County of San Mateo v. City Council

[221]

KAUFMAN, P. J.

The city of Palo Alto, situated in the county of Santa Clara, is a municipal corporation and a charter city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. On November 10, 1958, its city council passed a motion pursuant to Gov. Code, sections 35300-35326, “Annexation of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939,” directing their city manager to commence proceedings for the annexation of 819 acres of land located within the boundaries of San Mateo County known as "Bayfront Annexation. ’ ’ A description of the above mentioned land was filed with the boundary commissions of the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara.

The reply from the San Mateo County Boundary Commission stated that the legal description of the proposed boundary was definite and certain but that it could not approve and, in fact, specifically disapprove the proposed annexation on the ground that city annexations over county boundary lines are not authorized by law. The Santa Clara County Boundary Commission neither approved nor disapproved the proposed annexation since the property was not situated in their county.

The Palo Alto City Council on December 8, 1958, adopted a resolution giving notice of the proposed annexation and setting a date to hear any opposition.

The county of San Mateo, a political subdivision of this state, instituted these proceedings in mandamus and in certiorari, questioning the legality of the above resolution on the ground that a city has no jurisdiction to annex property located in another county.

Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the City Council to terminate proceedings under the Annexation of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939, prior to the time when quo warranto becomes available. Certiorari is a proper remedy to test the validity of annexation proceedings under that statute. (See

Jefferson Union Sch. Dist.

v.

Sunnyvale City Council,

129 Cal.App.2d 264, 267-268 [277 P.2d 104], and cases cited therein.) Although petitioner could have instituted these proceedings in a lower court, we have determined that the facts of this case make it a proper one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction.