The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Pub. Hrg. #2 5-26-87 AnnexPUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND HEINBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMI~NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 140 LA COLINA/BROWNING RECOHHENDATION: 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 certified. BACKGROUND: Annexation No. 140 was initi, ated by the Tustin City Council on March 2, 1987 {Resolution No. 87-29) in response to a group of citizens who live in the proposed area and had gathered signatures from over 5DO 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. 87-20). 1. · The City of Tusttn 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. e The City of Tustin, as applicant, shall be liable for and pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings in compliance wi th this resoluti on. PROJECT AMALYSIS: The area is generally bounded by La Col ina on the north, Browning Avenue on the east, existing City boundaries on the south (Burnt Mill Road) and Newport Avenue on the west and includes the Colony Condominiums on the northeasterly corner of Annexatt on 140 May 26, 1987 Page two Newport and La Collna (see attached' map). The area consists of 1,210 single-family residencqs, 307 multi-family units, 1 church and 1 school. According to the 'Orange County Registrar's office, there are approximately 2,500 registered voters in this area with a projected population of approximately 5,764. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan designates the subject territory proposed for annexation in residential use.. The Land Use Element of the City of Tustin's General Plan also designates the territory for residential use. The Zoning for the area is E-4'(Estate Residential), R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and S which denotes the North Tustin Specific Plan. The Tusttn Municipal Code provides, that any territory annexed to the City shall be designated by the zone which the territory was designated under the County Zoning Ordinance, provided that the City has a Zoning District bearing the same designation. Since the City currently has R-1 (Single Family Residential) and E-4 {Estate Residential) zoning designations, no zoning change to these areas would be necessary. However, the City of Tustin does not currently have a zoning designation or .ordinance reflecting the North Tustin Specific Plan. An ordinance amendment would, therefore, be needed to adopt the portion of North Tustin Specific Plan that affects property within annexation area 140. Should the subject annexation be successful, staff would recommend to the Council an interim adoption of the North Yustin Plan until permanent adoption 6ould be compl eted. 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. According to recent City Council policy, this area would 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. .,,Commt~niry Develooment Deoarl,,menr, Ct ty Counct1 Report Hay 26, 1987 Annexation 140 Page three A Fiscal Impact Analysis of recent annexation proposals has been completed and is attached for the Coqncil's information. Also attached are responses to the most commonly asked questions and issues about annexation to the City of Tustin. · 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- 1. 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. 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 25q; of the · assessed value of land within the affected territory. -Mar~ Ann ~JEamEerlain ' Christine Shingleton /~/ Assoct ateUPlanner Di rector of Communtty DL~el opment MAC: pef Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis Questions and Issues LAFCO Resolution No. 87-20 Map Com r-lnunit¥ Develooment ,,, Oeo~ Fl r~-,~t ......... ATTACHMENT I RESPOIISES TO MOST COPglONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ISSUES ABOUT ANNEXATION TO THE CI'i'~ OF TUSTIN Wtll The Current Status Of La Collna Change? The current La Collna right-of-way between Newport and Browntng Avenues is outstde of the jurisdiction of the Ctty of Tustln. Annexation proposals under consideration propose extension of the Ctty's boundary north to the centerltne of La Collna, east of Newport Avenue to the Irvtne Ranch-East Tusttn area. Thts portton of La Collna is currently designated by the County as a secondary artertal htghway on the County Master Plan of Artertal Highways. It ts predomtnately a 2-lane road wtth an 80 foot right-of-way. If La Collna between Newport Avenue and Browntng Avenue was wtthtn the Ctty's ltmits, the City could support the removal of La Coltna from the County Master Plan of Arterial Htghways and its redestgnatton as a residential street. While not anticipated by current annexation proposals, there has been considerable concern about extension of La Coltna east of Browning Avenue to the future Tustin Ranch Road. This portion of La Collna Is not on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. A portton of the road that ts already built is currently striped as a 2-lane road with an 80 foot right-of-way. The East Tusttn Specific Plan and EIR designate La Colina between the western edge of Tustin Ranch and Tusttn 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 35 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 Zoning Changes Planned Or Expected For Annexation Areas? No changes to existtng 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 E-4 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 agricultural use to permit development. Dld The Ctt)f Of Tusttn Renege On A Promise To Ltm!t iDevelopment 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 Le(jal Requirement For Ilettflcatton Of I~pertlf Owners Prior To Annexmtion? 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 sphere 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 Council has been petitioned by residents in an area who wish to annex into the City. The City is not legally required to notify residents prior to transmittal of an annexation application to LAFCO. However, it has been Tustin City Council policy to notify residents in these areas and provide them an opportunity to be heard prior to transmittal of an application to LAFCO. Private citizens In unincorporated areas may also, on their own, petition 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 hearing. According to State Law, the City Clerk must then notify all landowners withtn the proposed annexation area. Why The Hurry Tn Proceeding #1th Annexation? The City of Tusttn 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 working to collect signatures for the past five months, and feel that their best alternative is to annex into the City, in order to have better urban services for the same tax dollar. For Any Change In The There are no such plans, nor is there any need to. Will Tustln Police Be Spread Thin? The City would expect to hire additional personnel in extending sevice to Annexation area 139 and 140. However, there will be no initial interuption or reductions in service. Residents can expect to receive the same level of service upon completion of annexation as they currently receive. The City of Tustin 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 fi re protection and suppression services through the Annexation Questions Page four Should There Be Concern About Increases Zfl The City's Total Budget And Zts Capttal Imprev~nt BUdget mC~er T~ Last T~ 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. Will WaMr RaMs Increase With Annexation? II Water rates are the same inside or outside of the City and would not change as a function of annexation. Are There Any 01~r Financial Or i Indt~t Beneft~ 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 is 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 Questtons 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. Tustin 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 Participation Opportunities Are ,, Avat l abl e To New Residents? In Tusttn there ts 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 part! ci pate without taking time off from work. CAS: pef ATTACHMENT I I F I SCAL llMPACT ANAI. YSIS PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS 137, 138, 139 140, '141, 142 CITY OF TUSTIN HAY, 1987 I. SIJI~J, ARY The City of Tusttn 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 Tustin Area (Annexation No.s 139, 140, 141 and 142) as shown on Figure 1. A fiscal tmpact analysis has been completed of these annexations in order to project estimated costs and revenues to be. encountered by the Ctty. Results of the fiscal impact analysis have revealed the fo11 owl ng: 1. Annexations 139 and 140 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 139 and 140. 2. During fiscal year 1987-88, annual revenue for proposed annexations Is projected at $517,980 and annual costs at $746,245 resulting in a net deftctt in ftscal year 1987-88 for the proposed annexations of $228,265 (See Table ! 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 1987-88 would be $329,397. · 3. During Fiscal Yea~ 1988-89 annual recurring revenue for proposed annexations is projected at $71[,758 and annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,193. In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations 137 - 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. . 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. II. G[IIERAL BACKGROUND INFORJ~IATION 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- l NORTH · ~ e · · III. FISCAL INPACT ASSUMPTIONS AND HETHODOLOGY A. FISCAL IHPACT ASSUMPTIONS The following major assumptions were used in developing the fiscal impact analysts: All revenue estimates are based on the most current population, economic and land use data available. The analysis is presented in constant 1986-1987 dollars with no adjustments for inflation. o Costs were directly estimated for City departments. The analysis does not include any capital improvement expenditures needed in annexation areas. B. METHODOLOGY 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 the share of affected special districts. Tustin's share of the basic levy under this Agreement would be approximately 13%. 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 .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 Section 2106 - $4.56 per capita Section 2107 - $8.54 per caplta Vehtcle 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 reroofed per year as deferred maintenance. The average permit for a retool 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 imp roy,merit 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 Prope, rt¥ Tax Relief .0276 multiplier times total property tax Interest 2.5) of all projected recurring revenues . COSTS Pol t ce Department Police Department costs were directly estimated based on personnel and operational needs for the annexation. Based on the past 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 sho~n 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. Communit¥ .Development 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 serv4ces largely related to building improvements 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 40[ of the cost of a full time building inspector. Costs of Special Census Estimates provided by the State Department of Finance. Fire Increases Since 1978 Tustin has received fi re 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 expenditures, 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 Uue to current labor negotiations underway 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. IV. 1987-88' FISCAL IMPACTS 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 vehicle and equipment purchase and capitalizaton 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 Yemr 1987-88. Major revenue sources during Fiscal Year 1987-88 will be property tax, motor vehicle in-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 during Fiscal Year 1988-89. Annual recurring revenues are 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 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations 137 - 140 would be $118,360 during Fiscal Year 1988-89. Major revenue sources will be the property tax, motor vehicle in lieu payments, and gas tax. Costs are generally the same as Fiscal Year 1987-88 with two exceptions. Personnel costs for police officers and public works which were only partialy budgeted in 1987-88 will increase with a full year of budgeting and there will be no one-time vehicle or equipment purchases in either Public Works or the Poli ce Department. CAS :pef -7- TABLE 2 CII'Y OF TUSTI# A SUMMARY OF COST/REYENUE PROdECTIO#$ FOR ANNEXATIONS (1) FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 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 $212,952 6,452 135,038 8,411 61,170 27,426 4,520 9,500 45,102 7,409 SS ! 7; 980 Costs Polt ce Department Personnel Operating Vehicles/equipment (one time) $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 $270,740 Communtty Oevel opment Operattng $ 20,000 Miscellaneous Fi re contract Li 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- AAAA AAAA AA AAA AAA · e,- ,-.; ! I TABLE 4~ CITY ~ TUTTI# A SURHARY OF COST/REVENUE PROdECTIO#S FOR AM#EXATIONS (1) FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Recurrt n~ 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 To~al Revenues Recurrt ~ Costs Poll ce Department Personnel Operating Subtotal Publ t c Works Personnel Operating Subtotal Community Development Operating Fi re contract Liability Insurance Subtotal TOTAL COSTS Difference between Recurring Revenue/Costs. i $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 $287,400 $689,565.. $ 22,193 (1) (2) * Annexations 137, 138, 13g, 140, 141, 142 All figures are in 1987-88 dollars CAS S/18/87 -11- AA AA A AA AA A AA A AA .h.~ .I.a ,q- ¢.) ~ 0 S,- ! ! 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 27 28 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 1, 1987 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a resolution for the proposed annexation designated La Col ina-Brownin§ Annexation No. 140 to the City of Tustin in the County of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of Tustin and accepted for filing March 4, 1987 by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Fomation Commission pursuant to Part 3 of Title 5, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 et seq of the Government Code; WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56828 set April 1, 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 recommendation, thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and WHEREAS, this Commission called this proposal for public hearing on April 1, 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 r'elevant 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 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: LA COLINA-BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Resolution No. 87- 20 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Secti on 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, DONALD A. HOLT, JR., ROGER R. STANTON, THOMAS F. RILEY and PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE 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, 1987. RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California S~etary Resolution No. 87- 20 Block 5852, Modules 07, 08, 17, 18 Block 5753, Modules 60, 70, 7~, 80, 81 Block 5752, Modules 48, 58, 59, 68, 69, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98 & 99. EXHIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ali of Lot 4 in Block 12; ail of Lots 332, 334, 335, 8 336, 337 and 338 in BlOck 13; those portions of Lot. 3 &.Lot 13 in 9 Block 12 and Lots 331, 333 and 341 in Block 13; all of 10 Irvine's Subdivision, in the Unincorporated Territory of 11 Orange County, California, as shown on a map thereof 12 recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the 13 office of the County Recorder of said County, all of said 14 Lots and portions of Lots being described together as a 15 whole as follows: 16 BEGINNING at a point on the existing boundary line of 17 the City of Tustin, said point being the most Northerly 18 corner of the -Eveningside-Rainbow Annexation No. 139" to 19 said City and said point also being the centerline inter- 20 section of Browning Avenue and La Colina Drive; ~ · 21 Thence along said existing boundary line of the City 22 of Tustin as established by the -Eveningside-Rainbow 23 Annexation No. 139," by the .Ranchwood-Bellwick Annexation 24 No. 138," and by the -Irvine-Myford Annexation No.'81 25 (Amended), Parcel A," in a general Southwesterly and 26 Northwesterly direction to the Southeasterly terminus of 27 that certain course described as "S. 49" 59' 47" E., 620.28 28 feet" in the .Bryan-Red Hill Annexation" to the City of 29 Tustin; 30 Thence along said course in the existing boundary 31 line of the City of Tustin as established by the "Bryan-Red 32 Hill Annexation," N. 49° 59' 47" W., 385.13 feet, more or Page 1 of 4 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 29 3O 31 32 £XHTB.[T LA COL[NA - BEOWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE: CITY OF TUSTIN less, to the Southeasterly terminus of that certain course described as "N. 49° 59' 4?" W., 233.21 feet" in the "Bryan Avenue Annexation" to said City; Thence continuing along the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin as established by the "Bryan Avenue Annexation," by the "Diamond Head-Garland Annexation No. [37~" by the "Red Hill-Melvin Annexation No. lO0," and by the "Red Hill-Irvine Annexation No. ?0," in a general Northerly~ Northeasterly, Northwesterly and Northeasterly direction to the centerline intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, said point also being the most Southerly corner of the "Red Hil.l-Irvine North Annexation No. 73" to said City of Tustin; Thence continuing along the existing boundary line,.of the City o~ Tustin as established by the "Red Hi[1-Irvine North Annexation No. ?3," by the "Red Hill-Irvine Annexation No. 70," and by the -Irvine-Elizabeth Way Annexation No. 130," in a general Northeasterly. and North- westerly direction to the most Easterly corner of the "Newport-Wass Annexation No. ~32" to said City; Thence continuing along the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin as established by the -Newport-Wass Annexation No. 132~" N. 49° 57' 40" W., 825.00 feet, more or less~ to the most Northerly corner of said -Newport-Wass Annexation No. 132," said point being on the centerline of Newport Avenue, and being also on the Southeasterly Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 EXHIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN boundary lane of the "Warren-Newport Annexation No. 115' to said City~ Thence continuing along the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin as established by the "Warren-Newport Annexation No. 115" and along said centerline of Newport Avenue, N. 40° 00' 00" E., 17.36 feet to the most easterly corner of said Annexation; Thence leaving the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin and continuing along the centerline of Newport Avenue, N. 40Q 00' 00" E., 1961.59 feet to the centerline intersection of Newport Avenue and La Colina Drive; Thence continuing along the centerline of Newport Avenue, N. 39° 56" 56" E., 660.00 feet to the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northeasterly boundary line of Tract / No. 8108, .as shown on a map recorded in Book 365, pages 21 through 26 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the · County Recorder of said Orange County, California; Thence leaving said centerline of Newport. Avenue and along said Northwesterly prolongation and along said Northeasterly boundary line, S. 50~ 00' 37" E., 659.86 feet to the most Easterly corner of said Tract No. 8108~ Thence along the Southeasterly boundary line of said Tract No. BlOBj and along its Southwesterly prolongation, S. 39° 54' 44" W., 660.00 feet to the centerline of La Colina Drive; Thence along said centerline of La Colina Drive, Page 3 of 4 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 29 30 31 32 EXtlIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN S. 50° 00' 3?" £., i98[.64 to the centerline intersection oE La Colina Drive and Red Hill Avenue; Thence continuing along the centerline of La Colina Drive, S. 50° 00' 44" E., 2642.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. All as more particularly shown on a map, "EXHIBIT B, ' attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. CONTAINING~ 369.9?3 acres = 0.6093 sq. mi. Legal description prepared by: ~AR¥ R. S~dEL License expiration date 6-30-68) This proposal does meet the approval of the~Orange County Surveyor's Office. C.~.~elson, County Surveyor Deputy County Surveyor Page 4 of 4 £XI'IISIT'. '8" I FIN& 33'1 I I I ,4 VEN /..4 ND MEA LA COLINA- BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. RECEIVED MAY 2 6 1987 ,,?ffl. ce-Tustin City Clerk REGISTRATION CHALLENGES TO ANNEXATION 139 (ATTACHMENT TO PROTEST PETITIONS) THE FOLLOWING REGISTERED VOTERS NO LONGER LIVE OR OWN PROPERTY IN THE EVENINGSIDE RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139 TERRITORY. LA COLINA DR., SANTA ANA 92705 2012 TUCKER, MR. FRANKLIN W. JR. MOVED 2012 TUCKER, MRS KATHLEEN M. MOVED 2052 TOMKINSON, MRS. ELIZABETH*A. MOVED 2052 TOMKINSON, MR. MR. ROBERT H. JR. MOVED 2112 KIMES, MISS CARRIE A. MOVED 2112 KIMES, MR. DONALD M. MOVED RANCHWOOD RD, SANTA ANA 92705 12772 CARVOUR, MR. GEORGE W. SR. 12791 KELEHER, MR. ROBERT E. 12861 HICKMAN, MR. BRIAN D. 12861 HICKMAN, MISS SUSSAN L. 12861 HICKMAN, MR. TIM N. 12881 KRIDNER, MISS DEBRA J. 12881 KRIDNER, MRS MARY L. 12881 IGRIDNER, MISS MARY B. 12881 KRIDNER, MISS REBECCA A. 12882 PRYOR, MISS CATHERINE A. 12882 PRYOR, FIR. DANIEL 12901 SCHRODE, MR. ROBERT C. 12902 GREGORY, JANICE 12922 KLEPER, MR. JAMES N. 12942 HARPER, LINDA K. EVENINGSIDE DR., SANTA ANA 92705 12981 LUCHAY, MR. FRED J. 12981 LUCHAY, LISBETH M. DIED MOVED MOVED MOVED MOVED MOVED DIED MOVED MOVED MOVED MOVED MOVED MOVED DIED MOVED MOVED MOVED RECEIVED MAY 2 6 1987 l~tfl~:T~,?in CIt~ Clerk City Clerk City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 May 26,1987 The attached Protest Petitions and Protest Letters are submitted by the Residents, Registered Voters, and Property Owners of the territory known as the Eveningside Rainbow Annexation No. 139. These Petitions and Letters are for the sole purpose of protesting the proposed annexation of that territory to the City of Tustin. Each written protest indicates the name and address of the owner of land affected and the street address identifying the location of the land, or the name and address of the registered voter as it appears on the affidavit of the registration. Each written protest shows the date that each signature was affixed to the protest. These 101 written protest represent approximately 60% or more of the qualified residents of this territory. We have followed the specific instructions given to us by LAFCO at their April 1 public hearing on this proposal, and by the City of Tustin in their written notice of public hearing dated April 30, 1987. We understand, since more then 50% of the qualified residents have protested, that all actions to annex this territory by the City of Tustin will cease. Respectfully, William E. German, Resident Joyce C. Wing, Resident Sheila M. Pryor, Resident Jerry L. Rickman, Resident cc: Orange County Supervisor Vasquez LAFCO