The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 3 ANNEXATION 146 02-29-88PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 2-29-88 ~TE: February 29, 1988 · Inter.- Com TO: $ UBJ ECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROPOSED SEVENTEENTH STREET/LAURINDA WAY ANNEXATION NO. 146 TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN : RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open public hearing. 2. Summarize the determination 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 protests 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. BACKGROUND Annexation No. 146 was initiated by the Tustin City Council on October 7, 1987 (Resolution No. 87-107) in response to residents living in the area. On December 2, 1987 the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the "island" annexation subject to the following terms and conditions (LAFCO Resolution No. 87-79). 1. LAFCO finds that the territory contained in this proposal: a. Does not exceed 75 acres in area and such territory constitutes the entire unincorporated island substantially surrounded by the City limits of Tustin. City Council Report February 29, 1988 Annexation No. 146 b. The site is fully developed with 18 single-family residences, a professional office building, and a pre-school in accordance with the existing Orange County E-4 (Small Estates) and PA (Professional Office) zoning. c. Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064 of the Government Code. d. Will benefit from annexation to the City of Tustin. 2. 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. Said City Council of the City of Tustin shall by resolution either: a. Terminate proceedings if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by 50% or more of the registered voters within the affected territory; or b. Order the territory annexed without an election. 3.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. PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed Seventeenth Street/Laurinda Way Annexation No. 146 consists of territory bounded by Seventeenth Street on the south, present City boundary,on the west (which is 100 feet westerly of Laurinda Way), present City boundary on the north (which is 1,000 feet northerly of Seventeenth Street), present City boundary on the east (which is 100 feet easterly of Laurinda Way), and extends to Prospect Avenue 470 feet northerly of Seventeenth Street for 200 feet and returns to a point 100 feet easterly of Laurinda Way. The area is developed with 18 single-family residences. According to the Orange County Registrar's Office there are 43 registered voters with an estimated population of 68. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan designates the proposed annexation territory for residential and professional office use. The Land Use Element of the C.ity of Tustin's General Plan also designates the territory for residential and professional office use. The zoning for the area is E-4-100; and PA (Professional Office). 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 Page 2. City Council Report February 29, 1988 Annexation No. 146 the same designation. Since the City currently has an E-4 and PA (Professional Office) 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 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 the territory would be administratively removed from CSA 5. According to recent City Council policy, this area would be excluded from the City's exist'ing 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 Agenc~ 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. 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 actions: 1. Terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters residing in the area file and do not withdraw written protests. Page 3 · City Council Report February 29, 1988 Annexation No. 146 2. Order the change of organization without an election if written protests have not been filed and not withdrawn by 50% or more of the registered voters residing within the affected territory. ~ry ~n 'Cham6erlain ~hristine Shi Assocfate Planner Director of Community Development MAC :JGR: se :R: 2/26/88 (423) Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis LAFCO Resolution No. 87-77 Map Page 4 FI:SCAL ]:I, IPACT PROPOSED ANNETd~TZONS 144, 146, 146 CITY OF TUSTIN OCTOBER, 1987 ' SI. IflARY The City of Tusttn Is currently cons!derlng 'the potential annexation of three (3) additional areas tn the-~lorth Tusttn Area (Annexatton.~lo.s 144, 145, and 146) as sho~n on Figure 1. A ftscal impact analysts has been completed of these annexations in order to project estimated costs and revenues to be encountered by the City. Results of the ftscal tmpact analysts have revealed the following: 1. Annexation 144 is ~he. major ~hreshold that results in Significant additional ¢tty costs betng incurred due to the cumulative tmpacts of previously approved annexations and the actual size and location ot= Annexation 144. .~ 2. Ourtng ftscal year 1988-89, annual revenue for proposed Annexation 144 ts projected at $152,127 and annual costs at $199,178 resultJng tn a net deftctt tn ftscal year 1988-89 for the proposed annexations of $47,051 (See Table 2). Revenues over costs realtzed for fiscal year 1988-89 for Annexation 145 and 146 wtll result tn excess revenues of $959 and $2,918 respect1 ye ly. . The ftscal lmpact analysts only has Identified actual financial tmpacts on personnel and operating costs. It is known at thts time that capt~al improvement expenditures are requtred tn annexation areas whtch could clearly result tn substantially larger financial llabtltties' to the Ct=y. . Personnel, vehtcle and equipment costs have been prorated, as appropriate to the Ct~y's existing operations or to proposed needs In East Tustin. In the case of East Tusttn the General Fund wtll car~y the East Tustln's prorated share or balance sooner ~han would othe~ise be the case. !T. (~.~L 'BACICGROUND !NFORFIATION 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. N 1": 800' TABLE ! NORTH TUSTIN ANNEXATION AREAS ,. S~RY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND !NFORHAT];ON 144 145 146 Total acres Total square miles Current popu 1 a ti on estt ma te Esti mated persons per household Registered voters (pre1.) Existing land uses Single Family ')ffice Pre-school Curb miles 1987 - 88 'Current Assessed Value 1988- 8g Projected Assessed Value 160.28 .250 1713 3.8 1209 451 10.3 $37,206,662 $37,950,795 16.49 .026 201 3.8 123 53 1.1 $3,664,637 $3,811,222 8.9 .014 68 · 3.8 43 18 1 1 0.4 $2,335,009 $2,381,709 III. FISCAL. mPACT AS$1jHPTIoNS AND HETHODOLOGy A. FZ$C.M. ]:HPACT ASSUHPTIONS The following ma~or assumpt.tons were used tn developing t.he fiscal Impact. analysts: All revenue esttmat.es are based on the most. current, population, economtc and land use data available. The analysts Is presented In constant. :L986-:~987 dollars wtt.h no adjustments for tnflat.ton. ' Costs were dlrect.ly es=tma~ed for City depart~nent.s. The analysts does no~ tnclude act.ual capital improvement. expenditures needed in annexat.ton areas although it. ts expect.ed satd tmprovement.s could represent, st gnt fl cant. rut.ute cost.s. The analysts looks at. the ftrst, posstble full ftscal year after whtch t.he annexat.tons would be core, let, ed for det.ermtnlng, cost.s and revenues.. B. HETHO~OGY The following discussion deftnes est.tmat.ton met.hodologtes used tn projecting vartous Cl~ reYenues and cost.s result.trig t¥om-annexal:ton ot= the study area. 1. REII'E~UES Proper"l:7 Tax Under the r4ast.er Proper'cy Tax Transfer Agreement., the Ct'cy receives approxtmat.ely 45~; of t. he Count.y share and the share of affect.ed spectal dtstrtct.s. Tus'ctn's share of the basic levy under this Agreement. would be approxtmat.ely Proper~7 Transfer Tax, The C1~ recetves an allocat.ton of $.55 per ].,000 valuat.ton of properl.'y sold, excluding the ortgtnal equ11:y on properl:y and exist.lng financing assumed by a buyer. A .[0 t.urnover r'at.e is assumed wtt.h an .80 constderat.ton rat.e for equi'cy and financing. ~lo~or Vehtcle ]:n-Lieu i $28.8g per captt.a -2- C~cjar.et~e Tax $1.50 per captta plus a $400 base Gas Tax Sect'ion 2106 - $4.56 per' capita Sect*Ion 2107 - $8.54 per cap*il:a Vehtcle Code Ftnes. iiiii $3.7 6 per' cap 1'ca Iqunt ctpal Ftnes $.62 per captta Co.__,~___m*i~7 Development (Bu*ild*incj and P~an Check) fees Revenue esl::tmates assume t, ha'¢ the major.try of stngle faml ly homes ar.e at least 20 year's o~d and .05 of these unt'cs wt~ be rer'oofed per' year as deferr'ed matnl',enance. The aver'age per'mit, for a ts $60. :]:t ts also assumed that .01 of total stngle faintly untts wtll see tntertor or extertor r'emodeltng per' year at a rat,*io of 75~ major remodels and 25?, nflnor' r'emodels. Yalua'ctons of each of ~hese tmprovement types ts an aver'age of $25,000 and $10,000 respec'cfully. These valuations wer'e ~hen applted aga.tnst ~he City's cur'r'ent plan check and butldtng per'mtt fee schedules. Homeowners Proper~7 Tax Re11 ef .0276 multiplier' ~.tmes ~otal pr'oper'ty tax 2.5?, of all projected recurr'*I'ng revenues . COSTS Pol'l-ce Department Poltce Oepar'men?, costs, wer'e dtr'ectly estimated based on per'sonnel and oper'al',tona~ needs for' Annexation Ar'ea :L44. [~ has been determined t, hat Annexa'c*Ion Ar'eas 145 and 146 wt]1 have no tmpact on ~,he Po]tce Depar'l=nent. -3- TABLE 2 CI'TY OF TUSTIN A DETAIL OF CO~i'/REYENUE PROJECTIONS FOR ANNEXATZONS FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Revenues Property tax Prope~y tax transfer Mo.~ Vehicle In-lteu ctgm, ette tax Gas ~ Ve~Te code fines Mun4)~al fines C~n4~ Oevelopment (Bldg ~ plan check).fees Ho~e~' s p~ope~y ~x ~el~ef 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 Tol:al Revenues R~n9 Costs P~TTc~, -sonnel ~rattng publ~i!c,, ~rks (1) P'~sonne 1 ~e~attng Subtotal Subtotal 40,000 2,000 42,000 13,696 53,660 6,755 ~ 5,755 FI~ contract (2) L~-~iil~t ty tnsurance 79,655 8,792 10,278 1,206 Subtotal -- 89,833 9,998 TOTAL COSTS 199,178 16,753 D~ce be'l:tdeen Recm-rdng I~venue/Cos~, {1) (-47,051) 969 '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 7,670 "176,509' 2,135 61,540 2,135 61,540 375 88,722 408 11,892 783 100,614 2,918 217,849 4,752 (-41,340) Aqil! Pt~gures are shown in 1987-88 dollars. 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 · .quired that could result in larger financial liabilities. Publtc Works Depar13nent · · Public Works costs 'are estimated for lo. ur major 11ne divisions that would be service impacted by proposed annexations - Streets, Trees, Vehicles. Increases tn operational costs for each of these divisions was estimated based on the relationship of curb miles to be added by the annexations to to,al City curb miles (11.8/150.2 = .079%). This percentage was then applied against total es.ctmated 11ne dtvtston operational costs projected for each dtvtslon tn t, lme ftscal year 1987-B8 budget. Personnel and capttal velmtcle and equipment costs were dtrectly esttmaamd based on tnput from the Publtc Works Department. However, it was assured that personnel and capttal costs {'or street sweeping could be prorated for use in the East Tusttn development at a rate of 15Z to annexation area 144. It was assumed that street sweeping to annexations 145 and 146 could be absorbed into the current operation. Whtle tt is difficult to determine the actual costs of capltal Improvement that wt11. be required tn Annexation Area 144, t~e Public Works Deparl~nent has Identified needed capt~al improvement areas for street maintenance that wt]l eventua]ly be required at significant cost tnc]udtng: 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 1 i gh ti rig. 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 be~een Santa Clara and ~atrhaven Avenues All roads within Area 145 have been recen.cly 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- Ftre Increases Since i[978 Tustln' has recelved fire protection and suppresslon servtces through the Orange County Ftre District. Ftre protection costs to contracting clttes are based on an allocation of the Ftre District budget. Removtng certatn untque expenditures, an adjusted total Is allocated to each cont. racttng ctty based on assessed valuation of Improvements and unsecured valuation, number of calls for servtce tn preceding year., population and area tn square mtles. It ts assumed that structural fire protection costs per Capita will be approximately $29.87, $614 costs per million of assessed valuation and $22,186 per square mile served, along with a 51; increase in the base rate due to current labor negotiations underway at the County. The City's projected increases in fire contract costs are expected to be the worse case. Liabilit7 Insurance Assumes an increase of $6 per capita. 1988-89 FISCAL ~PACTS Table 2 thdtcates estimated revenue and* costs for annexation areas during Fiscal _Year ~988-89. ...~nual revenues for Annexation Area 144 are projected at $152,~27 and annual costs are projected at $~99,178, 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- RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 2, 1987 to 11 12 4 On motion of Commissioner Holt, duly seconded and carried, the 5 following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a resolution for the proposed annexation designated 17th 6 S'treet-Laurinda Way Annexation No. 1¢6 to the City of Tustin in the~County of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of Tustin and accepted for fili'ng October 16, 1987 $ '~ by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Part 3 ii of Title 5, Division 3, commencing with SectiOn 56000 et seq of the Government Code; and 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, i~ has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including his recomendation 14 ;'. thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; ~', ~ and i( WHEREAS this Commission called this proposal for public hearing on 16 li December 2, 1987, heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the I-i~ report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the 18 Commission to be relevant to this pr. oposal, including, but not limited to, factors 19 2O 21 :. 2~. '4 ; 27 23 24 'i 25 !~ specified in Governmen~ 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. This Commission finds that the territory contained in this proposal · (a) Does not exceed 75 acres in a'rea and such territory constitutes the enti re unincorporated i sl and substantially surrounded by the City limits of Tustin. Resolution No. 87-79 19 2O 21 ~3 24" Section 2. Section 3. (b) The site is fully developed with 18 single-family residences, a professional office bull ding, and a pre-school in accordance.with the existing Orange County E4(Small Estates) and PA(Professional Office) zoning. (c) Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064 of the Government Code. (d) Will benefit from annexation to the City of Tustin. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said Proposal is approved. 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 fol lowing short-form designation: l?th STREET-LAURINDA WAY ANNEXATION NO. 146 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Section 4~ The City of Tustin .is designated as the conducting authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation proceedi'ngs in compliance with this resolution. Said City Council of the City of Tustin shall by resolution either: ,(a) terminate proceedings if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by 50 percent or more of the registered voters within the affected territory; or (b) order the territory annexed without an election. 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 resol, ution in the manner as provided in Section 56853 of the Government Code. Resolution No. 87-79 2, 16 1-Li 19 2O 21 AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD A. HOLT, JR., EVELYN HART, ROGER R. STANTON, GADDI H. VASQUEZ AND .PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: CO~IISSIONERS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ~ I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange, 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 2nd day of December, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 'I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of December, RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer. of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California 1987. Sedretary Resolution No. 87-79 1 2 3 4 10 11 13 14 17 18 19 ~0 3O BLOCK 5852 ' HODUI.ES /+2,32 EXIilIIIT "A" 17Tll STREET - LAURINDA {4AY ANNEXATION NO. TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA AI.L OF TRACT NO. 2834, RECORDED IN BOOK 84, PAGES 35 AND 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS NAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY; PARCEL 2 PER HAP RECORDED IN BOOK 27, PACE 50 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY; A PORTION OF PROSPECT AVENUE PER DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN BOOK 9127, PAGE 820, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF (IL~NCE COUNTY; A PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK B, OF A. B. CllAPHAN TRACT; AND A PORTION OF 17Til STREET (100.O0' ~4IDE), SITUATED IN TIlE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF TIlE COUNTY OF ORANCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, }40RE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS-' BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN TilE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AS ESTABLISiIED BY TIlE "SEVENTEENTI! STREET - I.AURINDA WAY ANNEXATION NO. 96'' TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, SAID POINT BEING IN TIlE CENTERLINE OF 17TII STREET BEING DISTANT SOUTI! 88°'50' 54" WEST ?1.30 FEET FROM TIlE INTERSECTION OF TIlE CENTERLINES OF 17TI{ STREET (80.OO' WIDE) AND PROSPECT AVENUE (§0.00' WIDE) (SOUTIi); TllENCE NORTI! O0° 04' 21" WEST ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG Tile SOUTIIERLY PROI.ONGA~ION OF TIIE WESTERI.Y BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 283/~, AND SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1OO3.22 FEET-TO AN ANCLE POINT IN TIIE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFOR- · MIA, AS ESTABLISI{ED BY THE "PROSPECT-CARI.SBAD ANNEXATION NO. 7_5" TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, AND BY Tile "MALENA DRIVE ANNEXATION" TO Tile CITY OF TUSTIN SAID POINT ALSO BEING TIlE NORTllIdEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 2834; TIIENCE NORTII B9° 19' O1" EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTilERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 2§3~+ A DISTANCE OF 319.09 FEET TO TIlE NOR~I'ilEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 2B3l~ AND TO AN ANGI.E POINT IN Tile EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF Tile CITY OF TUSTIN PER SAID "PROSPECT - CARIoSBAI) ANNEXATION NO. 75"; .. TIIENCE SOUTH O0° 0/+' 21" EAST Al.OMC SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY I.INE AND AI.ONG Tile EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 283l~ A DISTANCE OF 334.09 FEET TO TIlE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAIl) PARCEL 2, AS PER NAP RECORDED IN PAGE 1 OF 3 BLOCK 5852 iIODULES 42, EXHIBIT "A" 17Tll STREET - LAURINDA WAY ANNEXATION NO. 146 TO Tile CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA '{ BOOK 27, PAGE 50 OF PARCEL NAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AND TO AN 2 ANGLE POINT IN Tile EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF'TUSTIN PER SAID ;3 "PROSPEC~I' - CARLSBAD ANNEXATION NO. 75"; 4 5" TI{ENGE SOUTH 89° 51' 09" EAST AI.ONG SAID. EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG § THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND TIlE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF ? SAIl} NORTI{ERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 344.56 FEET TO TIlE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT 8 AVENUE (80.OO' WIDE); 9 ~0 TIIEN(3E SOUTll 03° 29' 15" WEST ALONG TIlE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE (80.00' ll WIDE) A DISTANCE OF 206.49 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITll TIlE EAST- lim ERLY PROLONGATION OF TIlE SOUTUERLY LINE OF SAID' PARCEL 2; SAID POINT ALSO 13 BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN TIlE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN AS 14 ESTABLISIIED BY TIlE "PROSPECT AVENUE - SEVENTEENTll STREET ANNEXATION NO. 119" {§ TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN; l? TIIENCE NORTII 88° 05' 54" WEST ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE 18 OF 331.94 FEET TO A POINT ON TIlE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 2834 AND TO l{{ AN ANGLE POINT IN TIlE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN PER SAID Z}0 "PROSPECT 'AVENUE - SEVENTEENTll STREET ANNEXATION NO. 119"; 2~ 22 THENCE SOUTH 006 O4' 21" EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY I. INE AND ALONG 23 SAID EASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 670.01 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN Tile EXIST- 24 lNG CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY I,INE PER SAID "PROSPECT AVENUE - SEVENTEENTll 25 STREET ANNEXATION NO. 119" AND BY "NEREDITI{ ANNEXATION NO: 69" TO TIlE CITY OF 28 TUST.IN SAID POINT 'ALSO BEING IN TIlE CENTERLINE OF I?Ti! STREET (100 I"EET WIDE) 2]' BEING DISTANT SOUTI! 88° 43' 39" WEST 303.93 FEET FROM TIlE INTERSECTION OF Tile 28 CENTERLINES OF PROSPECT AVENUE .(NORTII) (80 FEET WIDE) AND ITTil STREET (IOO 29 FEET WIDE); 3O ;31 TIIENCE SOUTU 88° 43' 39" WEST ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY I,INE AND Al.CNG THE 32 CENTERLINI.'- OF I?Tll STREET (100 FEET WIDE) A DISTANCE OF 247.84 FEET TO THE PAGE 2 OF 3 BLOC~ 58.52 HODULES 42, EXIilSIT "A" 17Tll STREET - I.AURINDA WAY ANNEXATION NO. 146 TO TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF 17TII STREET (100 FEET WIDE) AND PROSPECT AVENUE (SOUTIi) (50 FEET WIDE); TIIENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG Tile CENTERLINE 5' OF 17Tii STREET (100 FEET WIDE) SOUTii 88° 50' 54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 71.30 6 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ATTACHED AND MADE A PART OF, IS A HAP DES'ICNATE~ AS EXlilBIT B. CONTAINING 8.90 ACRES. Tills PROPOSAL DOES MEET TIlE APPROVAl. OF TIlE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE. :LSON, COUNTY SURVEYOR --[~VEYOR PREPARED BY: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 (714) 730-0401 ANNA M. BEAL, I..S. 4955 REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-89 165-01-146 DECEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 3 OF 3 i 17th STREET'- LAURINDA WAY ANNEX. NO. 146 TO TIlE CITY 01: TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ruls FIOII$.~I I~lS IA(IT nil APPIIOVAL Till Ill,Gl COUNTY SUIVIYII'S ~liCl. d~:~ LE§EldO . · i:'IlSTIHG CITY Ol~ TUSTIH BOUNDARY ANNIXATIDN BOUNDARY PREPARED BY: K.W. LAWL[II AND ASSOC., INC. II)l WOIiiUI AVlNtJ(, SUllY. A TU$1IN. CAtll OilNll ti&lO ('114 J llO' Q401 .,7.-_ ,/~. ildN4 lA. 1(41. IS. I(~$11illO# JX~&lill$: h~'}l. 8.~0 ACR[5