Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 5 ANNEXATIONS 01-21-91DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: JANUARY 211 1991 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEW BUSINESS N0. 5 1-21-91 Inter - Com 1) NEWPORT AVENUE/WASE ANNEXATION NO. 150 2) ESPLANADE/FAIRHAVEN/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151 3) IRVINE BLVD./BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 152 RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Council. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, a petition to incorporate North Tustin was filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Three competing annexation petitions were received by the City of Tustin on January 11, 14, and 16, 1991. The first petition is for the area to the east of Newport Avenue in the vicinity of Wass Street identified as Newport/Wass Annexation 150 (Attachment 1) . The second proposal is a petition identified as Esplanade/Holt Annexation 151 to annex a large area northwest of existing City boundaries. This proposal is basically bounded by Fairhaven Avenue on the north, and an existing pipeline easement parallel to the east side of Esplanade on the east (Attachment 2). The third petition identified as Irvine Boulevard/ Browning Annexation 152 is for an area in the northeast portion of the City, north of Irvine Boulevard and east of Browning Avenue (Attachment 3). The Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 authorizes the City Council to make application for annexation of territory after adoption of a Resolution. Once the petition is filed with LAFCO, it schedules a public hearing and if approved, the petition is transmitted back to the City Council as the hearing body. Through a public hearing, it is then determined whether the petition is approved, denied or set for an election depending upon the number of protests filed through the hearing process. The Mayor has requested that each of the subject annexation petition requests be placed on the agenda. Given the late filing of the subject petitions, staff have not had the time to process the petitions in accordance with the City's past practice when a petition is filed with the City. However, if as a matter of policy the City Council wants to submit the petitions to LAFCO, then it has the legal right to proceed. City Council Report Annexation Nos. 150, 151, and 152 January 21, 1991 Page 2 In the event the City Council should wish to make application to LAFCO for each annexation proposal, Resolutions authorizing said application and any tax sharing agreements with the County are attached. Additional background of each proposal follows: Annexation 150 The proposed Newport/Wass Annexation is approximately 26 acres in size. The area is bounded on the southwest by the centerline of Newport Avenue (the existing City boundary), on the northwest by the northerly property line identified as El Dorado Gardens or Assessor Parcel No. 501-071-01 (with said boundary extending easterly to the centerline of Elizabeth Way), on the northeast by the boundary of Sycamore Elementary School and a portion of La Colina -Red Hill Flood Control Channel, on the east by Sycamore Elementary School and St. Paul' s Episcopal Church, and on the south by the centerline of Wass Street. The annexation area includes 19 single family residences, two duplexes, three apartment or condominium complexes totaling 114 units, Sycamore Elementary School and St. Paul's Episcopal Church. There are an estimated 285 residents in the area and a total of ill registered voters. The submitted petition contains 19 registered voters or 17% of the registered voters in the area. The area is primarily designated for residential multiple family uses along Newport Avenue and along a major portion of the Wass Street frontage and for single family use along Elizabeth Way. Annexation 151 The proposed Esplanade/Holt Annexation is approximately 746 acres in size. The territory is bounded by the centerline of Fairhaven on the north, the eastside of an existing pipeline easement parallel to Esplanade on the east and on the south and west by existing City boundaries. While it is estimated that there are approximately 31800 registered voters in the area, staff have not had time to determine the number of dwelling units in this area. The area is primarily designated as estate residential (E-4) or R-1 (single family) on the County Zoning Map with a portion of the area in the south designated RSF (residential single family) on the North Tustin Specific Plan. Annexation 152 The proposed Irvine Boulevard/ Browning Annexation is approximately 63.4 acres in size. The area is bounded on the south by the Community Development Department 't C uncil Report Ci y o Annexation Nos. 150, 151, and 152 January 21, 1991 Page 3 centerline of Irvine Boulevard, on the west by the centerline of Browning Avenue, on the north by the northerly property lines of properties which are located on the northside of Fairweather Road and on the east by an existing City boundaryas Tustin an Community). The area includes 164 family residencesw estimated 557 residents. The submitted area petition tiondesignated signatures of 68 registered voters. The estate residential (E-4) on the County Zoning Map. CONCLUSION If it is the City Council's desire to authorizetion f the attached proposed annexation proposals to LAFCO by adoption Resolutions, staff will complete and submit the attached Resolutions and required application materials. "ChristZi�neShingl on Director of Community Development .cas Community Development Department AN ATION --# 150 NEWPORT \ss ATTACHMENT 1 G A F41- N 1) - lH -zzzzzzz, CITY BOUNDARY PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA W01 [d January 30, 1991 Those Listed Administrative Services Director Inter - Com SUBJECT: REVENUE AND COST ESTIMATES FOR ANNEXATION PROPOSALS Please review the attached Memorandum from Community Development; these are the official cost and revenue estimates regarding these annexation proposals. Should anyone approach you or your staff for your opinion or a comment regarding same, please refer them to Community Development. Thank you . -for your cooperation. Roylen A. White, Director jv S, Admin ivetServices Department cc: B. Correa S. Jones V. Whiteman annex$$.2 DATE. JANUARY 28, 1991 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: REVENUE AND COST ESTIMATES FOR CURRENT ANNEXATION PROPOSALS Based upon our conversations on 1-26-91 and your direction, please find attached a summary estimate of revenue/costs for current annexation proposals (Attachment I) along with a summary discussion of the methodology utilized (Attachment II). Please contact me should you have any questions. CAS:kbc\anxmethd.mem cc: Bob Ledendecker Ron Nault Doug Franks Royleen White Rita Westfield Beth Schoemann L) Actual financial costs can be determined at this time only for operations and personnel. It is known that significant capital improvements may be required that could result in larger future financial liabilities. ?) For full year, not prorated. ESTIMATE ATTACHMENT I REVENUE/COST ANNEXATION PROPOSALS Annex 150 Annex 151 Annex 152 Total acres 26 746 631, Assessed Valuation 6,657,504 271,026,285 24,867,490 Current population estimate 356 6330 557 Recurring Revenues Property Tax 11,980 487,847 44,760 Property Tax Transfer 146 5,963 545 Motor Vehicle In -Lien 10,285 182,874 15,745 Cigarette Tax 934 9,495 1,235 Gas Tax Vehicle Code Fines 5,945 1,339 58,236 9,300 Municipal Fines 221 23,800 3,925 2,094 Community Development 345 (Bldg. & plan check fees) Homeowners property 514 25,120 1,155 Tax Relief 5,060 9,724 6.832 Total Revenues 36,424 806,984 75,179 Recurring Costs Police --- 286,140 --- Operating --- 24,500 --- Public Works Personnel --_ _ _ Operating --- 128,175 --- 3,200 Fire Contract 12,923 350,000 18,854 Liability Insurance 2,136 37,980 3,342 Subtotal Total Costs 15,059 826,795 25,396 Difference Between Recurring Revenue/Costs +21,365 - 19,811 +49,783 L) Actual financial costs can be determined at this time only for operations and personnel. It is known that significant capital improvements may be required that could result in larger future financial liabilities. ?) For full year, not prorated. Aft W ANNEXATION FISCAL REVIEW METHODOLOGY ATTACHMENT II The following discussion defines estimation methodologies used in projecting various City revenues and costs resulting from annexation of the study area. 1. REVENUES Property Tax Under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement, the City receives approximately 45% of the County share and would receive the share of affected special districts where service would be provided to the annexed area by the City in the future. Tustin's share of the basic levy under this Agreement would be approximately 8% and 10% for the structural fire fund. It is difficult at this time to determine the actual share from other special districts. Property Transfer Tax The City receives an allocation of $.55 per 1,000 valuation of property sold, excluding the original equity on property and existing financing assumed by a buyer. A .05 turnover rate is assumed with an .80 consideration rate for equity and financing. Motor Vehicle in -Lieu $28.89 per capita Cigarette Tax $1.50 per capita plus a $400 base Gas Tax Section 2106 - $4.60 per capita Section 2107 - $8.90 per capita Section 2105 - $3.20 per capita Vehicle Code Fines $3.76 per capita Municipal Fines $-62 per capita Community Development (Building and Plan Check) fees Revenue estimates assume that the majority of single family homes are at least 20 years old and .05 of these units will be Attachment II Annexation Methodology Page 2 reroofed per year as deferred maintenance. The average permit for a reroof is $60. It is also assumed that .01 of total single family units will see interior or exterior remodeling per year at a ratio of 75% major remodels and 25% minor remodels. valuations of each of these improvement types is an average of $25,000 and $10,000 respectfully. These valuations were then applied against the City's current plan check and building permit fee schedules. It is also assured that there could be construction of second units on .005 at an approximate value of $50,000 each. Homeowners Property Tax Relief .0276 multiplier times total property tax 2. COSTS Police Department Police Department costs were directly estimated based on personnel and operational needs identified by the Police Department. It has been determined that Annexation Areas 150 and 151 will have no impact on the Police Department. Public Works Public works costs are estimated for Annexation 151 and 152 only based on an average costing method based on operation for two divisions (streets and trees). The City's 1990-91 Budget increases in operational costs for each of these divisions was estimated based on the relationship of lineal curb miles (23.75/151 = 16) for annexation 151 and 1004 for 152. This percentage was then applied against estimated line division operational costs projected for each division in the fiscal year 1990-91 budget. Fire Increases Since 1978 Tustin has received fire protection and suppression services through the Orange County Fire District. Fire protection costs to contracting cities are based on an allocation of the Fire District budget. Because the formula is a complex calculation, staff determined estimated fire contract increases based on a determination of a 1990-91 fiscal year per capita cost for fire service and then applied Attachment II Annexation Methodology Page 3 projected population increases in that area to the per capita figure. Liability Insurance Assumes an increase of $6 per capita. CAS:kbc\anxmethd.mem 21 I PRELIMINARY AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY JUNE 19, 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF A PREVIOUS MEETING OR MEETINGS A. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN NEWPORT/WASS ANNEXAT,10N No., 15o Approximately 26 acres bounded by Newport Avenue on the west, Sycamore Elementary School in the north and east and Wass Street on the south, in the north Tustin area. Filed by the City of Tustin Resolution No. 91-12. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN ESPLANADE/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151 Approximately 746 acres located south of Fairhaven Avenue and west of Esplanade Avenue in the north Tustin area. Filed by City of Tustin Resolution No.91-14. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN IRVINE BOULEVARD/BROWNING AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 152 Approximately 63 acres located north of Irvine Boulevard and east of Browning Avenue, in the north Tustin area. Filed by City of Tustin Resolution No. 91-17. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) JUNE 19, 19912 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PAGE 3 B. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. Local. AgencL CHAIRMAN JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA VICE-CHAIRMAN DAVID KORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC GADDI H. VASQUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON FLROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT EVELYN R. HART COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE CHARLES V. SMITH MAYOR CITY OF WESTMINSTER ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR VACANT JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER 001- COLL'; of pan9Q Formation Commission June 6,1991 City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Tustin, CA 92680 Attn: Val Whiteman 1')00 N MAIN STREET SU I E C, SANTA A ANA, CALIFORNIA 92-,L)1 TELEPHONE: (714) 568-4181 FAX: (714) 5691173 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County June 19, 1991 at 2:00 p.m., Orange County Hall of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, Santa Ana, California on proposed Annexations to the City of Tustin designated Annexation No. 150 (Newport/Wass); Annexation No. 151 (Esplanade/Holt); and Annexation No. 152 (Irvine Boulevard/ Browning Avenue). Very truly yours, /(mv­ ' James J. CoUAngelo Executive Officer JJ C: f f A M,402�0�R,Kh, ONE- klg L.AFC Countu of ��ornae 1200 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 614 11-i Ili - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 tocol Agency Formation Commission TELEPHONE: (714) 568-4181 FAX: (7141569-1173 June 19, 1991 CHAIRMAN JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN TO: LAFCO Chairman .and Commissioners CITY OF LA HABRA VICE-CHAIRMAN FROM: Executive Officer DAVID BORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC RE: Proposed Annexation No. 150 (Newport/Wass) to the City of Tustin GADDI K VASQUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT APPLICANT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR Filed by a resolution of the City of Tustin. FOURTH DISTRICT EVELYN R. HART LOCATION COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF The proposed annexation area consists of approximately 26 acres located NEWPORT BEACH north of Irvine Boulevard, east of Newport Boulevard, ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS and south of La Colina, in the North Tustin area. REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC LAND USE ALTERNATE CHARLES V. SMITH The annexation territory comprises approximately 316 residents MAYOR CITY OF WESTMINSTER and 19 single family detached housing units and 114 multi -family units. ALTERNATE There is also an elementary school site and church located within the SUPERVISOR VACANT annexation area. The area is completely developed, and is JAMES J. COLANGELO zoned for residential uses. Surrounding land uses are residential, garden office and EXECUTIVE OFFICER commercial. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT _(CE0A) The City of Tustin has determined that the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the requirements Of CEQA. If your Commission agrees with this determination, no further action is required. ISSUES This is one of three annexations proposed by the City of Tustin within the area proposed for incorporation by Reorganization No. 127. The proposed annexation area is located in the south central portion of the incorporation area, and is adjacent to the City of Tustin on the west and south. r gsiwi 11c Annexation No. 150 to the City of Tustin June 191 1991 Page 2 All of the area proposed for annexation was included within a previous annexation attempt in 1987. Annexation No. 140 (La Colina/Browning) was approved by your Commission, but ultimately terminated at the protest hearing by registered voter protest from within the annexation area. This proposed annexation area represents a relatively small portion of the original Annexation No. 140 area. IMPACTS OF ANNEXATION ON INCORPORATION The proposed annexation area represents less than one- half of one percent of the proposed incorporation land area, and only one percent of the incorporation area's Population. The fiscal impacts of detaching this area from the incorporation proposal are incalculable. In terms of the overall boundaries, the proposed incorporation area is bordered by irregular city boundaries in many areas. The existing boundaries in this area run along Newport Boulevard and Wass Street. The boundaries proposed by this annexation would fragment existing residential neighborhoods., and create less visible and identifiable boundaries for the City of Tustin. Although there may be valid reasons for creating such boundaries, further analysis of the basis for the currently proposed boundaries is needed before a recommendation can be made to Your Commission. CONCLUSIONS The issues raised by this proposed annexation are similar to the issues Your Commission has struggled with in past incorporations. Following the filing of nearly every incorporation proposal, individual areas have responded by requesting exclusion from the proposed city. At times, these requests have been in the form of formal annexation proposals, at other times, the request has been simply for exclusion. With each of these requests, your Commission has had to determine what the majority of an area's residents desired, and then weigh those desires against the impacts exclusion would have on the incorporation area residents. 0 Annexation No. 150 to the City of Tustin June 19, 1991 Page 3 Additionally, your Commission must evaluate the fairness of excluding areas on the fringe of the incorporation area, realizing that centrally located residents with the same desires have no such option. Although Your Commission has dealt with this type of issue on numerous occasions in the past there is no In solution which seems fair to everyone. I future reports to Your Commission, staff will attempt to further explore the trade-offs involved in approving or denying such requests for exclusion. RECOMMENDED ACTIO 1. Following the public hearing, continue the proposed Annexation No. 150 to the City -of Tustin to August 7, 1991. Respectfully submitted A a es J Col ge o i J. 4 E x u tt V e t0i c JC:s cc: William Huston, City of Tustin Christine Shingleton, Ci";L'-'Y of Tustin Val Whiteman, City of Tustin Marvin Rawitch, Citizens for More Local Control ANNE TION #152 IRVINE BLVC ATTACHMENT 3 z Z 3 G MC CLEAN Oli m \ La I Rp t 1- RD1 II 1 tTK.i3'lol �I rl`J� c I INscIN�v I AFI 1 I H4Sr�u oc;�l 1 J � , - I c 1 I 1 I Tc t3A90 = I' - tu��i>•s .p`1 �d , NElZPti AvLI IRVINE BLVD. i7, r l - - - - CfTY BOUNDARY ROWNING j ��,� PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-12 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 3 OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE INHABITED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY 4 KNOWN AS NEWPORT AVENUE/WASS ANNEXATION NO. 150 5 6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion has initiated preliminary proceedings for the annexation 7 of certain inhabited territory; and 8 WHEREAS, the City of Tustin has the ability to extend the full range of municipal services to the subject territory to 9 better serve the needs of the residents of the area; and 10 WHEREAS, the City Council on January 21, 1991, did adopt a resolution of application for annexation of the subject 11 territory to the City of Tustin, and 12 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation is a Categorical Class 19 exemption from the 13 requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 14 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tustin, California that: 15 1. The proposal for the Newport Avenue/Wass Annexation 16 No. 150 to the City of Tustin is made pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization 17 Act of 1985. 18 2. The proposed change of organization consists of the annexation of approximately 26 acres of inhabited territory, as 19 shown on Exhibit A, surrounded by the incorporated limits of the City of Tustin and unincorporated territory of the County of 20 Orange, and said territory will derive benefits of full municipal services as a result of the annexation. 21 3. The subject territory is bounded by the centerline of 22 Newport Avenue on the west, Sycamore Elementary School on the north and east, and the centerline of Wass on the south. 23 4. The proposed annexation is made for the purpose of 24 increasing the economy and efficiency of government services by incorporating territory within the City's sphere of influence. 25 5. The application for annexation is submitted by the 26 City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion based on a request from the property owners and registered voters in the 27 area. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-12 Page 2 6. The Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to undertake annexation proceedings pursuant to Part 3, Section 56837 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. RICHARD EDGAR Mayor MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-12 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk AN[ ATION -� 150 NEWPORT, SS EXHIBIT A nHLOURA w W Q GARLAND nv� •iiiiiii. CITY BOUNDARY \�\' PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2F RESOLUTION NO. 91-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED NEWPORT AVENUE/WASS ANNEXATION NO. 150 WHEREAS, A MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY has been executed by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County and the City Council of the City of Tustin. Effective November 18, 1980, the agreement provides for division of property taxes pursuant to Section 99(d) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Tustin has proposed the annexation of the inhabited and developed area known as Newport Avenue/Wass Annexation No. 150. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tustin that the MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY providing for the allocation of property tax revenues, as approved by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council and effective November 18, 1980, shall be applicable to the territory within the proposed Newport/Wass Annexation No. 150 to the City of Tustin for the annexation of approximately 26 acres of substantially developed property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) RICHARD EDGAR Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-13 Page 2 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-13 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991 by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-14 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 6 THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE INHABITED 7 ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS ESPLANADE/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151 8 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin on 9 its own motion has initiated preliminary proceedings for the annexation of certain inhabited territory; and 10 WHEREAS, the City of Tustin has the ability to 11 extend the full range of municipal services to the subject territory to better serve the needs of the 12 residents of the area; and 13 WHEREAS, the City Council on January 21, 1991, did adopt a resolution of application for annexation of the 14 subject territory to the City of Tustin, and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation is a Categorical Class 19 exemption 16 from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 17the Cit Council of NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by y 18 the City of Tustin, California that: 19 1. The proposal for the Esplanade/Holt Annexation No. 151 to the City of Tustin is made pursuant to Part 3, 20 Chapter 1 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. 21 2. The proposed change of organization consists of 22 the annexation of approximately 746 acres of inhabited territory, as shown on Exhibit A, surrounded by the 23 incorporated limits of the City of Tustin and unincorporated territory of the County of Orange, and 24 said territory will derive benefits of full municipal services as a result of the annexation. 25 3. The subject territory is bounded by Fairhaven 26 on the north, the east side of existing pipeline easement parallel to Esplanade Avenue on the east, and on the 271 south and west by existing City boundaries. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-14 Page 2 4. The proposed annexation is made for the purpose of increasing the economy and efficiency of government services by incorporating territory within the City's sphere of influence. 5. The application for annexation is submitted by the City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion based on a request from 7.8% of the registered voters in the area. 6. The Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to undertake annexation proceedings pursuant to Part 3, Section 56837 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. RICHARD B. EDGAR, Mayor MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-14 Page 3 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-14 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council, of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED ESPLANADE/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151 WHEREAS, A MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY has been executed by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County and the City Council of the City of Tustin. Effective November 18, 1980, the agreement provides for division of property taxes pursuant to Section 99 (d) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Tustin has proposed the annexation of the inhabited and developed area known as Esplanade/Holt Annexation No. 151. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tustin that the MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY providing for the allocation of property tax revenues, as approved by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council and effective November 18, 1980, shall be applicable to the territory within the proposed Esplanade/Holt Annexation No. 151 to the City of Tustin for the annexation of approximately 746 acres of substantially developed property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) RICHARD EDGAR Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-15 Page 2 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-15 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991 by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14� 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE INHABITED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS IRVINE BOULEVARD/BROWNING AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 152 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion has initiated preliminary proceedings for the annexation of certain inhabited territory; and WHEREAS, the City of Tustin has the ability to extend the full range of municipal services to the subject territory to better serve the needs of the residents of the area; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 21, 1991, did adopt a resolution of application for annexation of the subject territory to the City of Tustin, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation is a Categorical Class 19 exemption from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tustin, California that: 1. The proposal for the Irvine Boulevard/ Browning Avenue Annexation No. 152 to the City of Tustin is made pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. 2. The proposed change of organization consists of the annexation of approximately 63.4 acres of inhabited territory, as shown on Exhibit A, surrounded by the incorporated limits of the City of Tustin and unincorporated territory of the County of Orange as shown on Exhibit A, and said territory will derive benefits of full municipal services as a result of the annexation. 3. The subject territory is bounded by the centerline of Irvine Boulevard on the south, the centerline of Browning Avenue on the west, to properties just to the north of Fairweather Road on the north, and an existing City of Tustin boundary on the east. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-17 Page 2 4. The proposed annexation is made for the purpose of increasing the economy and efficiency of government services by incorporating territory within the City's sphere of influence. 5. The application for annexation is submitted by the City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion based on a request from the property owners and registered voters in the area. 6. The Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to undertake annexation proceedings pursuant to Part 3, Section 56837 of the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN RICHARD B. EDGAR, Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-17 Page 3 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk ANNE TION *152 IRVINE BLVE ROWNING EXHIBIT A i �ATME1 3 :�Jdrl MC CLEAN OR Q IRVINE BLYO. Ic 1 1%. - - - - CFFY BOUNDARY f ',J PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA Ad AFCCoon 3 Of ce 1200 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 614 Local Agency Formation Commission SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (71 4) 568-4181 FAX: (714) 569-1173 June 19, 1991 CHAIRMAN JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN TO: LAFCO Chairman and Commissioners CITY OF LA HABRA VICE-CHAIRMAN FROM: Executive Officer DAVID BORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC RE: Proposed Annexation No. 152 (Irvine Blvd/Browning Ave) to the City of Tustin GADDI H. VASQUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT APPLICANT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR Filed by a resolution of the City of Tustin. FOURTH DISTRICT EVELYN R. HART LOC---ATION COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT The proposed annexation area consists 63 acres of approximately located north of Irvine Boulevard, east of Browning Avenue, and ALTERNATE west of the east Tustin area. VERNON S. EVANS REPRESENTATIVE OF LAND USE GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE The annexation territory comprises approximately 558 residents and CHARLES V. SMITH MAYOR 164 single family detached housing units. There is also an elementary CITY OF WESTMINSTER school located annexation area within the - The area is ALTERNATE completely developed, and is zoned for residential uses. SUPERVISOR VACANT JAMES J. COLANGELO surrounding land uses are residential, with unincorporated neighborhoods EXECUTIVE OFFICER on the north and west, and City of Tustin neighborhoods on the east and south. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT _(CEOA) The City of Tustin has determined that the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the requirements Of CEQA. If your Commission agrees with this determination, no further action is required. ISSUES This is one of three annexations proposed by the City of Tustin within the area proposed for incorporation by Reorganization No. 127. The proposed annexation area is located in the southeastern corner of the incorporation ARM fin Annexation No. June 19, 1991 Page 2 152 to the City of Tustin area, and as stated above, is adjacent to the City of Tustin on the east and south. Most of the area proposed for annexation was included within a previous annexation attempt in 1987. Annexation No. 139 (Eveningside/Rainbow) was approved by your Commission' but ultimately terminated at the protest hearing byregistered voter protest from within the annexation area. IMPACTS OF ANNEXATION ON INCORPORATION The proposed annexation area represents only one percent of the proposed incorporation land area, and only two percent of the incorporation area's Population. The fiscal impacts of detaching this area from the incorporation proposal are incalculable. In terms of the overall boundaries, the incorporation area is bordered bproposed y irreg boundaries in many areas. Although this area isular onecity of the more regular and logical boundaries, the exclusion of the proposed annexation area from the incorporation boundaries would neither enhance, nor detract logic or simplicity of the boundaries. from the CONCLUSIONS The issues raised by this proposed annexation are similar to the issues Your Commission has struggled with in past incorporations. Following the filing of nearly every incorporation proposal, individual areas have responded by requesting exclusion from the proposed city. At times, these requests have been in the form of formal annexation proposals, at other times, the request has been simply for exclusion. With each of these requests, Your Commission has had to determine what the majority of an area's residents desired, and then weigh those desires against the impacts exclusion would have on the incorporation area residents. Additionally, Your Commission must evaluate the fairness of excluding areas on the fringe of the incorporation area, realizing that centrally located residents with the same desires have no such option. Annexation No. 152 to the City of Tustin June 19, 1991 Page 3 Although Your commission has dealt with this type of issue on numerous occasions in the Pastil there is no solution which seems fair to everyone. In future reports to Your Commission, staff will attempt to further explore the trade-offs involved in approving or denying requests for exclusion. such RECOMMENDED ACTION Following the public hearing, continue the proposed Annexation No. 152 to the City of Tustin to August 7, 1991. D espectr Aa usti. i utive JC: S 111Y submitted, Cohan I 0 0 ffi e cc: William Huston, City Of Tustin Christine Shingleton, City of Tustin Val Whiteman, City Of Tustin Marvin Rawitch, Citizens for More Local Control f �C Coy "� g.r Oranq -'" 1200 N MAIN STREET, SUITE 614 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 Focol Agency Formation Commission TELEPHONE: (714) 568-4181 FAX: (714)569-1173 CHAIRMAN June 6 JAMES H. FLORA ,1991 COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA City of Tustin VICE-CHAIRMAN 15222 Del Amo DAVID BORAN Tustin, REPRESENTATIVE OF CA 92680 GENERAL PUBLIC GADDI H. VASQUEZ Attn: Val Whiteman SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT EVELYN R. HART Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by COUNCILWOMAN the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County CITY OF June 19 l 991 NEWPORT BEACH at 2:00 p.m., Orange County ALTERNATE Hall of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Board of VERNON S. EVANS 9 Supervisors Hearin Room, Santa Ana, California on REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC proposed Annexations to the City of Tustin designated 151 Annexation No. 150 (Newport/Wass); Annexation No. ALTERNATE (Esplanade/Holt);f CHARLES V. SMITH and Annexation No. 152 (Irvine Boulevard/ MAYOR Browning Avenue). CITY OF WESTMINSTER ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR VACANT JAMES J.COLANGELO Very truly yours, EXECUTIVE OFFICER r James J. CoUngel o Executive Officer JJC:ff _ 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7'I 81'' 9I1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED IRVINE BOULEVARD/ BROWNING AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 152 WHEREAS, A MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY has been executed by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County and the City Council of the City of Tustin. Effective November 18, 1980, the agreement provides for division of property taxes pursuant to Section 99(d) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Tustin has proposed the annexation of the inhabited and developed area known as Irvine Boulevard/Browning-Avenue Annexation No. 152. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tustin that the MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO PROVIDE FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE IN AREAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY providing for the allocation of property tax revenues, as approved by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council and effective November 18, 1980, shall be applicable to the territory within the proposed Irvine Boulevard/Browning Avenue Annexation No. 152 to the City of Tustin for the annexation of approximately 63.4 acres of substantially developed property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January , 1991. MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) RICHARD EDGAR Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-18 Page 2 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-18 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of January, 1991 by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk