HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Pub. Hearing #1 5-26-87TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND IqEIqBERS OF THE CITY ~OUNCIL
COMHUNITY DEVELOPIqENT DEPARTlqENT
PROPO*SED ANNEXATION NO. 139
RECOI~,IENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Open public hearing.
2. Receive and file written protests·
3. Accept public testimony and close public hearing.
4. Direct staff to certify the value of written protests and report back
at the City Council's meeting of June 1, 1987.
5. Direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution based on percentage of
protests certi fled.
BACKGROUND:
Annexation No. 139 was initiated by the Tustin City Counctl on February 17, 1987
(Resolution No. 87-20) in response to a group of citizens who live in the
proposed area and had gathered signatures from persons petitioning the
annexation. On April 1, 1987 the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the
annexation subject to the following terms and conditions {LAFCO Resolution No.
87-19).
·
The City of Tustin is designated as the conducting authority and the
legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation
proceedings in compliance with this resolution.
e
Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for
annexation shall be called, held and conducted upon such annexation only
within the territory ordered to be annexed.
¸3.
The City of Tustin,.as applicant, shall be liable for and pay all proper
expenses incurred in conducting proceedings in compliance with this
resolution.
· /
Clty Counci 1 Report
Annexation No. [39
May 26, [987
Page two
PROJECT ANALYSES:
·
The proposed annexattoh area ts bounded by [rVlne Boulevard on the south
Browning Avenue on the west, La Colina on the north and the Tustin Ranch on the
east. Elghty five single-family homes and the Tustin Memorial Elementary School
are the existing land uses within the proposed annexation area. According to
the Orange County Regtstrar's Office, there are [79 registered voters in this
area of which 34 signed a petition to annex into the City. The population of
the area ts estimated at 323.
The Land Use Element of the County General Plan .designates the territory for low
denstty residential uses· The City's General Plan Land Use Element also
designates the territory for low density residential uses· Zoning for the
entire area is E-4 (Estate Residential). No change in zoning would occur as a
result of annexatlon.
A full range of 'municipal services would be extended upon annexation and would
include refuse collection, police patrol, park and recreation services, street
sweeping (public roads), fire protection (contract with County Fire Department),
street maintenance and general governmental administration. Service levels
would be equal to other developed areas of the City and would be provided
immediately upon annexation.
·
The annexation territory is within the boundaries of County Service 'Area No. 5
(CSA 5). CSA 5 is authorized to acquire, develop' and maintain local parks;
acquire, develop and maintain equestrian trails; to provide road related
landscape maintenance and real property services support. There are no local
park sites or equestrian trails within the annexation territory. Further, CSA 5
does not provide any road related landscape maintenance within the annexation
territory. If the annexation is completed then the territory would be
administratively removed from CSA ~5 pursuant to Government Code Section
25210.90. According to recent City Council policy, this area would also be
excluded from the City's bonded indebtedness for parks and civic center.
This particular annexation area is within the City of Tustin's sphere of
influence which presumes, eventual annexation to the City. According to the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) the annexation would 'advance community
facilities and consolidate jurisdictional responsibilities which is consistent
with State, County and LAFCO policies.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis of recent annexation proposals has been completed and
is attached for the Council's information. Also attached are responses to the
most commonly asked questions and issues about annexation to the City of Tustin.
Community Development' Department
Clty Council Report
May 26, 1987
Annexation 139
Page three
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the City Council should instruct staff to review
and determine the value of the written protests filed and not withdrawn. -Not
more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing the City Council would
then have to adopt a resolution making a finding regarding the value of written
protests filed and not withdrawn, and take one of the following actions:
le
Terminate proceedings if more than 50% of the registered voters residing
in the area protest or if more than 50% of the land owners owning land in
the area protest.
e
Order an election if at least 25~ but not more than 50~ of the registered
voters residing in the affected territory protest, or at least 25~ of the
number of owners of land who also own at least 25~ of the assessed value
of land within the affected territory protest.
®
Order the change of organization without an election if written protests
have been filed and withdrawn by less than 25~ of the registered voters or
less than 25% of the number of owners of land owning less than 25[ of the
assessed value of land wtthin the affected territory.
Ma/F~-A~n//~amberlafn . 'Christine Shingleton
Associat~e Planner Director of Community Q~velopment
MAC:pef
Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Questions and Issues
LAFCO Resolution No. 87-19
Map
, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT I
·
RESPOIISES TO MOST C~9tONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
AND ISSUES ABOUT ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN
Wtll The Current Stal~s Of La Colina Change,,,?
The current La Colina right-ofCway between Newport and Browning Avenues is outside
of the jurtsdtctlon of the City of Tustln. Annexation proposals under
consideration propose extension of the City's boundary north to the centerline of
La Colina, east of Newport Avenue to the Irvine Ranch-East Tustin area.
This portion of La Colina is currently designated by the County as a secondary
arterial highway on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It is
predominately a 2-lane road with an 80 foot right-of-way. If La Coltna between
Newport Avenue and Browning Avenue was withtn the Ctty's limits, the City could
support the removal of La Colina from the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
and 1ts redesignatton as a residential street.
While not anticipated by current annexation proposals, there has been considerable
concern about extension of La Colina east of Browning Avenue to the future Tustin
Ranch Road. This portion of La Colina is not on the County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways. A portion of the road that is already built is currently striped as a
· 2-lane road with an 80 foot right-of-way.
The East Tustin Specific Plan and EIR designate La Collna between the western edge
of Tustin Ranch and Tustin Ranch Road as a residential street. The design of this
portion of the roadway will provide for the following:
an 80 foot right-of-way
a two lane residential street which will include an 8 foot parkway
(sidewalk and landscaping on each side, a 6 foot bike lane on one side,
one 12 foot travel lane in each direction and a landscaped 28 foot center
median.
a reverse "S" curve designed for ~5 miles per hour (MPH) as a traffic
deterrent.
La Colina will dead end at Tustin Ranch Road and would not be capable of
being extended due to the golf course and future residential developments
east of the golf course.
In the event that the County widened its portion of La Colina, the City would widen
that portion of La Colina extending into Est Tustin to four lanes within the 80
foot ri ght-of-way.
Are Zontn9 Changes Planned Or Expected For Annexation Areas?
No changes to existing zoning within proposed annexation areas will occur. The
City's existing zoning designations are similar to those in the County to ensure
compatabi 1 i ry.
In addition, Section 9213 of Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code provides that any
territory annexed to the City shall be designated by the zone which the territory
Annexation Questions
Page two
was under the County Zoning Ordinance, provided that the City has a Zoning District
bearing the same designation. 'Although the City currently has R-1 and
designations, there is currently no designation for the North Tustin Specific Plan
Area included within Annexation No. 140. Upon approval of an annexation in this
area, however, the City is committed to creating a North Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning designation.
While it has been argued by those opposing annexation that 58 of the City's last 60
annexations resulted in rezonings which have increased densities or rezoned
property from residential to commercial use, these claims are grossly inaccurate.
The City's review of its annexation records for the last decade or more has
revealed that the majority of annexations have not resulted in a change in
residential or commercial zoning designations. The City in 1970 and 1971
selectively annexed and pre-zoned three major land holdings on 17th Street from
residential to commercial to permit development of community shopping facilities
such as the Enderle Center and the French Quarter. At that time, 17th Street was
upgraded from a residential collector to a major arterial highway because of
increased traffic demands in North Tustin. It is generally not good planning
practice to develop low-density single family uses on major highways. These
selective annexations were also largely vacant and pre-zoned at the request of the
property owners.
The City also, in annexing the East Tustin Area in 1979, rezoned property from
agricul rural use to permit development.
Did The City Of Tusttn Renege On A Promise To Limit Development In East Tusttn?
When the East Tustin Specific Plan area was annexed into the City in 1979, the area
was pre-zoned from agriculture to Planned Community Residential. One of the
criteria for that pre-zoning, was that residential densities would not exceed an
average density of four dwelling units per gross acre.
The East Tustin Development authorizes construction of approximately 9,000
residential 'units in an area of approximately 2,000 acres with density basically
not exceeding 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
Is There A Legal Requirement For Notification Of Property Owners Prior To
Annexation?
Those opposed to annexation have claimed in their distributed materials that there
is no legal requirement for the City of Tustin to notify homeowners prior to
annexation. This statement is grossly irresponsible.
The Tustin Sphere of Influence was established by the Local Agency Formation
Commission {LAFCO) in 1973, and has not changed since that date. Under the
annexation laws of the State of California, the City may undertake annexations that
are considered logical for service purposes which are within its spher'e of
influence. It has been the City Council's policy not to initiate and transmit to
Annexations Questions
Page three
LAFCO an annexation proposal unless the Tustin City Counctl has been petitioned by
residents tn an area who wtsh to annex into the Ctty. The City ts not legally
required to nottfy residents prtor to transmittal of an annexation application to
LAFCO. However, tt has been Tusttn City Counctl pollcy to nottfy residents in
these areas and provide them an opportunity to be heard prtor to transmittal of an
application to LAFCO. Prtvate ctttzens In unincorporated areas may also, on thetr
own, petttton LAFCO for annexation If they have a common boundary with the City.
If LAFCO approves the proposed annexations, then they order the City to hold a
protest heartng. According to State Law, the Ctty Clerk must then nottfy all
landowners wlthtn the proposed annexation area.
Why The Hurry in Proceedln~ Wt1~ Annexation?
The City of Tustin is not in a hurry to annex, but rather responding to citizen
requests for annexation areas that have common boundaries with present City limits.
Proposed annexations are not hurry up annexations. The proponents of these
annexations have been worktng to collect signatures for the past five months, and
feel that thetr best alternative ts to annex t nto the Ct ty, tn order to have better
urban servtces for the same tax dollar.
Wtll The Ctty Conslder ~ Assessments For Servtces Or Charge For Any Change Tn The
Level Of Servlce?
There are no such plans, nor is there any need to.
Wlll Tustln Pollce Be Spread Thtn?
The Ctty would expect to htre additional personnel in extending sevtce to
Annexation area 139 and 140. However, there wtll be no lnttial tnteruptton or
reductions tn servtce. Residents can expect to receive the same level of service
upon completion of annexation as they currently recetve.
The City of Tusttn maintains a full service municipal police department which
provides traffic control, patrol, investigative and crime prevention services and
emergency first response within City boundaries. The current emergency response
time to any location within the City is averaging 3.5 minutes as compared to over 6
minutes for County Sheriff. In addition to traditional law enforcement services,
the Department strives for active interaction wi th City residents, schools, and
businesses. This interaction is accomplished through the City' s award-winning
crime prevention/neighborhood watch program and its earthquake preparedness
programs. In conjunction with the schools, Parents Who Care, and the National
Council on Alcoholism, the Department also provides high profile programs for all
ages about the alternatives for substance abuse.
Will Fire Service Cost More Upon Annexation?
Since 1978 Tustin has received fire protection and suppression services through the
Annexation Questions
Page four
Should There Be Concern About Increases Zn The Ctt¥'s Total Budget And Its Capttal
Zmp,revement Budoet Over The Last Two Years? "
No. Increases in the budget reflect income and expenditures related to Assessment
District financing of capital improvements in East Tusitn. These bonds are the
responsibility of and will be paid back by the property owners within East Tustin.-
The only other capital tn~rovement item in the budget that has significantly
increased in the last two years is expenditures necessary to improve the City's
water system.
The City's operating budget for City services only increased 3.9~ for 1985-86 to
1986-87.
wi 11 water Rates Zncrease With Annexation?
Water rates are the same inside or outside of the City and would not change as a
function of annexation.
Are There Any Other Financial Or Indirect ,Benefits Of Annexation?
All revenues received by the City, which include sales tax, property tax, state
subventions and other revenues are spent by the City within the City. County funds
received from unincorporated areas adjacent to the city of Tustin may be spent
throughout Orange County.
There would be no increase in property taxes as a result of annexation. The City
and County have an agreement which provides that upon annexation, a portion of the
County basic tax rate ts assumed by the City. The Tustin City Council has a policy
that the City's present Civic Center and Parks bond tax rates do not apply to
annexed areas. The current assessments for these bonds typically range from $9.30
to $16.50 per year.
The City provides a full range of public works services including street
maintenance, street tree trimming, street sweeping and refuse collection. The
current fee for refuse collection in the City is $5.35 per month as compared to
$6.20 per month in the County.
The Tustin Community Services Department offers a variety of programs which enable
residents of all ages, interest, and capabilities to participate in leisure
activities. While the City discourages no one from participating in its programs,
non-City residents are charged a surcharge of up to 50~ more than residents when
· they register for a class. City residents also have the opportunity to register
before non-City residents so they have the opportunity to get into the more popular
classes before they close.
Annexation Questions
Page fi ve
The City has several facilities available for rent to the public for various
private functions such as wedding receptions, picnics and sports activities.
Tus.tin residents are also offered a lower rate for the use of these facilities and
have a first priority of up to 60 days earlier to request use of a facility.
What Partqctpatlon Oplmrtunttles Are Available To New Residents?
In Tusttn there is local control and concern about community issues.
Council members and Planning Commissioners must live in Tustin.
As a City resident you may run for local office or vote for the persons who you
think will best serve the Community and assure Tustin of continued quality
municipal services and development. You can directly participate in the planning
of Tustin to create a distinctive, pleasant and attractive atmosphere. Meetings of
the Tustin City Council and Planning Commission are held in the evening hours to
allow most persons an opportunity to participate without taking time off from work.
CAS :pef
ATTACHMENT I I
FISCAL IHPACT
ANALYSIS
PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
137, 138, 139
140, :141, 142
CITY OF TIJSTIN
MAY, 1987
!. StlWBqARY
The City of Tustln has recently approved two annexations (No. 137 and 138) and
is currently considering the potential annexation of at least four (4)
additional areas in the North Tustln Area (Annexation No.s 139, 140, 141 and
142) as shown on Figure 1. A fiscal impact analysts has been completed of
these annexations In order to project estimated cosl~s and revenues to be
encountered by the Ct ty. Results of the fiscal Impact analysis have revealed
the fo11 owl ng:
1. Annexations 139 and [40 are the major thresholds that result in
significant additional Ctty costs being incurred due to the cumulative
impacts of previously approved annexations and the actual size and
location of Annexations [39 and [40.
.
During fiscal year 1987-88, annual revenue for proposed annexations is
projected at $5117,980 and annual costs at $746,245 resulting in a net
deficit in fiscal year 1987-88 for the proposed annexations of $228,265
{See Table 1 and 2). One-time costs estimated for vehicle and equipment
outlays required for services to the annexation areas represent $98,875
of this deficit. In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not
completed, the net deficit of Annexations 137 - 140 during fiscal year
[987-88 would be $329,397.
3. During Fiscal Year lg88-8g annual recurring revenue for proposed
annexations is projected at $711,758 and annual recurring costs at
$689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,193. In the event that
Annexations 141 and [42 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations
[37 - 140 during fiscal year 1987-88 would be $118,360.
4. The fiscal impact analysis only considers impacts on operating costs. If
capital improvement expenditures are required in annexation areas, they
would clearly result in substantially larger financial liabilities to the
City.
5. Personnel, vehicle and equipment costs have been prorated, as appropriate
to the City's existing operations or to proposed needs in East Tustin.
In the case of East Tustin the General Fund will carry the East Tustin's
prorated share or balance sooner than would otherwise be the case.
I I. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORlqATIOM
General background information on each annexation area evaluated in this
fiscal impact report is presented in Table 1. Figure 1 graphically
illustrates each annexation area. Approximately 621 acres in size, the entire
annexation study area will result in an increase of 8,013 persons and 2,109
dwelling units. Largely a single family residential area, other uses found in
the study area include 301 multiple family dwellings and a school.
Total assessed valuation for the study area is estimated at $178 million.
-1-
u -u u ~"'U u
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
III. FISCAL INPACT ASSUHPTIONS AND NETIIODOLOG¥
A. FISCAL IMPACT ASSIJNPTIONS
The following major assumptions were used in developing the fiscal impact
analysis:
All revenue estimates are based on the most current population,
economic and land use data available.
The analysts ts presented tn constant 1986-1987 dollars with no
adjustments for Inflation.
° Costs were directly estimated for City departnmnts.
The analysis does not include any capital improvenmnt expenditures
needed in annexation areas.
B. METIIODOLOGY
The following discussion defines estimation methodologies used in
projecting vartous Ct ty revenues and costs resulting from annexation of
the study area.
1. REVENUES
Property Tax
Under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreenmnt, the City receives
approximately 45% of the County share and the share of affected
special districts. Tustin's share of the basic levy under this
Agreenmnt would be approximately 1-3%.
Propert¥11Transfer Tax
The City receives an allocation of $.55 per 1,000 valuation of
property sold, excluding the original equity on property and
existing financing assunmd by a buyer. A .10 turnover rate is
assumed with an .80 consideration rate for equity and financing.
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu
$28.89 per capita
-4-
Cigarette Tax
$1.50 per capita plus a $400 base
Gas Tax
iii i ii
Section 2106 - $4.56 per.capita
Section 2107 - $8.54 per capita
Vehicle Code Fines
$3.76 per capita
Municipal Fines
$.62 per capita
Communi.ty Oevelopment (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 reroofed
per year as deferred maintenance. The average permit for a retool
ts $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
imp roveme nt types i s 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.
Homeowners Property Tax Relief
.0276 multiplier times total property tax
Interest
2.5[ of all projected recurring revenues
COSTS
Police Department
Police Department costs were directly estimated based on personnel
and operational needs for the annexation.
Based on the pas.t experience of the Police Department and the
Sheriff's Department on workloads for the study area, approximately
2,000 calls for service each year are projected. These calls will
require in excess of 110 hours per week of Police Officer time.
-5-
Experience has. also shown that calls for service which are generated
by additional population will result in over 1,500 additional police
reports per year. One (1) record clerk is needed to support field
personnel at the rate of one clerk per 1,600 reports.
Public Works Department
Public Works costs are estimated for four major line divisions that
would be service impacted by proposed annexations - Streets, Trees,
Vehicles. Increases in operational costs for each of these
divisions was estimated based on the relationship of curb miles to
be added by the annexations to total City curb miles (32.17/150.2 --
21.41%). This percentage was then applied against total estimated
line division operational costs projected for each division in
expenditure worksheets for the fiscal year 1987-88 budget.
Personnel and capital vehicle and equipment costs were directly
estimated based on input from the Public Works Department. However,
it was assured that personnel and capital costs for street sweeping
could be prorated for use in the East Tustin development at a rate
of 20% to annexation areas and 80% to East Tustin. While the
proposed annexation areas justify the addition of one full time tree
crew, it was also assumed that 75~ of the costs of the crew could
also be utilized within the City's existing operations.
Communtt¥ Oevelop. ment
The addition of 2,109 dwelling units .will result in additional
requests for service from the Building. Division of the Department of
Community Development for code enforcement and inspection services
largely related to building in~rovements on existing single family
dwellings. Calls for service on newly annexed areas historically
have increased as residents discover response is considerably
different than what they are accustomed to experiencing from the
County. The Department would intend to handle the projected service
needs through the use of contract services in an amount equal to
approximately 405 of the cost of a full time building inspector.
Costs of Special Census
Estimates provided by the State Department of Finance.
Fi re 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. Removing certain unique expendi.tures, an adjusted
total is allocated to each contracting city based on assessed
valuation of improvements and unsecured valuation, number of calls
for service in preceding year, population and area in square miles.
It is assumed that structural fire protection costs per capita will
-6-
be approximately $29.87, $614 costs per million of assessed
valuation and $22,186 per square mile served, along with a 5%
increase in the base rate due to current labor negotiations underplay
at the County. The City's projected increases in fire contract
costs are expected to be the worse case. The City is currently
reviewing its tax share agreement with the County and attempting to
clarify what amount the City should be entitled to receive. Should
the City's interpretation of the agreement be favorable, the City
could see an additional $50,000 credited against fire contract
costs.
Liability Insurance
Assumes an increase of $6 per capita.
ZV. 1987-88' FZSCAI.. T#PACTS
Tables 2 and 3 indicate estimated revenues and costs for the study area during
fiscal year 1987-88. Annual revenues are projected at $517,980 and annual
costs are projected at $746,245, resulting in a first year deficit between
revenue and costs of $228,265. One-time vehtcle and equipment purchase and
capttaltzaton costs represent $98,875 of this deficit. In the event that
Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations 137
- 140 would be $329,397 during Fiscal Year 1987-88.
Major revenue sources during Fiscal Year 1987-88 will be property tax, motor
vehicle tn-lieu payments, cigarette taxes and homeowner's property tax
relief. Although subventions would not normally be received from the State
until the fiscal year following certification of population by the California
Department of Finance, the City may conduct a special census of population.
Once estimates From a special census are certified by the State, subventions
are received within 30 days. As a result of this certification process, the
City is expected to receive 7 months of subventions during fiscal year
1987-88.
V. 1988-1989 FISCAL IMPACTS
Tables 4 and 5 indicate estimated revenue and costs for the study area durtng
Fiscal Year 1988-89. Annual recurring revenues are projected at $711,758 and
annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting tn excess revenues of $22,193.
In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deficit
of Annexations 137 - 140 would be $118,360 durtng Ftscal Year 1988-89.
Major revenue sources will be the property tax, motor vehicle in lieu
payments, and gas tax.
Costs are generally the same as Fiscal Year 1987-88 with two exceptions.
Personnel costs for police officers and public works which were only partialy
budgeted in 1987-88 will increase with a full year of budgeting and there will
be no one-time vehicle or equipment purchases in either Public Works or the
Poll ce Department.
CAS:pef
-7-
TABLE 2
CITY OF TUSTIN
A SUMMARY OF COST/REVENUE PROdECTIONS
FOR ANNEXATIONS (1)
FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
Revenues .
Property tax
Property tax transfer
Motor Vehtcl · In-1 t eu
Cigarette tax
Gas tax
Vehicle code fines
Muntclpa] fines
Community Development (Bldg & Plan check) fees
Homeowner's property tax relief
Interest
Total Reve~es
$212,952
6,452
135,038
8,411
61,170
27,426
4,520
9,500
45,102
7,409
$517,980
CosTs
Polt ce Department
Personnel
Operatl ng
Vehicles/equipment (one ttme)
$123,305
7,200
19,000
Subtotal
~..
Public Works
Personnel
Operating
Vehicles and equipment (one time)
$149,505
$ 37,640
153,225
79,875
Subtotal
$270,74O
Communtty Development
Operating
$ 20,000
Mi scel 1 aneous
Fi re contract
Lt abi 1 i tyi nsurance
Cost of special census (2)
Subtotal
$228,000
48,000
30,000
$306,000
TOTAL COSTS $746,245
Total Costs Which Exceed Revenues
$228,265
(1)
(2)
* Annexations 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142
The City will conduct a special census in order to recieve subventions
earlier than they might be received otherwise this is a one time cost.
CAS :pef (5/18/87)
-8-
AAA~
AA
AAA
AAA
.
I
I
TABLE 4
CITY OF TUSTIN
A SUlqMARY OF COST/REVENUE PROJECTIONS
FOR AIINEXAT[ONS (1)
FISCAL YEAR 1988-89
Recurring .Revenues
Property tax
Property tax transfer
Motor Vehicle In-lieu
Cigarette tax
Gas tax
Vehicle code fines
Municipal fines
Community Development (bldg & plan check) fees
Homeowner' s property tax relief
Interest
Total Revenues
Recurrtn9 Costs,
pol t ce Department
Personnel
Operattng
Subtotal
Publlc Works
Personnel
Operating
Subtotal
Communtty Development
Operating
Fi re contract
Lt abt 1 tty tnsurance
$240,884
7,279
231,495
14,420
104,861
30,094
4,960
9,500
51,141
17,124
$171,555
7,200
50,185
153,225
$203,410
$20,000
$239,400
48,000
Subtotal $287,400
TOTAL COSTS $689,565
Difference bel~een Recurring Revenue/Cosl~,
$ 22,193
(1)
(2)
* Annexations 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142
All figures are in 1987-88 dollars
CAS 5/18/87
-11-
-i I
o
0
o
0
1o
11
12
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATIO)! COMMISSION
OF ORA))GE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
April l, 1987
On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the
following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, a resolution for the proposed annexation designated
Eveningside-Rainbow Annexation No. 139 to the City of Tustin in the County of Orange
was heretofore filed by the City of Tustin and accepted for filing March 6, 1987 by
the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Part 3 of
Title $, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 et seq of the Government Code;
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56828
set April l, 1987 as the'hearing date on this proposal and gave the required notice
of hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56833,
has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including his recomendation
thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy;
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
and
WHEREAS, this Commission called this proposal for public hearing on April
l, 1987, heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the report of
the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Commission to be
relevant to this proposal, including, but not limited to, factors specified in
Government Code Section 56841; and
WHEREAS, the city of Tustin, as lead agency, determined the proposed
annexation to be categorically exempt from the requirements Of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of
Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows:
Section 1. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified,
said proposal is approved.
Section 2. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to
the City of Tustin are specifically described in the legal
description attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof. Said territory is found to be inhabited and
is assigned the following short-form designation:
EVENINGSIDE-RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139 TO THE CITY OF
TUSTIN.
Resolution No. 87-19
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The City of Tustin is designated as the conducting
authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby
directed to initiate annexation proceedings in compliance
with this resolution.
Any election called upon the question of confirming an
order for annexation shall be called, held and conducted
upon such annexation only within the territory ordered to
be annexed.
The City of Tustin, as applicant, shall be liable for and
pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings
in compliance with this resolution.
The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to
mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner as
provided in Section 56853 of the Government Code.
EVELYN HART, PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE, DONALD A. HOLT, JR.,
ROGER R. STANTON and THOMAS F. RILEY
NONE
NONE
SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the 1st day of April, 1987.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of April,
1 987.
RICHARD T. TURNER
Executive Officer of the
Local Agency Formation Commission
of Orange County, California
Resolution No. 87-19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Block 5752, .ules 59 & 69
Block 5753, Module 60
EXHIBIT "A"
EVENING$IDE - RAINBOW
ANNEXATION NO.
TO THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
Those portions of Lots 339 and 340 in Block 43 of
Irvine's Subdivision in the Unincorporated Territory of the
County of Orange, State of California, per map recorded in
Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the
County Recorder of said Orange County, California,
described as follows:
BEGINNING at an angle point in the existing boundary
line of the City of Tustin as established by the
· Ranchwood-Bellwick Annexation No. 138," said angle point
being the most Northerly corner of said Annexation, and
also being the centerline intersection of Browning Avenue
and Irvine Boulevard, and said angle point also being the
most WeSterly corner of said Lot 339 in Block 43 of
Irvine's Subdivision; ,.
Thence along the centerline of said Browning Avenue
(which centerline coincides with the Northwesterly line of
said Lot 339 in Block 43 of Irvine's Subdivision),
N. 40" 00' 05" E., 1320.27 feet to the most Northerly
corner of said Lot 339;
Thence continuing along said centerline of Browning
Avenue (which centerline coincides with the Northwesterly
line of said Lot 340 in Block 43 of Irvine's Subdivision),
N. 39° 59' 50" E., 1320.25 feet to the most Northerly
corner of said Lot 340, said Northerly corner also being
the centerline intersection of Browning Avenue and La
Colina Drive as shown on the map of Tract No. 2942
Page I of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1'0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
EXHIBIT "A"
EVENINGSIDE - RAINBOW
ANNEXATION NO. 139
TO THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
recorded in Book 91, pages 46 and 47 of Miscellaneous Maps,
in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County,
California;
Thence along the centerline of said La Colina Drive,
as shown on said map of Tract No. 2942, the following
courses and distances;
S, 50° 00' 10" E., 43.00 feet to the beginning of
tangent curve, concave Southwesterly and having a radius of
424.24 feet;
Thence Southeasterly 24?.62 feet along said curve
through a central angle of 3~° 26' 35" to a point of
reverse curvature with a curve concave Northeasterly and
having a radius of 424.24 feet (a radial line to said point
of reverse curvature bears S. ?B° 26' 25" W. );
!
Thence Southeasterly 24?.?? feet along s~id curve
through a central angle of 33° 2?'
Thence tangent to said curve, S. 50° Ol' 22" E.,
150.00 ~eet to the intersection of said centerline of La
Colina Drive with the existing boundary line of the City of
Tus~in as established by the -Irvine/Peters Canyon
Annexation No. il?;"
Thence leaving said centerline of La Colina Drive,
and along said existing City boundary line,
S. 39° 58' 40" W., 2500.59 feet to the most Westerly corner
of said "Irvine/Peters Canyon Annexation No. 117" said
point being on the centerline of Irvine Boulevard at the
Page 2 of 3
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
EXNIBIT "A"
EVENINGSIDE - RAINBOW
ANNEXATION NO. 139
TO THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
most Southerly corner of Tract No. 3119 as shown on a map
recorded in Book 102, pages 32 and 32 o~ Miscellaneous
Maps, in the office o~ the County Recorder o£ said Orange
County, California, and said point also being on the
Northeasterly line of. the existing boundary line of the
City of Tustin as established by the .Irvine-Myford
Annexation No. 81 {Amended), Parcel A";
Thence a~ong said existing boundary line of the City
of Tustin per said Annexation and per said
-Ranchwood-Bellwicl( Annexation No. 138", and along said
centerline o~ Irvine Boulevard, N. 49° 57' 35" W., 661.70
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All as more particularly shown on a map, "EXHIBIT B:,
/
attached hereto and by this re~erence made a part hereof.
CONTAINING:
38.846 acres = 0.0607 sq. mi.
Legal description prepared by:
Licen~d Land Surveyor No. 4125
License expiration date 6-30-8B)
This proposal does meet the approval of
the Orange County Surveyor's Office.
C. R~~Oounty Surveyor
Deppty County Surveyor
Page 3 of 3
I
[XI$7'U~G ¢IT'Y
,~.~4~ A¢ICE$ ,, 0.0~07' SO. Ii'fl.
GA[{Y SIEGEL &. COh~PAI',IY'
Land ~ul've¥1n~ Mapplng~ ,',nd
Relaltd Land Developmenl Service,,
r~ r~e ¢lry ~' 7?l&rlM ]
7~ M,41VG~ CO~I~VY~ SV~qV~YO~'.~ O,C,'/r,~.
EVENINGSIDE- RAINBOW
ANNEXATION NO. 139
TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
,,