[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.