HomeMy WebLinkAboutNortheast Annexation - Extending Tidelands - Ordinance 558 U
® RANG E R.A.SCOTT g yDirector.General Services A enc�&��C>UN'ry
1
_g ✓GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS DIVISION
DONALD TANNEY Mailing Address.
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS PO Box 11298
1300 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana.California 92711
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 567-76M
TDD (714) 567-7608
April 21, 1988
TO: City Clerks
FROM: Registrar of Voters
SUBJECT: Information Meeting re: November 8, 1988 General Election
We would like to have join us for an information meeting.
WHEN: Friday, May 20, 1988, 9:00 a.m.
WHERE: Registrar of Voters office
1300 S. Grand Ave. , Building C, Room 208
Santa Ana
RSVP: (714) 567-7620 - Name of City and number attending
A tentative agenda is attached. If you would like anything added
to the agenda please contact Roz Lever at 567-7626 by Friday,
May 6.
We look forward to seeing you.
cc: Martin & Chapman Co.
C
CITY CLERK INFORMATION MEETING
MAY 20, 1988
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1. Introduction of new Registration & Elections Management Staff
2. Election Cost Estimates
3. Suggested Deposit Amounts - Candidate Statement of Qualifications
4. County Procedures for Statements of Qualifications
a. Uniform Format
b. Forms
c. Word Count Standard
5. Ballot Designation Discussion
6. Calendar of Events
7. Suggested Argument Filing Dates
8. Proofreading of Measure/Candidate Statement Copy
a
9. Our Expectations/Your Expectations
10. Miscellaneous
a. Signature Verification on Petitions - 100% vs 5% Random
G
OFFICE OF ��✓
CITY ATTORNEY
1116I
P.O.BOX 2740
M1r 2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92647
GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE
City Attorney (714) 5365555
May 9 , 1988
Mr . Bruce G . Kerr
Shell Western E & P Inc .
20101 Goldenwest
Huntington Beach , California 92648
Re : Boundary Lines of the City of Huntington Beach
Dear Mr . Kerr :
It was a pleasure to meet with you on May 3 , 1988 at our offices
in City Hall . This letter will outline our position concerning
the city boundary line which includes the offshore areas in
question .
The City of Huntington Beach was incorporated February 17 , 1909 as
a sixth class city pursuant to the Municipal Corporation Bill (CAL
STATS 1883 p. 83 , 266 ) (30 CAL L .R. p.l , 41 ) . The boundary was
particularly described as follows :
Commencing at a point in the east line of Section 2 , T . 6 S . ,
R. 11 W. , S . B . B. & M . , 20 . 00 chains south of the northeast
corner of said Section, and in the center of Clay street;
thence west 2 1/2 miles to the 1/4 section line running north
and south through Section 4 , T. 6 S . , R. 11 W . , S . B . B . & M. ;
thence south, with the same to the ordinary high tide of the
Pacific Ocean; thence south 48 degrees west , three miles to a
point in the Pacific Ocean; thence southeasterly, parallel to
and three miles from the ordinary high tide line of the
Pacific Ocean, four miles more or less to a point , south 36
degrees west of the intersection of the east line of Section
14 , T . 6 S . , R 11 W. , S . B . B . & M . , with the ordinary high
tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence north 36 degrees east
three miles to said point of intersection , thence north on the
east line of said Section 14 , 42 chains , or a little more or
less , to its intersection with a line running south 55 1/4
degrees east from a point 20 . 00 chains west of the southeast
corner of Section 11 , T. 6 S . , R . 11 W. , S . B . B . & M . ; thence
north 55 1/4 degrees west 25 chains, a little more or less , - to
a point 20 . 00 chains west of the south-southeasterly line of
land deeded to H . E . Huntington, 'Trustee, by A . H . Clute, as
per deed recorded in Book 159, on page 336 , of Deeds, Records
or Orange County , California . Thence northeasterly along the
southeasterly line of lands described in deeds recorded on
pages 338 and 340 , Book 159 , Records of Orange County,
California, to the east line of Section 11 , T . 6 S . , R. 11 W. ,
S . B. B . & M. ; thence north to a point 20 feet north of the
1/4 section corner on the east line of said Section 11; thence
north 32 degrees 10 minutes , E . 3 .48 chains; thence north 25
degrees 35 minutes, east 7 . 43 chains; thence north 13 degrees ,
east 4 .23 chains; thence north 1 degree 15 minutes , west 1 . 62
chains; thence north 61 degrees 30 minutes , west 6 . 88 chains;
thence north 21 . 10 chains to southwest corner of Section 1 , T.
6 S . , R. 11 W. , S . B . B . & M . ; thence north 2 . 82 chains;
thence north 22 degrees 30 minutes, east 2 . 90 chains; thence
south 40 degrees, east 4 .24 chains; thence north 36 degrees 50
minutes , east 3 . 00 chains; thence north 33 degrees , east 9 . 34
chains; thence north 28 degrees , east 6 . 65 chains; thence
north 11 degrees 30 minutes , east 1 . 36 chains; thence north 7
degrees 30 minutes, east 0 . 53 chains; thence north 87 degrees
45 minutes , west 3 . 85 chains; thence north 28 degrees 30
minutes , east 4 . 39 chains; thence south 86 degrees, east 3 . 03
chains ; thence north 21 degrees 30 minutes , east 3 . 05 chains;
thence north 6 degrees 45 minutes, west 3 . 70 chains; thence
north 33 degrees , east 5 . 68 chains; thence north 2 degrees 10
minutes , east 4 . 00 chains , a little more or less , to the north
line of the southwest quarter of Section 1 , T. 6 S . , R. 11 W. ,
S . B. B . & M . ; thence west with said line west 18 .00 chains , a
little more or less , to the west line of said Section 1;
thence north 20 . 00 chains to the beginning . All being in the
County of Orange , State of California .
The description includes an area of ocean 3 miles out as indicated
on the map entitled Exhibit A and attached to this letter .
Thereafter Assembly Concurrent Resolution No . 53 in the
Fifty-Second Session (CAL STATS 1937 p. 2975 ) approved the City
Charter which had been ratified by city voters on April 29 , 1937 .
This charter confirmed the existing boundaries of the City (CAL
STATS 1937 p. 2977 . ART . II ) including the ocean area described in
` the original incorporation in 1909 .
Then in 1964 the City began annexation of certain property
described as :
Section 3 . That the territory which the Council proposes to
annex is hereby identified as "Bolsa Chica State Park , " and
consists of all that real property situate in the County of
Orange, State of California , described as follows :
-2-
Beginning at a point on the north-south one-quarter line of
Section 4 , Township 6 South, Rangte 11 West , San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, Orange County, California , said point being
the southwesterly corner of Lot E City of Huntington Beach as
shown on a Record of Survey Recorded in Book 3 , Page 28
Records of Orange County, said point also being the
intersection of the northeasterly right of way line of Pacific
Coast Highway as shown on a Record of Survey Recorded in Book
53 , Page 40 Records of Orange County with the westerly
boundary line of the present city boundary of the City of
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California , said
boundary having been established by the boundary description
in the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach incorporated
February 17 , 1909 , said point also being the True Point of
Beginning; thence, leaving said boundary of the City of
Huntington Beach, along the following bearings , distances , and
lines of the before described northeasterly right of way line
of Pacific Coast Highway; N 430 34 ' 01" W 535 . 69 feet to a
point of tangency with a curve , concave to the northeast
having a radius of 5591 . 51 feet; thence northwesterly 634 .34
feet, along said curve, through a central angle of 60 - 30 ' to
a point of tangency with a line bearing N 370 05 ' 03" W
3001 . 11 feet to a point; thence N 370 05 ' 00" W 2892 . 54 feet
to a point of tangency with a curve, concave to the southwest ,
having a radius of 5870 . 61 feet; thence northwesterly 549 .02
feet, along said curve, through a central angle of 50 21 ' 30"
to a point of tangency with a line bearing N 42' 26 ' 30" W;
thence 2493 . 80 feet , along said line to a point; thence , S 470
33 ' 30" W, leaving the northeasterly line of Pacific Coast
Highway, 90 . 00 feet to a point in the northeasterly right of
way line of the Pacific Electric Company as shown on the
before mentioned Record of Survey Recorded in Book 53 , Page 40
Records of Orange County; thence N 420 28 ' 13" W, along the
last described line, 1816 . 06 feet to a point on the westerly
prolongation of the center line of Los Patos Avenue as shown
on said Record of Survey Recorded in Book 53 , Page 40 Records
of Orange County; thence N 89' 12 ' 26" W 291 . 59 feet along
said westerly prolongation of the centerline of Los Patos
Avenue to a point in the Mean High Tide Line of the Pacific
Ocean as shown on said Record of Survey Recorded in Book 53 ,
Page 40 Records of Orange County; thence S 50' 06 ' 14" W Three
( 3 ) miles , 15840 feet , to a point in the Pacific Ocean; thence
along the following bearings and distances which describe
j lines parallel with and Three (3 ) miles distant , measured at
right angles , from the Mean High Tide Line of the Pacific
Ocean as shown on said Record of Survey Recorded in Book 53 ,
Page 40 Records of Orange County; S 39' 53 ' 46" E 704 . 08 feet
to a point , S 450 20 ' 50" E 233 . 35 feet to a point, S 400 58 '
18" E 251 . 64 feet to a point , S 420 25 ' 24" E 566 .26 feet to a
point , S 430 58 ' 42" E 515 . 56 feet to a point , S 40' 34 ' 23 " E
659 .58 feet to a point , S 38' 51 ' 46" E 264 . 56 feet to a
point , S 400 47 ' 24" E 1184 . 77 feet to a point , S 39° 15 ' 29 "
-3-
t =
E 89.7 . 58 feet to a point , S 371 06 ' 19" E 535 .40 feet to a
point , S 370 32 ' 45" E 1373 .50 feet to a point , S 360 57 ' 18"
E 404 :20 ' feet to a point , S 340 . 0% ' 38" E 378 .04 feet to a
point , S 351 49 ' 44" E 594 .50 feet to a point , S 380 50 ' 19 " E
500 .70 feet to a point , S 360 01 ' 19" E 783 .89 feet to a,
� . point ,- S 390 11 ' 47" E 216 . 78 feet to a point , S 380 10 ' 51" E
1232 . 72 feet to a point , S 39° 26 ' 16" E 1196 .40 feet to a
j point , S 380 29 ' 23 " E 1209 . 88. feet to a point , S 400 20 ' 54 "
r E 270 . 30 feet to a point , S 260 33 ' 55"' E .223 . 61 feet to a
point , S 590 12 ' 57" E 164 . 12 feet to a point , S 410 06 ' 44 " E
438 .00 feet to a point , S 430 45 ' 57" E 24'0 . 41 feet , more or
1'ess, to an angle point in the westerly boundary line of the
present city 'boundary of the City of Huntington Beach, County
of Orange, State of California, said boundary having been
established by the before mentioned boundary description in
the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach; thence, leaving
the set of lines parallel to the Mean High Tide Line of the
I Pacific Ocean, N 480 00 ' 00" E Three (3 ) miles , 15840 feet ,
along the boundary line of the City of Huntington Beach, to a
point in the Mean High. Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean, said
e point being the intersection of the Mean High Tide Line of the
Pacific Ocean - with the north-south one-quarter line of Section
4 , Township 6 South , Range 11 West , San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, Orange County, California; thence continuing along
j the boundary line of the City of Huntington Beach N 000 15 '
! 59" E , along said north-south one-quarter line a calculated
distance of 402 . 96 feet ,. recorded as 392 . 76 feet, as shown on
said Record of Survey Recorded in Book 53 , Page 40 Records of
'Orange County, California , more or less , to the True .Point of
Beginning .
Pursuant to Sections 35014 and 35300-35326 of the Government
f Code . This annexation was completed and filed with the Secretary
of State on May 11 , 1965 . ( See Exhibits B-J ) This area is
outlined ,on the map entitled -Exhibit A.
! , If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or
Deputy City Attorney, Joe Barron .
I
Sincerely ,
GAI'L HUTTON
City Attorney
Attachment
cc : Paul Cook , City Administrator
Richard Barnard, Assistant to City Administrator
" ity Clerk
cm/
-4-
ORIG. H. D. LIMITS
w � y I
A NNEXATIONS
g
. b
41
RAM
�-
OARiI[ID
- / YORKTOWN
Y
AGAMS
..,ANAPOLIS
/ ATIANTA
�Q^ S' NAMITON ,
_ ./ RANHHG
huntington beach planning division
'
EXHIBIT A
I
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH TIDELANDS CONTROVERSY
By Floyd G. Belsito - 1965
-INTRODUCTION
The controversial issue of who owns the tidelands within the corporate limits of the City of
i'
Huntington Beach has been hotly contested for over thirty years. The two contestants who loomed
j., largest in the issue were the City of Huntington Beach, and the Standard Oil Company of California.
' Numerous times this issue was brought before the state legislature and the people, and on every
occasion it ended to the disgruntlement of the City Huntington Beach.
F HYPOTHESES
My-hypotheses is that ublic opinion, initiated b the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach
P P- r Y Y 9
their elected representatives and other influential figures, was successful in forcing both the State
of California and the Standard Oil Company of California to yield their positions concerning the
allocation of tidelands rights to the City of Huntington Beach.
HISTORY .
I
To thoroughly understand the problem, it is necessary to retreat to the early pioneering days
of wildcat drilling in Huntington Beach. In the late 1920's geologists, after thorough examinations,
I stated that the submerged lands off the shore of the City contained in excess of seven million
s barrels of oil that represented a wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars.
i
` At the time of this discovery, Standard Oil had acquired land along the beach front and had set
up operations for straight-down drilling.. A wildcat group of three people, McCallen, McVicar and
Rood, were indirectly responsible for bringing the tidelands issue to the public's attention. McVicar
had invented the removable whipstock that enabled a person to slant drill instead of the standard
` straight-down drilling. This group of three men sent their pipe lines down, under the Standard Oil
wells, and out into the ocean. Before they were discovered, they had succeeded in becoming quite
i wealthy.
4
Finally they were challenged by the Standard Oil Company over their right to drill beneath
r
Standard's string of wells. Oscar Lawler, chief counsel for Standard Oil contended that underwater
i trespass was similar to a burglar digging underground and coming up in the money vault of a bank.
The Huntington Beach News, who assumed the position of advocate of the independent operators,
held that oil was a migratory mineral which in the case of the billion dollar tideland oil pool had
I been placed there not by Standard Oil, but by God.
I'
I
i Gradually public opinion veered to the side of the independent and in the course of time the
Standard Oil Company not only yielded gracefully, but made business friends and associates of the
independents 'they had formerly opposed.
(I
Public opinion had become so strong that in early 1931, the Huntington Beach• City Council sent
�.. a request to the state legislature to initiate a bill that would give Huntington Beach its tidelands
rights. Huntington Beach was one of very few cities that was denied this privilege.
Thus, Assembly Bill No. 4 was drafted that would, if approved, grant to the City of Huntington
Beach all the right, title and interest of the State of California, •held by said state by virtue of
its sovereignty, in and to all tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled situated
below the line of mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean, within the present boundaries of said City
or of any harbor, bay or inlet within said boundaries, to be forever held by said City, upon the
following conditions:
(a) the lands to be granted shall be used by the City for the promotion of commerce, naviga-
(58)
2.
tion and fishery, and may not be alienated from the city to any private individual, firm
I or corporation; except that the City may grant a franchise or a lease not to exceed
thirty years for the express purposes of promoting commerce, navigation and fishery.
(b) the tidelands and submerged lands shall be improved without cost to the state, and any
harbors constructed thereon shall remain a public harbor for all purposes of commerce
and navigation.
(c) that if a franchise, permit or lease is granted by the city, 50" of the income derived
therefrom shall be paid promptly by the city into the state treasury.
` The'Standard Oil Company protested against the acquisition by the City of Huntington Beach
of the tidelands adjoining their valuable holdings. James S. Lawshe, manager of the Huntington
t Beach Company, of which Standard Oil is the holding company, called attention to the fact that they
paid 40% of the taxes of Huntington Beach. The loss of drilling the valuable tidelands would be
a serious loss to the City, Standard Oil, and the Huntington Beach.Company.
The Huntington Beach News retaliated by saying the profit which Standard Oil stood to lose was
not rightfully theirs to begin with; and the 40% taxes paid to the city is only small compensation
for the damage wrought to what nature intended should be one of the most beautiful spots on the
shores of the Pacific.
-The Hearst press came to the defense of Standard Oil by depicting through editorials'and car-
toons the despoilation of the beaches if off-shore drilling were allowed. Acccording to the Hunt-
ington Beach News, Standard Oil's opposition was not based on any desire to preserve the beauty of
i the" beaches, but to prevent any possibility of encroachment by tideland drilling upon their own oil
revenue.
On April 7, 1931, the Assembly voted 66-0 to grant Huntington Beach its tidelands rights. On
May 12, 1931, the State Senate voted 29-0 to sustain the decision of the Assembly. For all intents
and purposes, it appeared a certainty that the bill would become" a reality. All that was necessary
y was the signature of .the Governor to effectuate the bill.
A lobbyist for the Standard Oil Company made the threat, following the passage of the tideland
grant to Huntington Beach, that he would see to it. that Governor Ralph vetoed the bill. It seemed
appararent that if"Governor Ralph did veto the bill, after unanimous approval by the state legisla-
ture, he would be acting solely in the interest of the ,Standard Oil Company and for the protection
of their financial interests.
I
But, if he signed the bill, he would be placing responsibility and control of tidelands leas-
i
ing solely up to the people of Huntington Beach. The City would" then do as it pleased. If it
elected to lease the tidelands, the bill provided that one half of any royalty derived should go
to the state, and the other one half to the City. In any event the City would own its tidelands
and have jurisdiction and control that had been denied it for the past twenty years.
Governor Ralph had until June "19, 1931, in which to sign the bill. Failure to do so in the
time prescribed would result in a "pocket veto." The bill would be killed and could not ,be resur-
rected for two years.
As the deadline drew near, there was much speculation in political circles all over the state
concerning the astonishing hold the Standard Oil Company had in persuading the Governor to even
delay signing a measure passed by an overwhelming majority. in the legislature. Governor Ralph
found himself between two lines of fire on the question of the tidelands bill. Phil Stanton, his
Orange County advisor, had urged him to weigh with due consideration the wishes of Orange County
friends of the measure.
The powerful Standard Oil Company on the other hand had brought all the pressure at their
(59)
3.
command upon the Governor to protect their marbles and to see that the community from which they
took them did not get any of them back.
The Governor decided to placate both sides, and hit upon the expediency of stalling the issue,
by announcing a public hearing of the matter on June 17, 1931. The results of the meeting were so
discouraging that `Mayor E. G. Conrad of Huntington Beach issued a statement to Governor Rolph ex-
f
4 pressing his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the hearing was held, and the inconclusive
results attained.
The meeting was attended by over fifty leading citizens of Orange County, including mayors,
councilmen, secretaries and presidents of chambers of commerce from practically every city and
community in Orange County. Also in attendance were the Supervisors of Orange County, Assemblymen
and a State Senator. All of them were there to ask the Governor to sign the bill. But, due to
the method of handling the meeting, they had no opportunity to be heard.
On June 19, 1931, as had been predicted by a Standard Oil lobbyist, Governor Rolph refused to
sign Assembly Bill No. 4. This was the first time in the history of California that a Governor
ever vetoed a bill that was unanimously passed by both houses of the legislature.
The issue did not remain dormant for very long. On May 19, 1932, a petition concerning
tidelands rights bearing 803 local signatures was presented to the Huntington Beach City Council.
It petitioned the Mayor and the City Council to approve a proposed amendment to the state consti-
tution. This amendment would provide for the granting to Huntington Beach of tidelands owned by
the State located within the corporate limits of Huntington Beach. This bill which was to be
brought to the attention of the voters in the form of an initiative, was identical with Assembly
Bill No 4, that was unanimously passed by both houses of the state legislature at its last session,
but was vetoed by Governor Rolph.
The City of Huntington Beach had executed a contingent lease with the state providing for a
royalty of 16-2/3%, one.half to go to the state, and one half to the City. Also, a bonus of
$100,000 was included for the first oil produced.
The lease executed with the Pacific Exploration Co. Ltd., as the third party provided for oil
drilling in the tidelands from the west city limits, to 17th Street, and extending one mile out
into the ocean. It carried a provision that the lease would not go into effect unless the people
of the state adopted the initiative tideland measure to be voted upon in November, 1932.
Once again opposition developed rapidly against the initiative. The main argument was that
the danger of beach pollution from wells drilled in the surf and the harm done by the uninspiring
sight of oil wells in the ocean lent itself to any campaign against tideland drilling. _
Interest and enthusiasm rapidly mounted in favor of the tidelands amendments. Twenty solici-
tors were assigned to Orange County in the state wide drive to secure the necessary 35,000 signa-
tures to insure the amendment appearing on the November ballot.
The Huntington Beach City Council called a special meeting on July 28, 1931, for the purpose
of entering into a new tideland drilling lease with the Pacific Exploration Co., Ltd. A technical
Ierror had appeared in the first lease which was eliminated in the revised instrument. The clause
which specifically stated that the lease wouldn't be effective until the voters of the state had
' given tidelands' to the City of Huntington Beach was stricken. Under the law you cannot change or
correct a lease, but must cancel and enter into a new lease. _
I' Max Felix, chief counsel of Standard Oil, submitted a protest against the proposed lease by
Pacific Exploration Co., Ltd. He stated, "It has come to our attention that Pacific Exploration
Company is offering for sale ,a purported oil lease covering the southwesterly thirty feet of
Ocean Avenue in Huntington Beach extending from the northwesterly boundary of the city limits to
the westerly line of 23rd Street. Our examination of the claim of title to this real property
('60)
r
4.
satisfies us that the City of Huntington Beach is without such title as would authorize its execu-
tion thereof. We have felt that the representations made-as to the City's readiness to enter into
•such lease are most inaccurate. The Standard Oil Company well challenge and resist the validity of
any such lease as a violation of its property rights. "
On November 2, 1932, Mayor Conrad demanded that Governor Rolph undertake an.investigation con-
cerning the activities of a major oil corporation alleged to be draining millions of dollars in oil
i
and gas from beneath the tidelands of Huntington Beach. He advised the Governor that there were
167,000 earnest citizens of California who sponsored the initiative, now labeled Proposition #11.
Mayor Conrad received an answer within a week from Governor Rolph. His telegram read, "My
dear Mayor: Your wire received: Kindest regards: James Rolph, Governor".
j . On November 10, 1932, while the rest of the nation was turning out at the polls to elect a
new president, the-citizens of the state and particularly the citizens of Huntington Beach turned
out to vote on the controversial Proposition #11. The Proposition carried in the city by a vote
I of 1258-528, but it lost in the state by 1,079,451 to 709,438. It seems apparent by the obvious
voting behavior that what the local residents felt was their inalienable right was not felt by the
voters in the state.
The defeat of Proposition loll at the polls resulted in the attempt by many independent operators
to slant drill from privately owned property, under the Standard Oil Company wells, and out into
the tidelands. When Standard Oil and the State of California accused one of these operators, the
Termo Company, of slant drilling into the tideland pools, it resulted in a cross complaint filed
by the City of Huntington Beach against the State and Standard Oil. George W. Bush, special
counsel for the City, revealed a clause in the State Tideland Leasing Act denying the State the
right to participate in drilling operations in tidelands fronting incorporated cities. Despite the
fact that much of the evidence was in favor of the Termo Company, they decided to settle litigation
with the State. For over seven years Standard Oil had been drilling into the tidelands: At no time
during this period did state officials complain, or had they ever taken any action to secure a
i . royalty from them. But, after several independent operators succeeded in bringing in good wells,
these same officials• awakened to the fact that oil was being drained from the tidelands and brought
suit against various independent operators. By this method, the independents were forced to enter
a compromise royalty agreement with the State.
The City of Huntington Beach did not take an active part in these suits until, it was definitely
i, established that the state officials intended to force down the throats of the independent operators
a schedule of royalties that practically amounted to confiscation of their property. The schedule
of royalties submitted by state officials at the time the city filed its cross complaints ran from
5°0' on a fifty barrel well to 66% on a 3000 barrel well. . Some operators have land owners royalties -
I as hidh. as 35%. On a 3000 barrel well, if allowed to produce, it would have been necessary for the
operator to pay out royalties to the landowner and the state amounting to 101% of the oil, or 1%
j more than his well produced.
Since the City's intervention into the suit, the state officials reduced the royalty schedule
to a more reasonable 19% on a 1000 barrel well. In filing the cross complaints the City Council
had three points in mind:
(1) Aiding the operators in obtaining an equitable adjustment of their difficulty with the
state officials.
(2) In rebuttal to a published order by the State Finance Director Vandegrift that no wells
be drilled after November 1934, -they requested that further drilling be permitted in
order to provide employment for hundreds of workers and to permit the property owners to
r
get a reasonable return from their land.
(3) That by increased oil production the City would benefit by reason of the mineral tax on
oil produced.
�61 �
State Director of Find..ce Vandegrift gave, as the• main reason w„1 the state failed to accept
royalty voluntarily offered by Standard Oil, the changed conditions due to whipstock drilling into
the tidelands. Standard Oil offered this royalty in 1933 to compensate for any possible damage-of
state tidelands by its Pacific Electric wells on the Huntington Beach bluff. This offer was made
as a means of removing any possible source of friction and also to contribute to the needs of the
state for additional revenue. Standard Oil had contended that a fault intervened between its wells
and the tideland pools, thus removing the possibility of purposeful draining.
z
Director Vandegrift said that the whipstocked wells were doing many times the amount of damage
to state lands that the Standard Oil wells could have done. He said that any drainage by Standard
I Oil wells was legal as they were not drilled at an angle with a deliberate intention of penetrating
the state lands. Therefore,. any drainage that ensued was accidental and did not constitute tres-
pass. Also, he stated that Standard Oil was in itself an injured party because of the wells that
were drilled through its property. These wells inadvertently damaged the Standard Oil wells and
drained its strip as well as the state lands.
i
On August 2, 1934, Standard Oil and the state won the whipstocking case in court which resulted
in the curtailment of off-shore drilling by the independents.
While the litigation concerning the whipstocking case was taking place, another bill was intro-
duced into the Assembly on July 19, 1933, by Mr. Cronin. This bill was very similar to Assembly
Bill No. 4 that was pocket vetoed in 1931. This bill was approved by the Assembly on July 21, 1933,
by a. vote of 54-23. But, it died in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
The City of Huntington Beach did not take defeat easily. On April 11, 1935, the City Council
supported a measure that would permit the City to enter into a new tidelands lease with The South-
west Exploration Company. Assembly Bill No 1684 was introduced into the Legislature. The bill as
originally presented provided for a flat 16 2/340' royalty to the state with an amendment entitled
"The Hornblower Amendment" attached. This amendment provided for open competitive bidding and
condemnation of property of littoral land owners. The Assembly voted approval for open competi-
tive bidding, but struck out the Hornblower Amendment. This brought the City of Huntington Beach
back into the picture with its royalty rights protected. The bill as approved by both houses would
enable the' City to share in royalties of from 3% to 42Y0'. It also provided for the leasing of the
tidelands•to the littoral land owners. The bill was then sent to Governor Merriam to be signed.
Once again the fate of the City's tidelands rights rested with a reluctant Governor. As if history
repeated itself Governor Merriam killed the bill by "pocket veto".
Since 1935 there have been other attempts by the City to obtain what they consider to be their
just dessert. None of these attempts had been successful. Finally in 1963, Assemblyman James E.
Whetmore introduced a measure into the Assembly that would provide a rebate of state tidelands oil
revenues to local beaches. This rebate would amount to 1% of tidelands revenues. In the case of
Huntington Beach this would initially amount to an annual sum of $56,000, increasing proportion-
ately each year. A small sum in contrast to what it would have received under previous attempts.
The bill had received a boost by Governor Edmund G. Brown. This was the first time a Governor
E " looked favorably upon a tidelands bill. The Governor made it known that he intended to write a
letter to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee to clear the way for that unit to hear the
measure before the budget was handled.. Until the Governor's statement, the bill entitled Assembly
Bill No. 1151 had been stalled in committee. With the Governor's obvious backing, it was appar-
ent that the City of Huntington Beach was on the threshold of achieving the fruits of its labor.
On May 15, 1963, the Assembly passed AB 1151 by a vote of 76-0. On June 15, 1963, the Senate
passed the' bill 32-0. And, at long last, Governor Brown signed the bill into law.
CONCLUSION
It is apparent that public opinion, initiated by the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach,
their elected representatives and other influential figures was .reflected in the voting behavior.
of the State Legislature. But, in the final analysis, it was the realization by an enthusiastic
Governor of the benefits to be received by-both the State and the City of Huntington Beach that
enabled the Bill to become law.
(62)
Y
� a ,jK,-. "�'n.�,�. ate"��:�' �` �,�av�r"`x"�k� T��vm�'} w„ ��tr�" � � �� � •"`�
i
Chapter Twenty-nine
TIDELAND ROYALTIES
THE EMPLOYEES of the Standard Oil Company held a' pic-
nic in Huntington Beach in 1935 with about 6,000 persons
in attendance. Mr. Oscar Sutro, president of the company,
addressed them from the beach grandstand. As mayor, I had
the honor of making the welcoming speech. This gave me an
opportunity to talk to Mr. Sutro about the matters that I had
1,
long been considering.
I asked Mr. Sutro why we couldn't all confer together,
divide the oil royalties fairly between all parties concerned,
stop the expensive fighting and political battling, and join t�
forces to put through the legislature a bill under which we
could operate. Mr. Sutro was very receptive, thought the
plan reasonable, and promised to give it consideration. A
few days later I received a letter from Mr. Sutro asking me ;
to call on him the first time I might be in San Francisco. {'
I suggested my plan of compromise to the officials of ��
the Hancock Oil Company, and the Signal Oil and Gas Com-
pany, and told them that I thought that we could arrive at a
solution and make a fair adjustment of our differences. They
did not think it possible, but said that it could do no harm ;e
to see what could be done.
I left Los Angeles on the 6 p.m. train and arrived at Mr. i
Sutro's office '-n San Francisco at 9 a.m. the next morning.
After a few minutes conference with Mr. Sutro he asked if
I would be willing for him to call in several department heads !
to the conference so that they might understand the proposi-
tion. I welcomed the idea. I contended for one-sixth royalty
i of the gross for the City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Sutro did
not seem to think that unreasonable.
I returned to Long Beach to report to Ernie Pyle and Will =
! Reed of the Hancock Oil Company that all they needed to
do was to go to San Francisco and bring the matter to a
Close. They did so and an agreement was reached between
all parties concerned. A percentage was allotted to the Hun-
tington Beach Company, a percentage to the Pacific Electric
Company, a percentage to the City of Huntington Beach, a
graduated scale of royalties to the State of California,. with
` t
t
115
- - -- 1
V..t -
:
'
fi
ems.,+Xi_.9 f, ; »' %�,+ c +::,.�e'`�� .">•. rr ` „� s.m ; ^".z-��„+. 'yc, ,w;',,�,h-se
��. •iy,s. � � � i�` '� rm.yr. �.:;'. � ' �t � � ����h�"X �'�.+{¢� � ,a �"�`„��F� ��,,,�
w t�a a
.��..t� � .:G,'.�r'a�. .��5n ,� :=n �} �,� 't s � '�v d.w..�y'' � �.�?.xd-"ir.a:.'-?€'�b�•�' `^rn7a ;`,:�"s"�,�' r,� -rsra„w� '�..� �n :'
„f``�°'u�' .R .,.���. �#�� 'ta * r',e.2ksn, "'� 'e,..,, �°`vx '+;�; r"`+.,�,',k'r,�;:t '�'" aY-, `Rti ?.•. C`� w .§;, �"'�*.'.�*,�,`��e- �- .°� '�t�+,«
�^' a''�;'X?a� bt�'� �"��',�a =@ . a`.y '� '' '�,�. 1s; ,A ,�};..•aSscc+�r�� �`^: � ,-t ��,�^xc,� z.,q: .�","•e'.� ,w.x.,•.�,r.�''r�yw*•r is w' �5�c� ; ��
l the residue shai ed between the oil companies. I was assured
and promised that at no time would the City of Huntington
` Beach ever be asked to accept a royalty less than 2 per cent
of the gross.
C My hopes ran high as I envisioned and dreamed of a
. city that should become practically free from taxation, -with
oil royalties sufficient to meet all its operating expenses.
The election of 1936 saw Mr. Warner in the chair as
�. Mayor with some new councilmen. ff
The election of 1938 resulted in Mr. McCallen in the chair #�
as Mayor with other new councilmen. {"
! During all these changes I managed to stay on the coun-
cil. Each mayor appointed an oil committee of new mem-
hers, and in neither instance was I named on this committee.
i The new committees showed a lack of general understanding
and appreciation of much that had transpired and been {
promised before their appointment. Each change weakened
the city's position. The oil companies and their attorneys
were not slow in taking advantage of the situation.
Our position lost much further strength by the changing �!
of the attorneys representing the city with each succeeding E
election.
In the beginning we had employed Blodgett and Bush t
as our attorneys for a retainer fee of $2,500. Mr. Warner dis-
missed these attorneys and hired Denio, Hart, Taubman and t.
Simpson of Long Beach for a retainer fee of $2,500 plus a
percentage of oil; 10 per cent for the first two years; 15 per
cent for the next three years; and 20 per cent for 1-he next ten
i years. This contract will run out about the end of 1952. I
feel safe in saying that they will have received well above
$100,000 as their attorneys' fees. -
When Mr. McCallen became mayor he undertook to dis-
miss Denio, Hart, Taubman and Simpson, and employed
Drumm, Tucker and Drumm. The former attorneys contended
that they had an ironclad contract, hence could not be dis-
missed. Mr. McCallen thought they could and undertook to
cancel their agreement. : This proved to be a very serious ;
contrcversial question. The case was carried through two
X � "
courts, the Superior and Appellate. The city lost both deci-
sions and had to pay the attorneys' fees as agreed plus the
<�, 116 — apt
5 Vn;�h ,i'+`f." n$- ♦ £ >4:-2;Z Ah .� y�'ht
�'rr,�'
w�*�"����'�,':'..y'�'r,« f:..�,�{.;rJ.. - s 4 ,.�-. '�.�T'�".�.� •'� `" �°'� +-w-;war`s:?i,'w,.v+a,`:.a.'G ..n>.<-}�"=.3 r.:.,�:y'. ,.� "...4_....,,� ,,;,,=;y,•'..aw. '^i #
ate, saga r .;j?� 2,`�`' _ ..• "
•,�ws,` t-�;,2�'"'w 'g6Y'�. wri:.�'�w�.':>i. ci "'�"^ d r. .'!>,�'ri>.�5';'L?`s',E?r.. .����.:'��`s. �"'rrR.�,�,�-a c. ���Sa 3'M' ` .•r'!.Y'$}" �'f s�"�'�„�^ >t '�- w` .?a,-
�a
new attorneys' fees and costs, which was in itself a matter
i of several thousand dollars increased expense.
Three changes in attorneys, councilmen, and mayors
have cost our city a huge sum.
The opposing attorneys and the oil companies were
shrewd enough to take advantage of the situation. The sad
and heartbreaking part to me was to see the promised royalty
to the City of Huntington Beach chiseled and sliced from a,
2 per cent gross to 2 per cent of the State's apportionment. f
The final agreement was made on .a sliding scale, with the
State receiving from 8 per cent to 75 per cent royalty and the
City of Huntington Beach receiving 2 per cent -of what the
State received; e.g., if the State received 30 per cent, the City
would receive 2 per cent of 30 per cent, or six-tenths of 1 per,
cent of the gross. If the State received 8 per cent, the City
would receive 2 per cent of 8 per cent, or sixteen-hundredths
k of 1 per cent. This is a very definite loss to our City and a f'
far cryfrom the 2 per cent gross as originally `y promised.
In summarization: more than a quarter of a million dol-
lars was spent by the oil companies and the City in trying !
to put two bills through the legislature and in the initiative 3
measure calling for an election to bring the matter to a vote
of the people of the State of California. More than $125,000
will have been spent by the City in attomeys' fees, court i
costs and royalties. However, our City will have received
more than half a million in royalties from the tidelands which, t
after all, was well worth fighting for. The City royalty check s
was over $10,000 for the month of November, 1950. '
At present there is litigation between the State and the
Federal Government which under Ickes, Secretary of the
Interior, had sought to claim jurisdiction over the tidelands.
.I
117
LAW OFFICES OF S
RI-MEL & JOHNSTON
JACK J. RIMEL �
FRED D.JOHNSTON 310 NORTH MAIN STREET
SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA
4
KIMBERLY 2-5629
December 1 1955,
J�,V..4•,; � .S .fug._ Rom,
The, Honorable-City Council 4 � .�.a '���'3
of the City of Huntington Beach
City" Hall, Civic-Center i -`�,rr ~''r "',
Huntington Beach California
In re; People v, City of H' ington Beach, ' E�
Orange County Superior Court, ' No-' 54393 : f
Gentlbmen; pJ
The question presented for my opinion is whether the City of
Huntington Beach should appeal from the judgment of the trial court in
a quo-warranto proceeding in which the court has declared void'an annex-'
-ation to the City .of-certain submerged tidelands, known as the "Northe'ast
Extension; " under the "Annexation .of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939,-"
Also requested is an evaluation of the probability of reversing the trial
court, should such an'appeal be undertaken,'
For the purposes of this, study and opinion, the material facts are-
stated as follows;
(1) On January 6, 1950,. the City;, .acting.under ,Section. 35310
-of.the Government Code, adopted its Resolution.No. 109'9", declaring
its proposal to annex the area in question as uninhabited, contiguous,
territory,, The hearing date was set for February 6, 195.0;
(2) The territory in,question is, all submerged tidelands and,'
therefore, obviously not inhabited, Said territory has a-common
boundary with. the boundaries, of the City for a distance of approxi-
mately three'.miles:o The location of the' common boundary, however,
is confined`-entirely to submerged tideland, There is, no commori
.boundary with any of the upland, territory ,of the City,
('3) Resolution No; 1099-, containing the notice .of time and place
of hearing, was published only twice, namely, oft. January 19 and on
January 26, 1950,- The hearing: was held on February 6, 195.0:.' Thus-,
the fir'st publication occurred.'eighteen .days. prior to the date of hearing
and the last publication.occurred eleven .days. prior' to the:date of hearing,.
r
I
i
City Council of City
of Huntington Beach - page 2 December 1, i955
I
I '
j (4) The fee title to the territory in question was and is .owned by
the State of Califor.niad At the hearing on.Feb"ruary 6, 1950, there
i
was .on file with the City a letter from,the Executive Officer of the
State Lands Commission, indicating that the office of the State Lands
-Commission had knowledge and notice of the proposed annexation and
of the hearing to be held thereon, and advising that said office' inter-
posed no objection to the proposed annexation,
(b) No waivers of objection were received from the Relator (South=
west Exploration Company), who was then the lessee under recorded oil
leases,with-the State of California upon the territory in question.
(6) At the hearing on February 6, 1950, there were no objections
or protests,,, On March 6, 1950, the City finally adopted the ordinance
'of annexation and it became effective .on April 5, 1950..
(7) On March 20, 1950;, the' City Clerk certified.to the ordinance
and sent-the same to the Secretary of State,, who received it prior to.
April 5, 1950' This certification was premature. The- then City Attor-
ney, by letter'.. authorized and directed. the Secretary.of State to-change-
the certification so.as to cause the certification..to be made on the date
of A.pril 5th and-not March 20th, .Apparently, such change was made in
the office of .the .Secretary of State,. The ordinance, as so certified, was
filed by the Secretary of State on April 5, 1950, and ever since said date,
the City ha.s extended its government and control over the said territory.
(8) There is no evidence in the record to, show that the Relator was
present or represented'at the hearing or that it had knowledge�of the pro-
ceedings or of.the hearing, The Relator, apparently, was the only owner
of land within the territory:having-an assessable, interest therein, as shown
by the last .equalized county assessment roll,
The Relator attacked the validity of the' annexation mainly upon the
following grounds;
(a) That the proceedings, were fatally.defective and void.because of
failure to give published notice as required by law, and that this: defect
was jurisdictional and could not be waived. Further, that if the .defect
was one which could be waived,, there was no proper or authorized wai-
ver by the State and no waiver at all by the Relator.
i r
j
I City Council.of City
of Huntington Beach - page 3" December 1, 1955
(b) That"the proceedings were also defective in that the ordinance'
was prematurely certified.by the City Clerk and was never re-certified
.by him after April 5, 1950; that the attempt by the City Attorney and
the-Deputy Secretary of State to correct the Clerk's certification was
without authority and, therefore, void; and that the ordinance,, as so
received, filed and certified by the Secretary of State- on April 5, 1950,
was fatally defective for lack of proper, valid certification by the City"
Clerk,-
(c) That the territory is not contiguous within the intent-and mean=
ing of"the' law and, therefore., was not subject to,annexation:
' (d) That, the wholly submerged territory here, involved is not con
i
tigu'ous to any upland territory within the City and is .not the proper .sub-
ject of annexation under the intent and meaning:of the law since no muni-
cipal benefits could reasonably be bestowed upon such. submerged- territory,'
The City defended its. annexation .upon the following grounds;
(a) A proper interpretation of Government Code Section 35311,
setting up -publication requirements,. would require a finding that-the
ij publication here' made fully satisfied the law,*
I
(b) That the defective certification was .not a jurisdictional defect
and was, substantially cured on April 5, 1950,' when the ordinance by law
became effective and was actually received and filed by the Secretary of
Statepj
("c) That the annexation was consented to by the State of California;
as landowner„ and°that the consent waived any defect in the matter of
compliance with-publication.requirem.ents,
(d) That the territory in question is contiguous and is the proper
subject of annexation, and that the courts cannot inquire into the reasons
or motives of the City or substitute its judgment for that .of the City on,
such matters.
The trial court, in its letter opinion- of August 30, --1955, and in its::
formal judgment sustained Relatorts contention that the annexation was
fatally defective and void from the beginning because' of non-compliance
City Council of City
of Huntington Beach _ page 4, December 1, 1955
with the publication requirements and because such defect, if subject to'
waiver, was not waived by the Relator, who was the- owner of the .only
assessable interest in the territory in question.
Should the judgment be appealed, the Relator would undoubtedly
urge on'appeal,' as further -grounds for support of the judgment; t*s-.tr_ial,
court contentions concerning defective certification of the :ordinance, non-
contiguity-and -that- the territory was. not the proper subject for annexation;
It is my opinion from study and, research that 'the' territory in ques-
tion does satisfy the requirements of contiguity under the, law and that it is
the proper subject for annexation, Moreover, I am satisfied, despite the
loose dictum language in The City of Adaheiim.v, The City of Fullerton;
102 Cal;' App. (2d) 395, that the matter of the size, extent and shape of
annexed territory is one which is left exclusively to the City Council in a"
proceeding.of this kind,, and that the court has no power or authority to
interfere or substitute its judgment for that of the City Council.
It is further my opinion-that the defect in the certification of the
ordinance was not jurisdictional nor substantial, and that if the; proceedings
-were 'not otherwise defective, the City would prevail-,
I will not take time nor space to comment further-upon the subjects
of contiguity, annexability or the certification-defect, since they become
immaterial in view of the more serious and, in fact, fatal jurisdictional
defect of failure to comply with the publication re.quirements,%
In making my study and this report, I have read all of the files
furnished me by your.City Attorney, the briefs, the many'.excellent' memo-
randums of.points-and authorities,submitted.by all counsel, and where neces-
sary, I have examined the transcripts;-: In additionF I have, where necessary,
or advisable, read and studied the opinions of the appellate court, decisions
and attorney general's .opinions which are material here,,
It is my studied opinion that under the state of the record in this case,
the.failure to publish Resolution No. 1099 at weekly intervals in each of the
particular two weeks immediately preceding the hearing date of February 6.,
1950., constituted a fatal, jurisdictional defect which took from the City all
power to proceed further., and that-all proceedings thereafter taken were
wholly void.,
a
I
City Council of .City
of Huntington Beach - page 5 -Decembe'r- 1, 1955
I hold a, very serious doubt that any jurisdictional ,defect can be
cured by consent or waiver, but in any,event, it was no 'so cured in this
case as to the Relator, who apparently was the only owner entitled by law
to-protest the"annexation and-who gave no, consent nor waiver,, I believe
no, one will contend seriously that consent or waiver will be implied. as to
a jurisdictional defect by reason,of, or .on the basis of, failure:to appear,
protest or object, where the record. shows no actual notice,. knowledge;
appearance or representation at the hearing.
Annexation of uninhabited territory to a city is accomplished. without
an election and with.only.one opportunity .being given to interested :parties
to protest:, This: one.opportunity is: in the form.of a hearing before the City
Council, Under .the .state of the law as it was. in, 19'501, when these proceed-
ings. were conducted, there -was no requirement that mailed notices of the
hearing be sent to property owners'-,.. The only requirements or provisions
for notice were those set forth in Government Code Section 35311, which
then read as follows;.
"The City Clerk of the annexing city shall cause a• notice.
of the .resolution to be published,at least once a week for
the ;two weeks prior to the hearing in a newspaper of gen
eral circulation, published in the city, and if there is none,
he' 'shall post a copy not less than ten, days before the hearing
in at.least three conspicuous places within -the territory,.;"
Since -there was .w newspaper of general circulation published within
the City,,., the material part of Section 35311 is the' words,' ";. published
at least once a week for the two weeks prior to the hearing F;'. ". I have
i alicized the words "at least` and ".the" since' they are of, major importances,
The words "at- least" qualify the required number of publications each week.
They 'do not qualify the time when, the publications shall be commenced or
completed;' The word "the" qualifies and indicates the period.during" which
the publications shall be made.. It says that the publications must be made
during "the two weeks" prior to the hearing. These two weeks are not just
any two weeks, prior to the hearing., but are the two particular weeks just
preceding the hearing.
If a week is considered to be seven consecutive days., the first of
those weeks- started Monday, January 23rd, and ended Sunday,: January 29th,
1950. The law required the resolution, to be published at least once during
that perioda. The publication on January 26th satisfied this requirement.
i
! -City Council of City
of Huntington Beach. - page 6 December 1, 1955
i
The .second of these two weeks started Monday, January ,34 and ended Sun"
day, February 5, 1950 '. The law required the resolution to be published at ,
least once;during that period, There was, no publication during, this second
week,
Even if calendar weeks (Sunday through Saturday), are considered
rather, than seven. consecutive day periods, preceding the'actual hearing
date', there still"would be no compliance.,- The first calendar week would
run from Sunday, January 22nd, through Saturday, January 28th, and the
second calendar week would. run.from Sunday, January 29th, through Sat-
ruday, February 4th, Again, we have no' publication-during the second
calendar week.
In my opinion, _all doubt .as to how the appellate courts of this state
would interpret the wording of Section 35311 above-quoted, as it read in
January and February, 1950, and under the state" of facts in this case,
has now.been set at rest"by,the opinion of the California Supreme' Court
in the case of People v. City of Glendale, 40 Cal. (2d) 732, decided.
April 24, 1953�'. In that case;, which involved validity of annexation pro`-
ceedings conducted under the "Annexation Act of 191 ' " the court was called
upon to' construe a statute prescribing publication requirements. and. the per=
tinent language presented the same problem here involved.. There' the word-
ing in question was, rc,, published at least once a week.`for the four weeks
prior to election,-,* , . '` (Italics.added) The court rules that the word "the'''
constituted a de-signation of the four consecutive periods of seven days each
next. preceding-the election day, and that .at least once in each of these" four
weekly periods, the notice' must be published;
The ruling.in the Glendale case is so clear and so directly in point
that, in my opinion, there is ,no reasonable probability of the' appellate
courts .of this,-state applying any different interpretation. to. the language
of Government Code Section 35311,, Tol do� so, the court would have to
overrule'.and discard the reasoning of the Glendale case .since there is no
reasonable basis for distinction.
It is. now settled beyond argument that statutory requirements per"
taining to they publication, or posting of notrice& of hearing and of opportunity
to protest are jurisdictional in character and must,be' complied with, or
the proceedings and the, acts based. thereon are. void.. I refer par."ticularly
to the case- of People v�, Town of Corte Madera, 97 Cal., App.' (2d) '726 at 731,
which involved the validity of annexation proceedings; the case of Williams v11
Sacramento, 58. Cal. 237, at 239,, which involved validity of proceedings for
City Council of City
of Huntington.Bea'.ch = page 7 December" 1, 1955
Ifor formation of'a swamp land district- and American Distilling Co',' v. Citry
of 'Sausalito, 34 Cal. (2d) 660 at 664, which involved annexation,proceedings.
and in which the court stated"that the,mode specified by statute is the mea=
sure- of the -city's. power to act'.
I
In.reaching this opinion; I am not unmindful of the decision of the
District Court of Appeal in 195-4 in the case of People v, City of Carlsbad,
128 Cal, App, (2d) 77 (hearing.denied.by Supreme' Court)., in which the'
validity-of incorporation proceedings for the City of Carlsbad we're under
attack, The law required notice .of election to be published for at least the
two weeks prior to the- election, and said notice was not published during
the'two weeks.-prior to the election„ and the, notice contained other .defects,
The court held the incorporation proceedings to.be valid de'spite these
defects. In this case, however, all proceedings up to this notice were
valid and there was much evidence in the, record and the court found that
there was wide-spread publicity of many kinds so that there' was actual
knowledge of the date and purpose of the election'. It also found from the
evidence'that all interested electors knew of the date of the election and
that .all those caring to vote did vote,,
There is also the opinion of'the Attorney General'(Vol, 25, p,, 108)
denying the' 'right to file quo-warranto proceedings to, te,st'the'validity of an
uninhabited territory,annexation to the City of West ;C.a•vena,' This case also-
involved a defective publication under Section 35311 in that,the resolution
was published only once and it was published only in a newspaper within West
Cavena and.not in any newspaper published outside the City,- However, the
territory proposed for annexation was owned entirely by seven,persons,, all
of whom signed the petition for annexation and, therefore, had given their
consent, and they were, the. only persons who could file protests, Moreover,
these seven persons were personally notified of the hearing, as required by-
the 1951 amendment to this. section,
I do not .believe that either the Carlsbad case or, the' West Coyena.,
case are controlling under the facts and the record which we have here;
In nm.y opinion, the City's affirmative defense of waiver and consent
cannot be maintained successfully upon'appeal',' I base -this opinion upon
three points, namely:
I
City Council of City
of Huntington Beach _ page 8 De,c'ember 1, 1955
i
i
i
FIRST: Where there is a jurisdictional defect which takes away
the 'power to proceed and renders all further proceedings void, then no' act
of waiver or consent can re-establish or, confer the required power or juris-
diction.,to_ proceed,:,. This basic rule of law seems to be well established.
See the, Supreme Court .decision in. the case of Miller v McKinnon, 20 Cal.
(2d) 83, at, pages 906 92, This case did not involve' annexation proceedings
but the rules of law therein enunciated, when considered along with the
cases above cited in which the court has held that compliance wit h. the
statutory mode of publication of notice in an annexation proceeding is a
jurisdictional requirement and measures the power" of the city to-proceed,:
leave no doubt in my mind that the same rule would apply, here.
SECOND: Assuming, for purposes. of argument only,- that juris-
diction could be 'conferred by waiver or consent, and also assuming that
the letter 'of February 6, 1950, from the Executive Officer of the State
Lands. Commission was properly authorized and did amount to a waiver
and consent .by,the' proper representatives of 'the State of California=-
still ;this would not be sufficient,_ in my opinion.
If waiver or consent could be considered at all, it seems obvious
that such waiver or consent would have to come from those parties who,
under the law, would have a legal right to protest and.whose protests
could be considered,.
Section 35313 of the Government Code; as it read..in i950,, limited
protests, to those owners having an assessable- interest in the' land as dis=
closed by the last equalized county assessment roll. In the- case of Ameri-
can.Distilling Co'. v.. City of Sausalito, 34 Cal. (2dj 660_ at page 6661, the
California Supreme Court held that in an annexation proceeding, ,the State
of California is not. a party having a right to protest b-ecaus'e it is not an
owner of an assessable interest,
THIRD; Again assuming, for argument purposes .only, that con-
sent and waiver-.could confer jurisdiction,. there is no pleading .or proof of
any act of consent or waiver by the Relator, or any other par.tie's who were
the owners .of the only assessable interests. in the territory in-question and
who were, therefore, the only parties who could.protest and whose protests
could be considered;. Moreover, there is no pleading or proof that Relator,
or any other owner of an, assessable interest in the territory, was actually
present at the annexation .hearing or had any actual or other notice of such
hearing other than the constructive notice; if any, which .existed by virtue
of the.defective publication. It should be, obvious that the .defective publi=
I
I
City Council of City
of Huntington Beach _ page 9 December 1; 1955
i
cation could,confer no constructive notice,
For the reasons above stated, it is my opinion that the City
could not establish on appeal,either by fact or law, any valid defense
based upon waiver or consent,.
CONCLUSION:
I conclude, therefore, that there is no reasonable probability
that the'trial court"s judgment would-be reversed if appealed from, and
I advise and-recommend that no such appeal be taken,
Ifesped fully submitted,
Jack J. Ei e1,
Attorney at Laws.
JJR:jh
1 �P� WMIXT, RIOMW : nALTInS
458 South Spring Street
2 Loa A ;ele3 13, California
Telephone-, Mchigion ,2301
3 �g
H. J. +( , C. Lai'. J KWE, H. F. CLARY,
4 PAUL 3. MTOSON And A. E. Maur's
1005 Havenstri.te Oil Building
5 Los Ar4,,-e1es# Cal iforbjA
Tel lephone: MZ0 , 8,311
6
Attorneys for Petitioner
7
8 M TM BOARD CZ-1 SUPMIS-ORS
9 IN AIM I T T C l � C Q �
l o STATE OF CALTIPOTIMA
11
12 - 20 76s�
In. the Petition of. NO
13
` ,SIGUL OIL ,AND GAS OMPA Y, SUBPOMA 4W. TSM RE HEARlNta"r.
14 a corporation. BEPORE M ORANU COUNn BOARD
OF SUPERVI30M;
15
16
17 TO JOHR La IC , City Clerk and City Assessor of
is the City of Runt ton. Beach:
19 Pursuant to the application of moron t+!a Cecl.,, one of
20 the a,ttoMayz for the petitioner iri the above entitled matter as
21 appears by 'affidavit on file, the Board. of Supervisors of the
22 comty of O ca, Sete of California, command you to appear before
23 them. on Tuesday, Oct:)ber4—, 1951, at 3 = c� �M
9 a �-A-.-*-. in the Board of �
24 Supervisors, Rom$ Courthousa. .Sents, Ana,, then and there to, to-stify
25 as a witneas In thzo above matters, and .for a failure to attend, you f
26 will be deemed guilty of conte t and, liable to pay all damages
27 sustained by the parties aggrieved and forfeit one hundred dollars
28 in addition W-Wet0i ,and that ;emu 'bra vi.th you and produce the
29 foi.l.o ,ai; named dodtawnts iiow ,iri your -custody and under your
30 control: �
f
Sheppard,
Mullin,Richter - - - -
&Balthis '
r--
1 (1) O d.in&nces No. 558 and 567 Qf the City of Huntington
2 Beach shoving; the date of their adoption and enactment.
3 (2) All books, papers: records, documents and corres-
4 pondowe shoving the date can which you as the taaaz or assessment
5 levying authority of the City of Huntington Beach filed or caused. �
6 to be filed with the State Board of tion of than State of
7 Caalifort2ia a statement setting forth the legal description of the
8 change of the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach a
9 attempted to be changed by Ordinance No. 558 of the City of .
10 Hunt ingto h,, and the date on wh1oh you as the tart or assessment
11 levying authority of the° pity ;of Huntington Beach filed with. the
12 State Board of Equalization of the State of California a rap or
13 plat indieatipg such bou. ries.
14 ( � ';. All mks, papers... re o_ ,, documents and, corres-
1 5 pondowe shgving tbo date on which you as the tax or. assessment
16 levying authority of the City of Joint<i xagton .Beach filed or caused.
17 to be filed with the Assessor in and for the County of Cram:
18 ;Mate of California,, a statmwnt setting forth the legal description
19 of the change of- the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach as
20 attempted to be ohar4pd by Ordinance No. 558 of the City of
21 MmUngton Beach, and the date on which you as the tax or assess-
22 meet levying authority of the City of Huntington Beach filed with
23 the Assessor in and for the County of Orange, State of Cal.iPorn ..
24 a map or plc_ indIcaat:ing such boundaries.
25 (4) All. books, papers, records or documents showier the �
26 date upon which City of Huntington Beach tams have been levied
27 upon the property" of petitioner purportedly annexed by ordinance
28 No. 558 of the City of Huntington Beaoh.
29 WT =, the Honorable Board of Supervisors of the County
30 of Orange, in, end, for the State of California,, attested by my
i
Sheppard,
Mullin,Richter
&Balthis
er 2 r
1 hand and seal potober �; 1951.
2
3
County Clerk smd Clark of the Board.
. 4 of Supemisor8, OraW County,
Callf'ornia
5
6 By
7
8
9
10
11
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sheppard,
Mullin,Richter III
&Balthis
_ 3 _
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles ss.
being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is the
in fhe above entitled action; that he has read the foregoing---
and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of— own knowledge, except as to the matters
which are(herein stated upon information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes it to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
__ —day of•— 19
Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles,State of California.
[SEAL)
Received copy of the within this day of 19 __
Attorney—for _
Received copy of the within this day of _ 19
Attorney—for
(AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL-1013a, C. C. P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
----...------..........-...........-----......---------------------------------------------------------.......... being first duly sworn, says: That affiant is a citizen of the
United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; that affiant is over the age of eighteen years and is not a
party to the within and above entitled action; that affiant's business/residence address is: ..............................................................
-------------------------------------------------------•--------------..........--•-----------------............--------••--.............------....-••---•--•--------------•----......----.._.............------........................----
thaton the--......................day of.................................................................- ------ .............. ...................... 19 .... affiant served
the within-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -on the..........................................................................................................in said action, by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope
addressed to the attorney.... of record for said.................
at the residence/office address of said attorney...., as follows:* "
and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office
at Los Angeles, California, where is located the office of the attorney.... for the person._.. by and for whoin said service
was made.
That there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed or/and** there is a regular com-
munication by mail between the place of mailing and the place so addressed.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this----------------------------
dayof-----------------------------------------------------------------------19 .......
..............................••---.........................-----••-----..............................................
----------------------•----------•-----------------------------.-----------------------...----------
Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
(SEAL)
*Mere quote from envelope name and address of addressee.
**when the letter is addressed.to a post office other than "Los Angeles," strike out "and"; when addressed to "Los Angeles," strike out "or."
1 SHEPPARD MULLIN, RICHM �C BAIMUZ
458 so it-A Spring Strut
2 Los Angeles 13, California
Tele phone: Michigan. 2301
3
H. J. MARCH, C. Lay. LARZURRE,$ H. F. GLARY,
4 PAUL S. OT<TOSON and A. R. S7EBBING75
1005 Kavenstrite Oil Building
5 Los Angeles, California
Telephone: Michigan. 8311
6
Attorneys for Petitioner
7
8 IN TM BOARD OF 3UPERVISOR3
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. �
11
12 ` 7� .
In the Petition of No»
13
31OUL OIL AND GAS COKPANY, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 9
14 a corporation. SUBPOMA DUCES TECHM OF
JOHN L. BENRICKBEN
15 ,
16
17 STATE OF CALIFORNLk
SS
18 COUBTY OF LOB ANC3rELE►S
19 CAMERON W. CECIL, being first duly sworn deposes and says
20 (1) That lie is one of the attorneys for the petitioner
21 in the above: entitled tatter. #
22 (2) That the testimony of John L. 1*nricksen is
i
23 necessary for a complete disposition, in the above matter. �
I
24 (3) That affient is informed and believes that John L.
25 Henri ckso ► as City Clerk or as City Ass"sor of the City of
26 Huntington Beach has In his possession and wader his control. the
27 folloving entitled papers and documents:
28 (a) Ordinances No, 5% and 567 of the City of �
29
Huntington Beach showing the date of their adoption and enact-
3 0 ment.
Sheppard,
9
Mullin,Richter
&Wthis
I
1
1 (b) All books, papers, "vAs docuwants and eoresw
2 shoving the date . on which he as, t-be tax or assesSIMUt
3 lovying authority or the City,of Mmtlngtoa doh ,f led 'or -wed to
4 be filed with theto Bid of Equalization of the tat* of
5 califorr4a a staff ut setter forth the '1*891 description of the
6 obaW ,of the),baunUrle s of the City of Mmins d h Os
attepvtod .to be 4havaod by N 5 58 of t a"itY. of
8 H=tlngton Bed,, and the date on, v tach, he as the tax or assessimnt
9 lev7ing authority of the City of h ,t as Beaoh". fIled with the
10 Stato Boar of Equalization of the State of Ca.11forj�U-a map or
11 . plat ind ting such boundarles,
12 All books papers, r000rda'.' dootmnts and cor'res-°
1 3 pondouce showing -the dato on 'which bo its tho tax or assessment
14, - l vy4jjg a tho ►ity of t1- itg of 3=tirAgton, Boath filed or caused
1.5 t6.blo filed wig. the Assessor in and for the Comte Of orange,,
16 stato of Caaalif'omisaj, a st&tawnt getting. forth the leg description �
17 Of the cage of the,bourAsUries of- that City of tington Beach as
18 attempted tO be a*anged by Ordi tai i0e No, 558 of the City of
19 �ti ton a; h* the date on vhiah he ,as the tax or aamseoismant
20 levying, authority of the City of MmtIngtQn Beach f' il*d with the *
2.1 Assessor In and. for ,than Qounty of,OX%AW, Stag <X California, a
2:2 map or plat is ,3.estirag suOh toundariles,
2 3 (4) All books papere, .records or documents shovixig
24 , "fie date upon, -Aii`' iDity of ftnt 1bgton, pwa c `t;aj .have �n levied
25 up= ttm t �•. &=e" b Qr mac*
26 o•. of tho QItt .- Q f i .
27
(4) , That the abovO SPOOMOd ouMh s 'are material for
28 a prop date is �� �f the :Above„�tit�31 Ater for, t reason
.
29 :that aff�144t 714 ipra,.' , and ' :.;J_a ep `,tfidt,., tW, City Qf. uritington
3 0. Beach ..
°" a Othtr th: gs-i +er OOM3. , or- i'llegaily ?+evled taxes
Sheppard,
Mullin,Richter
6t Balthis
N w
i
1 upon Vw to"Itory purWrte ly amazed by ordl="e No- 558 of the
2 City of Mjj%tf t(ft ob.
3
4 WHEPWORzi affumt prys that a subpoena do issue
5 diireotsd to John. L. Iburickaou tea Pity Clerk and City Assessor of
6 City of #uutlngton Heath direoting him to appear before the
7 Board of Supwvisors of the County of a , Stater of California,*
8 can Tws"y', Q*tober igva, at 3.- � � in the Board of
9 supervisors Room, Courthouse, Banta Ana, and that said subpoena
10 do further require the said Sohn `L. Henrloksen td tban AuA there
produco tbo aforesaid documents.
12
I*ted ; ' October 1, 1951.
13
14
15
. ��atssrz�•n �t N c�ail}
16 Subscsribed and svox% to before
17 aflame October 3., 1951.
18
1
19
20 ' Notary Publio.. in for the County
of 1.*s Angeles, Stag of California
21
22 ,
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sheppard, .
Mullin,Richter
6t Balthis ... r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Counffy of Los Angeles SS.
being first duly sworn, deposes and says: fhat he is the
in fhe above enfifled action; that he has read fhe foregoing
and knows the confenfs +hereof; and fhaf the same is frue of own knowledge, except as to the matters
which are therein sfated upon informafion or belief, and as fo fhose maffers fhat he believes if to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
--------day cif _, 19
Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles,State of California.
[SEAL]
Received copy of the within--- this day of _ 19 _
Attorney—for ___
Received copy of the within this day of __ , 19—
Attorney—for—
(AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL-1013a, C. C. P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNTA, 1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- being first duly sworn, says: That affiant is a citizen of the
United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; that affiant is over the age of eighteen years and is not a
party to the within and above entitled action; that affiant's business/residence address is: -------------_..............................................
...................--...................................................................................................................................................-................................................................................
thaton the........................day of------ ......------------.................------.--------.---------......-----...... ......--------------.------......-, 19 ....... affiant served
thewithin...--------•---•----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------_..............................
......... ----------------------------------------------
on the-------------------------------------------------------------_------------------.------------------------in said action, by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope
addressed to the attorney.... of record for said.................................
at the residence/office address of said attorney.--., as follows:* "
and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office
at Los Angeles, California, where is located the office of the attorney.... for the person--.- by and :or whom said service
was made.
That there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed or/and** there is a regular com-
munication by mail between the place of mailing and the place so addressed.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this............................
dayof.......................................................................19 -------
......----••-•..................._........--•--.....---..........---.....--..............---..........................
-----------•----------•-------------•-----•------ ..................................................
Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
(SEAL)
*Here quote from envelope name and address of addressee.
**When the letter is addressed to a post office other than "Los Angeles," strike out "and"; when addressed to "Los Angeles," strike out "or."
AliB
FRANK M.JORDAN ,`.,. .. y
SECRETARY OF STATE4 R
�i�e Of a heCS
Of StAt
SACRAMENTO
I, FRANK M. JORDAN, Secretary of State of
the State of California, hereby certify:
That on the 5th day of April, 1950,' pur-
suant to the provisions of the "Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939, " more par-
ticularly Section 35317 of the Government Code,
there was filed in my office:
A copy of Ordinance No. 558
of the City of Huntington Beach,
County of Orange, certified by the
City Clerk as having been passed by
the City Council on the 6th day of
March, 1950.
I further certify that said Ordinance No.
558 sets forth approval of the annexation to the
City of Huntington Beach of certain uninhabited
territory and a description of the boundaries
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto
set my hand and affix the
Great Seal_ of the State of
California, this 5th day of
April, 1950.
FRANK M. JORDAN
Secretary of State
By
AA.
Chas. Hag ty - DEPUTY
�j
F �
'Row
Bit
:f�'�n A
0 t' the
SecYeta `of State
I, FRANK M. JORDAN, Secretary of State of the State of
California, hereby,certify:
That 1 have compared the annexed transcript with the RECORD on
file in my office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that the same is
a full, true and correct copy thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and
affix the Great Seal of the State of California, at
Sacramento, this
Secretary of Stale
By
CHAS. J. (3E `—y
ASSISTANT SEC ARY F 8 E
u
s '
I, FRANK H. JOR"N, Secretary of State of
the :Mate of California, hereby oertifyi
That on the 6th day of April, 1950, pur-
suant to the provisions of the 'Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939,0 more par-
titularly Section 35317 of the Government Code,
there was filed in my offices
A copy of 0rdinance No, 558
of the ,g= gj Huntington .6eag
County of Orange, certified by the
City Clerk as hawing been passed by
the City Council on the 6th day of
March, 1950.
I further certify that said Ordinance No.
US sets forth approval of the annexation to the
9.= •pj duntinaton Bsaah of certain uninhabited
territory and a description of the boundaries
thereof.
IN 14ITN SS WHis^HFOF# I hereunto
set my hand and affix the
Great Seal of the State of
California this 5th day of
April, 1950.
FRANK h. JOt(DAN
Secretary of State
ByAlcaa.a - lax
Chas. Efs, ty t?E�U"d'Y"d'Y
i
i
I
I
ORDINANCE No. 558 F I L V)
Ce 60 dffiee of the Sectt^tom of State
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF of the State of CclifornD
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF- A PI%' - 19jJ
ORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINHABITED (RANK M, RDAN,Secretary�t tale
AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY.
B
eputy
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Califor ,
did by unanimous vote on the 6th day of January, 1950, at a regular meeting
of said body, regularly and duly adopted Resolution No. 1099 entitled:
"A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beachi California,
Proposing to Annex Certain Uninhabited and Contiguous Territory to said City,
Declaring that said Proceedings have been Initiated of its own Motion; Giving
Notice of a Hearing of said Proposed Annexation", and
WHEREAS, they proceedings initiated by said Resolution wake initiated
by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach of its own motion and said
Resolution did so declare, and
WHEREAS, the territory described in said Resolution was not at the time
of adoption of said Resolution nor since then a part•of any municipal corpora-
tion, and
AHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach did cause a copy
of said Resolution to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks
prior to the hearing therein provided for, in the Huntington Beach Nees, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington
Beach, to wit: on January 19, 195D and on January 26, 1950, and
WHEREAS, said Resolution contained a notice that on the 6th day of February,
1950, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall was
the time and place when and where any person owning real property within said
territory proposed to be annexed and having any objections to said proposed annexa-
tion may appear before said City Council and show cause why such territory should
not be so annexed, and
WHMEAS, no protest was made by the owner or owners of the property here-
inafter described and no one made any protest whatever.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California,
does ordain as follows:
Section 1: That the City Counai.l does hereby find, determine and declare
that the facts and each of them set forth in the preamble hereto are true and
correct•
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, being the legislative body of said City, does hereby approve of said
annexation and that the boundaries of said City of Huntington Beach are hereby
altered and the said territory is hereby annexed to, and incorporated and in-
cluded within the City of Huntington Beach, California, and said City shall have
all rights andpowers in, to and over said property as are provided by law.
Said property so annexed is hereby described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the westerly city limits of the
City of Huntington Beach with the line of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ocean
(said point being the intersection of the north fnd south center line of Section 4,
iiftnehip 6 South, Range 11 West, S B B & M., with the laid line of ordinary high
tide); thence South 480 Rest along the Westerly boundary of the said City of
Huntington Beach three miles; thence Westerly and parallel with the said line of
ordinary high tide and distant three miles therefrom to a point on the South-
westerly extension of the Northwesterly line of Ranch* LaBolsa Chic&, as shown on
licensed surveyor's map riled in Book 3, Page 45 of Records of Survey in the
'i (1)
0 Ordinance No* 5
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; thence Northeasterly
along the said extension of the Northwesterly line of said Rancho LaBolsa Chica
to the line of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ocegnn; thence Southeasterly along
the said line of ordinary high tide to point of beginning.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published by one insertion in the
Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper printed, published and circulated in the
City of Huntington Beach, Orange 'County, California, and thirty days after the
adoption hereof the same shall take effect and be in forces
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, this 6th day of March, 1950.
JACK GREER
Mayor
ATTEST:
JOHN L. HENRICKSEN
City Clark
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
County of Orange ) set
City of Huntington Beach )
I, JOHN L. HENRICKSEN, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk
of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City of Huntington Beach, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five, that the foregoing
Ordinance was first read to said.City Council at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 20th day of February, 1950, and was again read to said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of March, 1950, and was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all members of
said City Council on the 6th day cf March, 1950, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
7ABard, Wood, Seabridge, Langenbeck, Greer.
NOES: Councilmen:
None.
ABSENTs Cournilment
Non**
JOHN L. HENRICKSEN
(SEAL) City Clerk and ex-offioio C er
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach,, California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
County of Orange ) set
City of Huntington Beach )
I, JOHN L. IENRICKSEN, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk
of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above
and foregoing is a true and correct copy of erdifi&Me No• 558 of the City Council
,of said City, passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th d:y of March,
1950, which original ordinance is on file and of record..
WITNESS- my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach, this the
bth day of 'April, 1950•
Clerk an ex- c o er
cr the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, Ca forrIa•
(2)
4
t ,
RAY H.-OVERACBER 412 Olive Avenue
City Attorney P.O.Box 269
Lexington 6.3030 r
E,�uNTINGTpy�
O R�aAT �
CITY OF N BEACH '
F
9�G' tee'?isaeP ��
�CDUNTY CP
April 5, 1950
Honorable Frank Me Jordan
Secretary of State
Sacramento 3, California
Attention of We C. Stutler, Certification Officer
Dear Sir
I have your letter of March 29, and note
that we sent a certified copy of Ordinance No. 558
annexing uninhabited territory to the City of Hunt-
ington Beach, prior to the expiration of thirty
days from the effective date of the ordinance.
As suggested in your letter, it is agree-
able with me for you to insert the 5th day of April,
1950 instead of the 20th day of March, 1950.
Ver truly yours,
RAY . OVERACKER
City Attorney
a a =►- a
RHOQV i
7)3-
�
Z W Uj
O x V
Maroh 29, 1950
Mr. Ray H. Overacker
City Attorney
LHuntint-ton BQaoh, California
Dear Xr. Overacker:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the
27th together with a certified copy of Ordinance
No. 558 in the matter of annexation of uninhabited
territory to the City of Huntington Beach.
According to Beotion 3 of said ordinance the
effective date will be 30 days after date of adoption.
The ordinance was adopted on March 6 and therefore
will take effect on April 5.
Mr. Henricksen's certification is dated March
20 which to us appears to be in conflict with Section
35316 of the Oovernment Code, which provides for
certification and transmission immediately upon the
ordinance becoming effective.
Instead of returning the certified copy and
causing inconvenience would you be agreeable to our
erasing the 420th day of March, 1950 and typing in
lieu thereof the 05th day of April, 1950." filing
will be made on April 5 and required certificates
Issued.
Very truly yours,
FRANK M. JORDAN
Secretary of State
By
W. O. Stutler
waste Certification Officer
i
RAY H.OVERACRER 412 Olive Avenue
City Attorney P.O.Box 269
Lexington 6-3030
�pNtINcrU,y
O4 EyPORAT �Cn
CITY OF N BEACH
�CF� ,teo •P•���
C�UN7Y GP
March 27, 1950
i
Mr. Frank M. Jordan
Secretary of State
Sacramento 3
California
Dear Sir:
I an enclosing, herewith, a certified
copy of Ordinance No. 558, passed and adopted
by the City of Huntington Beach on the 6th day 9
of March, 1950.
This ordinance annexes certain un-
inhabited territory to the City of Huntington
Beach in accordance with the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939.
Very my yours,
RA AY . 1RACK
City Attorney
RHO:eo
Ova ¢
'' i Or
ro
Q o h
!Xv
G'RDINANCE NO. 558 602
ORDINANCE NO. 558
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CER-
TAIN UNINHABITED AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY
TO SAID CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, did by unanimous vote on the 6th day of
January, 1950, at a regular meeting of said body, regularly
and duly adopted Resolution No. 1099 entitled: "A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California,
Proposing to Annex Certain Uninhabited and'Contiguous.Ter-
ritory to said City, Declaring that said Proceedings have been
Initiated of its own Motion; Giving Notice of a Hearing of
said Proposed Annexation," and
WHEREAS, the proceedings initiated by said Resolution
were initiated by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach of its own motion and said Resolution did so declare,
and
WHEREAS, the territory described in said Resolution was
not at the time of adoption of said Resolution nor since then a
part of any municipal corporation, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach
did cause a copy of said Resolution to be published at least
once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing
therein provided for, in the Huntington Beach News, a news-
paper of general circulation, printed and published in the
City of Huntington Beach, to-wit: On January 19, 1950 and on
January 26, 1950, and
WHEREAS, said Resolution contained a notice that on the
6th day of February, 1950, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers at the City Hall was the time and place
when and where any person owning real property within said
territory proposed to be annexed and having any objections
to said proposed annexation may appear before said City
Council and show cause why such territory should not be so
annexed, and
WHEREAS, no protest was made by the owner or owners
of the property hereinafter described and no one made any
protest whatever.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hunt-
ington Beach, California, does ordain as follows:
Section 1: That the City Council does hereby find, de-
termine and declare that the facts and each of them set forth
in the preamble hereto are true and correct.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, being the legislative body of said City,
does hereby approve of said annexation and that the boun-
daries of said City of Huntington Beach are hereby altered
and the said territory is hereby annexed to, and incorporated
and included within the City of Huntington Beach, California,
603 ORDINANCE NO. 558
and said City shall have all rights and powers in, to and over
said property as are provided by law.
Said property so annexed is hereby described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the westerly
city limits of the City of Huntington Beach with the line
of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ocean (said point be-
ing the intersection of the north and south center line of
Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, SBB&M, with
the said line of ordinary high tide); thence South 48' West
along the Westerly boundary of the said City of Hunting-
ton Beach three miles; thence Westerly and parallel with
the said line of ordinary high tide and distant three miles
therefrom to a point on the Southwesterly extension of the
Northwesterly line of Rancho La Bolsa Chica, as shown
on licensed surveyor's map filed in Book 3, page 45 of
records of Survey in the Office of the County Recorder
of Orange County, California; thence Northeasterly along
the said extension of the Northwesterly line of said Ran-
cho La Bolsa Chica to the line of ordinary high tide of
the Pacific Ocean; thence Southeasterly along the said
line of ordinary high tide to point of beginning.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be
published by one insertion in the Huntington Beach News, a -
weekly newspaper printed, published and circulated in the
City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, and
thirty days after the adoption hereof the same shall take effect
and be in force.
Enacted March 6, 1950.
Ordinance No. 558
i
PASSED AND AI)OPTED bythe City ,Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, this 6th day of March, 1950.
JACK GREER
Mayor
ATTEST:
JOHN L. HEitiTRICKSEN
-%ty Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
County of Orange ) ss:
City of Huntington Beach )
I, JOHN L. HENRICKSEN, the duly elected, qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and exmofficio Clerk of the
City Council of said City of Huntington Beach, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
is five, that the foregoing Ordinance was first read to said City 0ouncil
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of Februarys 1950, and
was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 6th day of March, 19509 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all members of said City Council on ithe
6th day of March, 1950, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
LeBard, Wood, Seabridge, Langenbeck, gxreer.
NOES: Councilmen*.
None.
ABSENT: Councilmen:
None.
eA
HN L. HENRICKSEN
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
(SEAL) of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California.
Ordinance No. 558
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
County of Orange ) ss:
City of Huntington Beach )
I, JOHN L. HENR,ICYSEN, the duly elected, qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No, 558
I
of the City Council of said City, passed andadopted by the City Council of
the City
of Huntington Beach, California at a regular meeting thereof held
on the 6th day of March, 1950, which original resolution is on file and of
record.
WITNESS any hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach,
this the 4th day of October, 1951.
it�r Clerk an ex-o icio Clerk
A he City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach, California
(Recorder's Number 39329)
AFFIDAVIT OF ANNEXATION PROC19EDINGS'
I. John L. Henricksen, the duly elected, qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, arid. ex«officio Clerk of
the City Council of said City of Uuntlhgton Beach, do hereby ,certj."y
that all. the requirements, of la%r pertaining to th.e proceedings in the
annexa.tio,n of certain uninhabited and contiguous territory to the
City of, .111urit'.ngton Beach, covering the.. area as described. in
Or6.ins',nce .Na. 55.9, passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of 11unti.ngton Bench. on the 6th day of March, 1950,, has 1)(�. en `
corgi 11(e . with.
John L. Henricksen
City Clerk and ex- off icio Clerk: of
the Cite Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California..
Subscribed and s' wor' n to
before me this 30th day
of July, 1951. ,,
,
EARL WARREN �y-�
JAMESS.DEAN GOVERNOR / RUFUS W.PUTNAM
CHAIRMAN 1 V EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOODWIN J.KNIGHT �} °~ �.r J.STUART WATSON
MEMBER �,(p ASSISTANT
�y EXE�l w �( CUTIVE OFFICER
THOMAS H.KUCHEL
MEMBER
Ito`
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE _
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ADDRESS REPLY TO: STATE BUILDING REFER TO FILE NO.
STATE LANDS DIVISION Los ANGELES
302 STATE BUILDING t2 Geo-Orange-County
LOS ANGELES 12.CALIFORNIA
H. B. Annexation -
June 4, 1951 Tidelands
City Council'
City of Huntington Beach
California
Gentlemen:
This office has been notified of the hearing to be
held on June 4, 1951 in the Council Chamber of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, on Resolution No. 1149 of.the
City Council, proposing to annex certain uninhabited territory
contiguous to the city.
As you have been informed previously, the State of
California is- the owner of tide and submerged lands seaward of
the ordinary high water mark of the coast of California and ex-
tending seaward to the marginal belt. It is understood from
the aforesaid Resolution No. 1149 that the area proposed to be
annexed includes only lands owned by the State of California,
as described hereinbefore.
On the assumption that no questions of title to
tide and submerged lands are involved in the proposed annex-
ation procedure, the Division of State Lands interposes no
objection to such annexation.
Very truly yours,
RUFUS W. PUTNAM
Executive Officer
1 •
t. f
I
June 20, 1956
County Assdpsor
County of Orange
Santa Ana, California
Dear Sir, .
PL ase be advised that the north*est extension annexation
made In 1950 by the City of Huntington Beach has been
declared void by the Court and is now final.
`therefore, there is no necessity of including the mineral
rights on the City of Huntington Beach 1956-57 assessment
roll.
I
Very truly yours,
J . L. Henricksen,
City Clerk and. ex-officio
City Assessor
JLH:bd
cc:Count* Counsel
i
i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC W
DIVISION OF HI w
LEASE
Armil Is 195 FILE NOREFER TO.
J. Smith
County (111erk
Santa Ana, 041ifornia
Dear Mr. Smith:
'Under the provisions of Chapter, 958, Statutes
of 1951, the population of uninhabited territory
being annexed to a -ity subsequent to the last cen-
cut; Is to be determ�.I'ned two years after- completion
of annexation proaeedings by multiplying the number
of registered electors- t1herein by three.
Please advise the number of registered electores
if anYs residing within undesignated territory, annex-
ed under Ordinance No,, 558by the City of Huntington
Beach on April 5s 195Q.-
Yours very truly,
a. T. Mcoby
state Highway Elriginteezr'
BY
Engineer, of City and Cooperative
Projects
V-D VU,
Adn0fr
c'n POD
July 272 1951
Mrs, Ruby McFarland
County Recorder
County Court House
Santa, Ana, California
Dear Mrs. McFarland:
In accordance with the requirements
of Section 34018`0 of the Goverment Code of the
State of California we have attached hereto an
affidavit stating the City has complied with
all the requirements of law pertaining to the
annexation of uninhabited territory as described
in the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No, 558,,
also attached hereto, and accompanied by map
delineating the boundary 'in accordance with
Section 34081 of the Government Code of California.
Very truly yours,
JLH:mg J. L. Henricksen
City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, JOHN L. RWRICKSEN, being duly worn, depose and say:
That I ate the duly elected,, qualified and acting City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach;
That on the 29th day of January, 1951, in the offices of the City
Clerk in the City Hall, Catty of Huntington Beach, I personally delivered to
Danied M. Waite, Deputy Assessor of Orange County, California, a copy of
Ordinance No. 558 containing the legal description of the annexed territory,
and also delivered to him a reap or plat indicating the boundaries.
DATED: July 6, 1951.
JOHN L. HENRICKSEN
Subscribed and sworn to before me
by John L. Henricksen,,
this 6th day of July, 19510
DAISY I. NEELD
Notary Public in and for said
County and State
Mr commission expires: May 7, 1952
A C!_i"� t1.CT
�Y-----------.. --
Land & Tax Dept
RETURN IN FIVE DAYS TO R. R. B.
S•2533 �
PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY-- c ., �, z.p-2533
....: ,",
it ,�"G'yE��N+aE L ICE 81 O MAIN STREET �+ 2 7
:s9 ,D. �01AL 6Tn ST. Tom'+,,w � Jrl � \
0 S iT IFORNIA '( ��5 j �••%
.Q 3
SERVICE
I
. f CMETER 819Ll
r M J. L. Henricksen, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach,
HUNTINGTON BEACH, C ALIFORNIA.
4
II
l �
r� EARL WARREN
JAMESS.DEAN GOVERNOR . tj 7 RUFUS W.PUTNAM
CHAIRMAN \ EXECUTIVE OFFICER
t
GOODWIN J.KNIGHT a ` •w'^' / �" <,c_J.STUART WATSON
MEMBER �/
♦t aA y�(�. �4 ` ASSISTANT
THOMAS H.KUCHEL .awlEXECUTIVE OFFICER
n .�JZ`
MEMBER
r` /
C6 �
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ADDRESS REPLY TO: STATE BUILDING REFER TO FILE NO.
STATE LANDS DIVISION LOS ANGELES12
302 STATE BUILDING /��, /� ('1
LOS ANGELES 12.CALIFORNIA Ceo-Or Co
unty
ounty
May 23, 1951 H. B. Annexation —
Tidelands
0
Mr. J. L. Henricksen
City Clerk
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr. Henricksen:
This is in reference to your letter of May lb,
1951 relative to a notice of hearing on June 4, 1951 of
a proposed annexation of certain uninhabited territory
contiguous to the City of Huntington Beach.
The position of the Division of State Lands
with respect to the proposed annexation will be presented
at the hearing held by the City Council.
Very truly yours,
RUFUS W. PUTNAM
Executive Officer
April 19, 1951
Paelific Electric Railway Company
E Pacific Electric Building
610 South Pain Street
i P. 0. Address `208 East 6th St.
i Las ,Angeles 14, California
ATTENTION: E. 0 ti MILLE R
Gentle-men:
We, have your request of April 17, 1951 and
have enclosed three copies of our Ordinance No. 55-
On March 2o, 19 i -ke mailed to your office
two copies of this ,ordinance and evidently they have
be.,en ,pisplaced.
Very truly- yours.,
JLN:mg ' L. Henricksen
Eric. 3 City Clerk
s• ,
6
4-<S-5M
O.C.1751
PACIFIC L.-ECTRIC RAILWAY C[ 1PANY
PACIFIC ELECTRIC BUILDING, 610 SOUTH MAIN STREET
P. O. ADDRESS 208 EAST 6TH STREET
LOS ANGELES 14, CALIFORNIA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
E. VAN DUSEN �^
MANAGER LAND AND TAX DEPARTMENT
April 17, 1951
APR : o
City C1 rk,Henricksen, _` 1'9 195, .�
City of Huntington Beach, -It
Huntington Beach, California.
Dear Sir;
To date, the copies of Huntington Beach City
Ordinance No. 558 covering annexation of certain territory
to the city, requested in my letter of March 22, 1951, have
not been received.
Yours ve ruly
E. 0. MILLER
EOM/g Tax Agent
P.S. I could use three copies of the above rdinance.
March 26, 1951 1
a
Pacific :electric Railway Company �J �
208 East 6th Street --
Los Angeles 14, California
Gentlemen,
Enclosed please find two copies of Ordinance #558,
covering annexation of certain tez,kritory to the City, as
requested in your letter of March 22, 1951,
Very truly yours,
J. E. 36EFFIc7men,
City Clerk.
JLH;bd
Encl,2
r 4-48-5M
.�� O.C.1751
PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY CLrMPANY
PACIFIC ELECTRIC BUILDING, 610 SOUTH MAIN STREET 7
P. O. ADDRESS 208 EAST 6TH STREET
LOS ANGELES 14, CALIFORNIA
m UPLV PLEASE EFER TD
E. VAN DUSEN '�t' �f •'�
MANAGER LAND AND TAX DEPARTMENT
s�
March 22, 1951 %
Mr. J. L. Henricksen,
City Clerk,
City of Huntington Beach,
Huntington Beach, California.
Dear Sir:
Understand that on April 5,1950 Huntington Beach
Ordinance No. 558 was passed, covering annexation of certain
territory to the City.
Will appreciate receiving two copies of the said
ordinance.
Yours truly
,
0. MILLER
B0M/g Ta$ Agent
I ri
February 28., 1951 N`�
W. Asurict Enderle, County Assessor
,Court F"Ov'ses,
,,Santa Ana, Calif .
Dear Sir:
Enclosed herewith mQp showing newly annexed
territory extending westerly limits of the City of Huntington
Beach. This territyry is described in Ordinance No- 550
of the City of Huntington Beach, which ordinance was enacted
March 6, 1950.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Henricksen, CILIET Clerk
BY
Deputy.
C 0 P y
February 28) 1951
Mr. Maurice Enderly, County Assessor
Court House
Santa Anap Calif.
Dear Sir :
Enclosed hereivith map showing ,-newly annexed
territory extendino westerly limits of the City of Huntington
Beach. This territory is described in Ordinance No. 558
of the City of Huntington Beach,, which ordinance was enacted
March 6, 195o.
Yours very truly.,
J. L. HenrIcksen City
y Clerk
By Helen N. Newland,
Del7aty.
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A, CORRECT
Copy OF TjiE- 0- id -ILL ICE
IN TI]IS Ue'
AT EST
...........
City
N c v oarf of t�'e ity of
1 February 23,_1351
r. Maurice �iderle
County Tax Assessor
Count; Court douse
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. I�iderle:
We are enclosing two certified copies
of the City of-H ington Beach Ordinance No. 558
covering annexation o area described in Section 2
of this diria�nce
Very truly yours,
j
JLH:mg J. L. Henricksen
Enc. City Clerk
C 0 P Y
February 23, 1951
Mr. Maurice Enderle3
County Tax Assessor
County Court house
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Erderle:
We are enclosing two certified copies
of the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 558
covering annexation of area descrithed in Section 2
of this Ordinance,.,
Very t ruly yours,
J. L. Henricksen
JLH:mg City Clerk
En,^..
THE FOREGOING IN5 RU!J 1EN'T IS A CORRECT
CCPY OF THE. G:�I hi'fw %:1 r i�Z ii1 T=IJS &c,ICE
t.' 11 .
i
C 0 P Y
Office of
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
State of California
Sacramento 14
February 8, 1951
Mr. J. L, Henricksen
City Clerk
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr, Henricksen:
This is in acknowledgment of your letter of January
29, 1951.
Thank you for sending us a copy of Ordinance No, 558,
containing a legal description of property which was annexed
to the City of Huntington Beach on March .6, 1950. Also for
map, indicating the boundaries of this annexed area, which was
included.
These documents, filed pursuant to the provisions of
`Sections 54900 to 54904 of the Goverment Code, are being
incorporated in our tax area records and this annexation will
be shown on the 1951 Board Roll.
Should the validity of this annexation for the purpose
of assessment or taxation be questioned by any interested party,
we shall at that time bring such question to your attention.
As all property in Huntington Beach evidently has one
city tax rate, we are assuming that utility property which is
located in this annexation will carry the same tax rate.
Should a separate segregation be necessary, due to bond or
other levies, please so inform us at once.
THE FORECQING INSTPWMrNT IS A CORRECT
COPY 01'• TI-i'',, C!RK-'!3AL GJ 11E IN THIS OfTWE
__...1 9.5r.LVery truly yours,
(4 .j .;A'iy cou":cil VALUATION DIVISION
of the City tt
Fred P. Hart
By. ,s, FRED P. HART
.Associate Valuation Engineer
cc—Mr. M.F.Enderle
Orange Ccunty Assessor
GEORGE R.REILLY JAMES H.QUINN
SEA au paa TN
FIRST DISTRICT,SAN FRANCISCO � f CHAIRMAN
a
JAMES H.QUINN ° a '' JERROLD L.SEAWELL -
�"
SECOND DISTRICT,OA KLAND � mp VICE-CHAIRMAN
JERROLD L.SEAWELL i DIXWELL L.PIERCE
THIRD DISTRICT, ROSEVILLE 71 p9<InpnXP ECRETARY
WILLIAM G.BONELLI try 1�
FOURTH DISTRICT,LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF
THOMAS H.KUCHEL,CONTROLLER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ' ! ,Ix
SACRAMENTO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 f
SACRAMENT0 14 , a w%
�i
February 8, 1951
Mr. J. L. Henricksen
City Clerk
Huntington Beach, California.
Dear Mr. Henricksen;
This is in acknowledgment of your letter of January
29, 1951.
Thank you for sending us a copy of Ordinance No.558,
containing a legal description of property which was annexed
to the City of Huntington Beach on March 6, 1950. Also for
map, indicating the boundaries of this annexed area, which was
included.
These documents„filed pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 54900 to 54904 of the Government Code, are being
incorporated in our tax area records and this annexation will
be shown on the 1951 Board Roll.
Should the validity of this annexation for the purpose
of assessment or taxation be questioned by any interested party,
we shall at that time bring such question to your attention.
As all property in Huntington Beach evidently has one
city tax rate, we are assuming that utility property which is
located in this annexation will carry the same tax rate.
Should a separate segregation be necessary, due to bond or
other levies, please so inform us at once.
Very truly yours,
VAL ATION DIVISION
D P. HART
A.ssocia.te Valuation Engineer
cc—Mr. M.F.Enderle
Orange County Assessor
January 29, 1951
AIR MAIL
State Board of Equalization
State of California
Sacramento 14x California
ATTMITION o Mr. Fred P. Hart
Gentlemen;
In accordance with your request contained in your letter
of January 16, 1951 we have enclosed a copy of pity of Huntington
Beach Ordinance No. 558 which contains the legal description of
property annexed and map shoring annexed territory as described
in Ordinance No. 558, enacted March 6, 1950.
We trust that the information and documents enclosed
herewith will fulfill your requirements as outlined in your letter
mentioned above.
Very truly yours,
J. L. Henricksen
JLHemg City Clerk
Enc.
�1-k Y• l"?rCIMU-1r,
rT7—f.
��'�. tli::
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE
11 -JOHN L. HENRICKSEN, being duly sworn7 depose
and say:
That I am the duly elected' qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach; '
That on the 29th day of January, 1951, in the
offices of the City Clerk in the City Hall, City of Huntington
Beacht I personally delivered to Daniel M. Waite, Deputy Assessor
of Orange County, California, a copy of Ordinance No. 558 con-
taining the legal description of the annexed territory, and
also delivered to him a map or plat indicating the boundaries.
DATED: July 6 1951.
4,T0Ht-NLL* HENRICKSEN
Subscribed and sworn to before me
by John L. Henricksen7
this 6th day of July 1951.
DAISY 'I. NEELD
-Notary .Public in and for said
County and State
My-, commission expires : may 7, 1952
(SEAL)
'GEORGE R. REILLY, CHAIRMAN •«� os ry GEORGE R. REILLY
FIRST DISTRICT,SAN FRANCISCO - CHAIRMAN
JAMES H. QUINN, VICE-CHAIRMAN JAMES H. QUINN
SECOND DISTRICT.OAKLAND i VICE-CHAIRMAN
�.
DIXWELL L. PIERCE
JERROLD L. SEAWELL °+alron SECRETARY
THIRD DISTRICT,ROSEVILLE
WILLIAM G. BONELLI
FOURTH DISTRICT,LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF /J
THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CONTROLLER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION y;
SACRAMENTO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
J
SACRAMENTO 14 v�� pF,�
January 16, 1951
Mr, J. L . Henricksen
City Clerk
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr, Henricksen;
In reviewing the records of the Secretary of
State we find that papers were filed on April 5, 1950,�
covering the annexation of uninhabited and undesignated
territory to the City of Huntington Beach by Ordinance
No. 558.
Before this annexation may be included in our
1951 And future Board Rolls, it will be necessary ® in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 54900 to 54904
of the Government Code — that you send us on or before
February 1, 1951s a statement, a legal description, and
a map delineating the boundaries of this annexed area.
As we, are now revising our tax area maps
preparatory to the 1951 Roll , it would be appreciated
if you would file these documents at your early convenience®
Very truly yours,
UA 0 I SIGN
FR P. HART
Associate Valuation Engineer -
C 0 P Y
April 24,s 1950
SU3JERCT: ANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED
AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY
TO CITY OF HUNTIMTON aTACH
Mr. B, J. Smith
County Clerk
P.O. Box 504
Santa ,ulna, Calirornia
Dear Mr. Smith:
Complying with your request of April 21, 1950 we have
attached hereto a legal notice published in the Huntington Beach
Neves on March 16, 1950.
For your general information the entire annexation covers
an area from the line of ordinary high tide to a distance of three
miles seaward---between the Northwest line of Rancho LaBolsa Chica
and the Westerly City Limits of the City of Huntington Beach.
Ier^J truly yours.
{
J. L. Iienricksen,
JLH:mg City Clerk
Eno.
THE FCT'.rr,^'"r IE TT A C,.z7 ?�,rT
Coil",
'-E
UE the l0y Of
IMPA-ril 2,4, 195o i
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED
AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY
TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BFACH
Mr. B. J. Smith
County Clerk
P. o. Box 5o4
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Smith:
Complying with your request of April 21, 1950 we have
attached hereto a legal notice published in the Huntington Beacb News
on. March 16, 1950.
For yqBrgeneral information the entire annexation covers
an area fro the-)of ordinary high tide 11pe. to a distance of three
miles seaward—between the Northwest litle of Rancho La Bolsa Chica
and the Westerly City Li ,dts of the City of Huntington Beach.
Very truly yours,
JTF-:mg J. L. Henricksen
Eno. City Clerk
COUNTY CLERK AND EX-❑FFICI❑ CLERK
hf}
S. J. SMITH, COUNTY CLERK OF THE
P. o. SOX SO4 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE KI 2-6211
SANTA ANA, CALIFRRNIA ,i,_`j
April 21, 1950
4p ��Q
�g 1960
J. L. Henricksen '
City Clerk rl
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach, Calif.
Dear Mr. Henricksen:
This office has received the Certificate of the secretary
of State regarding an Annexation to the City of Huntington
Beach.
Would you kindly forward to this office a copy of your
Ordinance No. 559 in order that our Precinct Maps may be
altered in accordance with the legal description contained
therein.
Very trul your
tB. J TH, County Clerk,
nge County, California.
BJS/lh
a i
1
7
I
i
COPY
I
i
I
March 27, 1950
i
Mr. Frank M. Jordan
Secretary of State
Sacramento 3
California
i
Dear Sir:
I am enclosing herewith, a certified
copy of Ordinance No. 55$, Passed and adopted
by the City of Huntington Beach on the 6th day
of March, 1950.
This ordinance annexes certain un-
inhabited territory to the City of Huntington
Beach in accordance with the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939.
_ Very truly yours,
RAY H. OVERACKER
City Attorney
RHO:eo
EARL WARREN
JAMES S.DEAN GOVERNOR - '' RUFUS W.PUTNAM
CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOODWI.N J.KNIGHT °t �• rho J.STUART WATSON
A
MEMBER cP w' � ASSISTANT
THOMAS H.KUCHEL �y'�� EXECUTIVE OFFICER
0
MEMBER
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS ?�
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE z.{
13 ,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA IF °3'1
ADDRESS REPLY TO: STATE BUILDING s REFER TO FILE NO. 'j
STATE LANDS DIVISION Los ANGELES Il
SO2 STATE BUILDING 12
LOS ANGELES 12,CALIFORNIA S. D.
February 6, 1950.
City Council,
City of Huntington Beach,
Huntington Beach, California.
Gentlemen;
This office has been advised that a hearing is to be held on
February 6, 1950, in the City Council Chambers of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, said hearing relating to Resolution
No. 1099 of the City Council which proposes to annex certain territory
contiguous to the City..
The State of California is the owner of tide and submerged
lands below the high water mark on the coast of California extending
seaward to the marginal belt. It is understood that the area proposed
to be annexed lies entirely within the lands thus described as owned
by the State of California.
Assuming that no questions of ownership are involved in this
procedure, this office interposes no objection to the proposed
annexation.
Yours very truly,
r�
1f RU S Ind. PUTNAM,
Executive Officer.
C�