 1981, BY TECHNICAL SERVICES UNIT, ROY MINNICK, SUPER\'ISOR
CAU:NOAR PAGE
MINU1E PAQE
7 263 -
... I\. , ••• - --.
-.... -'SA N
'--
0 '4•
~· .. -.' ..: :A --~ .l~- ) --·=- .. .;;:;,.
~t~_::.._';._~=~~.~~J~_·_/ __ -=-~:.;...o:...;.::..:.:;.....-~::,_..;..., __________ ...:....i.::=!:!:=:'!::::::::====s:~~--~"""" CAUNQ,AR PAGE
MINUT!I PllGE
8 264-------
I/ . .
• To:
From:
Subject:
'il!XHIBIT "D"
city of del mar me1norandi1m
City council Date: January 11, 1982
City Attorney
City Jurisdiction over Multi-Modal Transit Facility
.In the context of ~he City's recently completed Via de la Valle annexation, you have asked whether or not the City of Del Mar will have any permit authority or jurisdiction over the Multi-Modal Transit Facility proposed to be located ln the annexation area, As currently proposed, the Multi-Modal Facility would be located on property owned by the 22nd Agricultural District Association, a State agency, and would provide transportation services to passengers in intra":".state and inter-state commerce. The ~ .mty would be the "l~ad agency•• and the project would .i:.e built primarily with State and Federal funds.
ISSUE
Does the City of Del Mar have permit authority over the Multi-Modal Transit Facility?
CONCLUSION
No. The County of San Diego as lead agency, the 2~nd Agricultural Distrir.t as a State agency, and its lessees are exempt from Del Mar's local building and zoning regulations.
DISCUSSION
It is a general rule of law, based on the concept of federalism, that neither the Federal government nor agencies of the State are subject to local building and zoning regulations. See, generally, Longtin, California Land Us~Regulations, 52, 101 et seq. . This ir; e7pecially true when the Federal or State agency is conducting a sovereign activity. Supra, §2,103. ln the case of the
CALWDAR PAG!
W~U'iE PAGE
9 265
MEMO TO CITY 90UNCIL Page 2 January 11, 1982
Mu~ti-Modal Facility, .j.t appears beyond dispute that the project is not a matter of "local concern" as opposed to a State sovereign activity, in that the project proposes to service passengers in intra-state and in~er-state commerce.
There can be little doubt that the 22nd Agricu+tural District is a State agency. See, Agricultural Code §S3953, 3962. It has been spe'cifically determined by the California Attorney General in a published opinion that a District Agricultural Association is not sub:)ect to local bui1ldin9 and zoning regulations, and that this exemption applies to·lessees of the Association as well. 56 Atty. Ops. 210 (1973}.
Finally, it is the general rule that cities an1d counties are mutually ex~pt from each other's zoning and building regulations relative to property that one such entity may own withi1' t~e territory of the other. See, £_£un-sx of Los An.9._eles v. City of Los Angele~ (1963) 212 Cal. App.2d 160; Countv ot San Mateo v. Bartoli (1960) 84 Cal. App.2d 422; 40 Cal:-Atty. Ops. 243 (1962)."
Because th~ Agricultural District and its lessees are exempt from the City Building and Zoning Regulations, and because the County is similarly exempt, it is apparent that the City of Del Mar has no permit authority over the proposed Multi-Modal Facility.
If r can provide you with more information regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call upon me.
DDW/dth
CA1.ENOAR PAGE
MINUTE PAGW:
• RESOLUTION NO. 82- l
RESOLUTION OF THE CtTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF UEL. '\,\R R£G11kOINC THE PROPOSED MULTI-MODAL TRAN~lT FACILkTY,
WHUREAS, the County of San Diego proposes to locate a mul~i-modol tr3"s1t facility on propeity o~ned by the 22nd 1'.grlcult:urAl Di:>trict, a State agency; and
WHERE~S, the propos~d multi-modal facility ts t~ be $Upportod by Fed~cal and State monaes and ls propo1ed to accommodate ~assange1s in 1nt~3state and lntcr1tate commerce ~n ran, bu$ and other modes of tcansport.ltion; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar is on record in s~~pp~t't of the concept of a multi-modal hcL'lLty, but in C'fiposition to the location of sJch 'I faciUty at tho prcp:ised site on the 22nd .\gticultural District property: and
WltET\E:t.S 1
the Ci t'.r' Attorney has advised the City C~uncil that the Clt)' of Oel Har has no jurlsdlctirn or permit authority over the tnulti-modal f.acility because 1t ls a county project utill:i119 Federal and State monies to be located on S'f<lte owned property providing services to passengers in intrastate and interstate commerce;
NOW THEREFOiU!, the City Counctl of the City of Del Mar hereby resolvns as follows:
l. The City Council ackhow.edges that it has no permit authority ov~t the pc~posed mMlti-modal tr~nsit facility.
2. If and when the multi-modal facility receive~ all necessary ~pprovals from Federal, State and county agencies with jurisdiction by law, the City of Del Mar will provide sewnr and water :>ervice as necessary, consistent with City and State law, the same as it would to any other project or landowner in the City'$ jurisdictioG.
P~SStD .\ND ADOPTED TUIS 4th day nf January, 1982 by the following vote:
1\YES; councilmembers Roe,Hoovcr 1 Shapiro:
NOES:
Jo.BSE:NT:
1'B!iT ,\IN:
Mayor Terrell None
cou~cilwoman ~cierabend
Noni:.
ATTEST:
L--,11 ·1 I .1 I! }' 1' Lu.._. I(._. t;t:;:.,---"•-=
Citil.WltDAR l'AM
MINUTE PAGI'!
