Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 ANNEXATION 144 02-29-88PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 2-29-'88 ~T[: February 29, 1988 'Inter-Corn F~OM: $ USJ £CT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TEE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROPOSED FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open public-hearing. 2. Summarize the dete{mination made by LAFCO's resolution. 3. Receive and file written protests. 4. Accept public testimony. 5. Ask if anyone else wishes to submit a written protest or to withdraw a protest previously filed. 6. Close the public hearing. (or continue the public hearing until the next meeting to preserve the possibility of additional protests, or withdrawal of protests, if the Council so desires). 7. Direct staff to certify the value of written ~rotests and report back at the City Council's March 7, 1988 meeting or as soon thereafter as possible. 8. Direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution based on percentage of protests certified. BACK GROUND Annexation No. 144 was initiated by the Tustin City Council on October 7, 1987 (Resolution No. 87-105) in response to residents living in the area. On December 2, 1987 the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation subject to the following terms and conditions (LAFCO Resolution No. 87-77). 1. 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. 2. 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. On December 28, 1987 an application for reconsideration of LAFCO Resolution No. 87-77 was denied? City Council Report February 29, 1988 Annexation No. 144 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed Fairhaven Avenue Annexation No. 144 consists of territory boUnded by Fairhaven Avenue on the north, Prospect Avenue on the east, Santa Clara and present City boundaries on the south and present City boundaries on the west (which is 100 feet easterly of Marshall Lane). The area is developed with 451 single family residences. According to the Orange County Registrar's Office, there.are 1209 registered voters with an estimated population of 1713. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan designates the subject territory proposed for annexation for 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 R-l; E-4-100;and E-4-80. The Tustin 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 E-4 and R-1 zoning designations, no zoning change to this area would be necessary. 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 1.ocal 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 the territory would be administratively removed from CSA 5. According to recent City Council policy, this area would be excluded from the City's existing bonded indebtedness for parks and civic center. This particular annexation area is within the City of Tustin's sph'ere 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. Page 2 City Council Report February 29, 1988 Annexation No. 144 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 protest hearing is closed 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 act ions: 1. Terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters residing in the area have filed and not withdrawn written protests. 2. Order the change of .organization subject to confirmation by the .registered voters residing within the affected territory if at least 25% but less than 50% of the registered voters residing in the affected territory have filed and not withdrawn written protests, 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 have filed and not withdrawn written protests. 3. Order the change ~f organization without an election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25% of the registered voters or less than 25% of the number of owners of land owing less than 25% of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. ~a~y A~ Chamberlain Christine Shingier~n Associa~te Planner Director of Community Development MAC :JGR: se :R: 2/26/88 (421) Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis LAFCO Resolution No. 87-77 Map Page 3 F]:SCAL ZHPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS 144, 145, 146 cTrY OF TUSTTN OCTOBER, 1987 SUI~PlARy. The City of Tustin is currently considering 'the potential annexation of three (3) additional areas, in the North Tustin Area (Annexation No.s [44, [45, and [46) as shown on Figure [.. A fiscal impact analysis has been completed of these annexations in order to project estimated costs and revenues to be encountered by the City. Results of the fiscal impact analysis have revealed the fo 11Dwi ng: Annexation [44 is the major threshold that results in significant additional City costs being incurred due to the cumulative impacts of previously approved annexations and the actual size and location of Annexation 144. 2. During fiscal year [988-89, annual revenue for proposed Annexation 144 is projected at $152,127 and annual costs at $199,178 resulting in a net deficit in fiscal year [988-89 for the proposed annexations of $47,051 (See Table 2). Revenues over costs realized for fiscal year 1988-89 for Annexation [45 and [46 will result in excess revenues of $959 and $2,918 respectively. . The ftscal impact analysis only has identified actual financial impacts on personnel and operating costs. It is known at this time that capital improvement-expenditures are required in annexation areas which could clearly result in substantially larger financial liabilities to the City. 4. 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. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFOR)IATIOll General background 'information on each annexation area evaluated in this fiscal impact report is presented in Table [. Figure [ graphically illustrates each annexation area. -1- ~.OIl& v t 4J?& N 1": 800' TABLE I NORltl TUSTIN ANNEXATION AREAS SUMMARY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORt(ATION 144 145 146 Total acres Total square miles Current population estimate Estimated persons per household Registered voters (prel.) Existing land uses Single Family Office Pre-school Curb miles 1987 - 88 Current Assessed Value 1988 - 89 Projected Assessed Value 160.28 16.49 8.9 .250 .026 .014 1713 201 68 3.8 3.8 1209 123 451 53 3.8 43 18 1 1. 10.3 1.1 0.4 °. $3,664,637 $3,811,222 ~37,206,662 $37,950,795 $2,335,009 $2,381,709 III. FISCAL IHPACT ASSUHPTIONS AND HETHODOLOG¥ A. FISCAL INPACT ASSUHPTIONS The following major assumptions were used in developing the ftscal impact analys~s: All revenue estimates are based on the most current population, economic and land use data available. The analysis Is presented In constant [986-1987 dollars with no adjustments for inflation. ° Costs were dtrectly estimated for City departments. The analysts .does not tnclude actual capttal improvement expenditures needed in annexation areas although it is expected that said improvements could represent significant future costs. The analysts looks at the first possible full fiscal year after whtch the annexations would be completed for determining costs and revenues. B. ~'THODOLOG¥ The following discussion deftnes estimation methodologies used tn projecting vartous City revenues and costs resulting from annexation of' the study area. REVENUES Property Tax Under the ~4aster Property Tax Transfer Agreement, the City receives approximately 45~ of the County share and the share of affected spectal districts. Tusttn's share of the basic levy under this Agreement would be approxl, mately 13~. Property Transfer Tax The City receives an allocation of $.55 per [,000 valuation of property sold, excluding the ortglnal equity on property and exlsttng financing assumed by a buyer. A .10 turnover rate is assumed wtth an .80 consideration rate for equtty and financing. Motor Vehicle In-Lteu $28.89 per captta -2- Ci~jarette Tax $1.50 per capita plus a $400 base Gas Tax Section 2106 - $4.56 per capita Section 2107 - $8.54 per capita Vehicle Code Fines $3.76 per capita Municipal Ftnes $.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 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 75S 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. Homeowners Property Tax Relief .0276 multiplier times total property tax Interest 2.5% of all projected recurring revenues . COSTS Pol I ce Departmen~ Police Department costs were directly estimated based on personnel and operational needs for Annexation Area 144. It has been determined that Annexation Areas 145 and 146 will' have no impact on the Police Department. -3- TABLE 2 CI"TY OF TUSTIN A DETAIL OF COST/REVENUE PROdECTIOBS FOR ANNEXATIONS FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Recurrt nej Revenues Property tax Property tax transfer Motor Vehtcle In-lteu Ct garette tax Gas tax Vehicle code fines Municipal fines Community Development (Bldg & pl an check) fees Homeowner' s property tax relief Interest 144 145 49,277 4,955 1,668 168 49,489 5,807 2,970 702 22,440 2,634 6,441 756 5,670 230 10,462 1,052 3,710 408 146 Totals 3,096 57,328 105 1,941 1,965 57,261 502 4,174 890 25,964 226 7,423 42 5,942 657 12,171 187 4,305 To~al Revenues 152,127 16,712 ' 7,670 176,5019 Recun'ln~j Costs Police *sonnel :rating 40,000 2,000 Public Works (1) Personnel Operating Subtota 1 42,000 13,695 53,650 5,755 2,135 61,540 Subtotal 67,345 5,755 2,135 61,540 .Fire contract (2) Liability insurance 79,555 8,792 375 88,722 10,278 1 ;206 408 11,892 Subtotal 89,833 9,998 783 100,614 TOTAL O}STS 199,178 15,753 2,918 217,849 Difference between Recur~tnej iii Revenue/Costs (1) (-47,051) 959 4,752 (-41,340) All figures are shown in 1987-88 dollars. {1) Please note that actual financial costs can be determined at this time only for operations and personnel. It is known that significant capital improvements are 'equired that could result in larger financial liabilities. 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 (11.8/150.2 = .079%). This percentage was then applied against total estimated line division operational costs projected for each division in 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 15% to annexation area 144. It was assumed that street sweeping to annexations 145 and 146 could be ~bsorbed into the current operation. While it is difficult to determine tha actual costs of capital improvement that will be required in Annexation Area 144, the Public Works Department has identified needed capital improvement areas for street maintenance that will eventually be required at significant cost including: A.C. overlays on streets - About 75% of the streets will require an A.C. overlay within the next 3-5 years; routine slurry seals will be needed on the remaining streets. ° Sidewalks - About 35~ of the streets do not have sidewalks. Stret Lights - About 30~ of the streets do not have street .lighting. · Major street widening improvements are deficient on' West side of Yorba Street between Santa Clara and Fairhaven Avenues East side of Yorba Street between Rainier and Fairhaven Avenues West side of Prospect Avenue between Santa Clara and Fairhaven Avenues All roads within Area 145 have been recently overlayed and should pose no major problems for the next ten years. Laurinda Way in Area 146 will require an A.C. overlay within the next three years. Street lights are non-existent in either Area 145 or 146. Annexation Area No. 145 also does not contain any sidewalks. -4- Fi re Increases $tnce [978 Tusttn has recetved fire protection and suppression servtces through the Orange County Ftre 01strict. Ftre protection costs to contractt'ng clttes are based on an allocation of the Ftre Dtstr~ct 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 ts assumed that structural fire protection costs p~r Capita will be approximately $29.87, $614 costs per million of assessed valuation and $22,I86 per square mile served, along with a 5[ increase in the base rate due to current labor negotiations underway at the County. The City's projected increases tn fire contract costs are expected to be the worse .case. Liability Insurance Assumes an increase of $6 per capita. 1988-89 FISCAL ~PACTS Table 2 Indicates estimated revenue and costs for annexation areas during Ftsca~ ~ear 1988-89. ...,nual revenues for Annexation Area 144 are projected at $152,127 and annual costs are projected at $199,178, resulting in a deficit between revenues in 1988-89 of $47,051. As noted earlier, however, it is known that significant capital improvements are required that could, depending on scheduling, result in larger financial liabilities on the City over time. Annual revenues for Annexation Areas 145 and 146 are projected at $16,712 and $7,670 respectively and annual costs at $15,753 and $2,918 resulting in excess of revenues for Annexation Area 145 of $959 for Annexation 146 $2,918. CAS: pef -5- I0 I1 t2 16 i9. ZI 22 23 24 28 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 2, 1987 On motion of Commissioner Holt, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a resolution for the proposed annexation designated Fairhaven Avenue Annexation No. 144 to the City of Tustin in the County of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of Tustin and accepted for filing October 16, 1987, by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation 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 December 2, 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 recon~nendation. chereon, 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 December 2, 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, thb 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 Co~ission 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: FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Resolution No. 87- 77 IO ii 17 18 19 20 2I 22 24 25 26 27 28 AYES- Section 3. - NOES: COMMISSIONERS ,BSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE 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 · re$olution. Section 4. 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. Section 5. The City of. Tustin, as applicant, shall be liable for and pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings in compliance with this resolution. Section 6. 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. COMMISSIONERS DONALD A. HOLT,' JR., EVELYN HART, ROGER R. STANTON, GADDI H. VASQUEZ AND PHILL!P R. SCHWARTZE NONE NONE 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 r~gularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of December, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of December, 1 987. RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California ~ecretary Resolution No. 87-77 . 1 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ~0 31 BLOCK 5852 MODULES: 50,' 52,53,60,61,62,63,70,71,72,73 EXlilBIT "A" FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 TO TIIE CITY OF TUSTIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TILT PORTION OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTI{, RANGE 9 WEST, IN · TIlE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICU- LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN TIlE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, SAID COUNTY, SAID STATE, AS ESTABLISIIED BY TIlE "MA~SIIALL ANNEX- ATION'' TO SAID CITY, SAID POINT BEING Tile NORTI{E~ST CORNER OF SAID ANNEXA- TION AND ALSO TIlE NORTHI~EST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 3697, RECORDED IN BOOK 129, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, ,. SAID POINT ALSO BRINe A POINT IN TI{E EXISTING CI~ BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, SAID COUNTY, SAID STATE, AS ESTABLISIIED BY CITY OF ORANGE "ANNEXATION NO. 227"; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE AND'FOLLOWING ALONG TIlE EXIST- ING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF ORANGE AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID "ANNEXATION NO. 227" AND SAID TRACT NO. 3697, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED COURSES: NORTII ' 87° 47' 48" EAST 430.21 FEET TO THE NORTI{EAST CORNER SAID TRACT NO. 3697; TIIENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY LINE TRACT NO. 3697 AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY LINE NORTI{ O0° 23' 15" WEST 22.46 FEET; TI{ENCE SOUTH 89° 52' 39" EAST 320.20 FEET; TIIENCE NORTll 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 52' 39" EAST 190 FEET; THENCE NORTII O0° 07' 21" WEST 20.00 FEET, TO THE CENTERLINE OF FAIRHAVEN AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON Tile NORTH LINE'OF SAID FRACTIONAL SECTION; TIIENCE LEAVINC SAID CITY OF O~%NGE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89° 52' 39" EAST ALONG TIIE CENTERLINE OF FAIRI~VEN AVENUE AND SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 2207.90 FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF FAIR- I~VEN AVENUE AND PROSPECT AVENUE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON TIlE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTIONAL SECTION; TIIENCE DEPARTING FROM TIlE CENTERLINE OF FAIRIIAVEN AVENUE AND SAID NORTH LINE SOUTtl 03° 07' 49" WEST ALONG TIlE ~ENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND PAGE 1 OF 2 BLOCK 5852 MODULES: 50 51,52,53,60,61,62,63,70,71,72,73 EXHIBIT "A" FAIRl~VEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALONG SAID EAST LINE A.DISTANCE OF 2225.18 FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF TIlE CENTERLINES OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SANTA CLARA AVENUE; TIIENCE CONTINUING ALONG TIIE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SAID EAST §' LINE SOUTH 03° 07' 49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.04 FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF 6 TIIE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND TIlE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF TIlE MOST ? NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE "REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION"; 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THENCE DEPARTING FROM TIIE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 89° 45' 49" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION A DISTANCE OF 25 FEET, TO AN ANCLE POINT IN TIIE EXISTING CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY AS ESTAB- LISHED BY SAID "REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION"~ SAID POINT BEINC TIIE MOST NORTIIEAST CORNER OF SAID "REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION"; 15 16 17 18 19 '20 21 TIIENCE ALONG THE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AS ESTAB- LISIIED BY "REVISED SANTA CLARA ~INEXATION", YORBA STREET ANNEXATION NO. 2", "MARSI~LL ANNEXATION", "FAIRMONT WAY ANNEXATION", "SANTA CLARA AVENUE AND FAIRMONT WAY ANNEXATION", AND SAID "MARSIIALL ANNEXATION", TI[ROUGI[ ITS VAR- IOUS COURSES IN A GENERAL WESTERLY, SOUTIIERLY, WESTERLY, NORTIIERLY, WESTER- LY, AND NORTIIERLY DIRECTION TO TIlE POINT OF llECINNING. 22 23 ATTACIIED AND MADE 'A PART OF, IS A MAP DESIGNATED AS EXIIlBIT B. CONTAINING 160.30 ACRES. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 THIS PROPOSAL DOES MEET TIlE APPROVAL OF TIlE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE. C.R. ~ELSON, CO~T~SURVEYOR 165-01-144 FEBRUARY 1, 1988 PAGE 2 OF 2 PREPARED BY: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 (714) 730-O401 AI~'~ M. BEAL, L.S. 4955 RECISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-89 ~ *' ~ No. 4955 k ~xpires 12/31/8y BLOCK S8S! £XI~IBIT Lid IIAITIIIIIL 4., TI, l, ll1 FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 ,, , TO THE ~:ITY OF TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA i PI[PAO[O BY: ,f:. :' :.~'il "', X.W. LAWL[{ AWl) ASSOC., tHC /' * , I,.,]~,',. :,Ill,i lli-liOl ,~:"' ...,, ,z,.... ,,, ,~._~ SCAL[:I'I )OO' Illlllllllll Illllll; Il'Il*Il EXISTIX~ CITY ANNEXATION BOUNDARY ,, .