The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 4 ANNEXATION 142 03-07-88DATE: ' ~'::~' PUBLIC HEARING · Inter- Com MARCH 7, 1988 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROPOSED LA COLINA / BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOI~ENDATION: 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. 142 was initiated by the Tustin City Council on March 2, 1987 {Resolution No. 87-34) in response to residents living in the area. After conducting a public hearing on June 3, August 12 and November 4, 1987 on the proposed annexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation subject to the following terms and conditions {LAFCO Resolution No. 87-70). le 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 wi t'hin 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. City Council Report March 7, 1988 Annexation No. 142 Page two On February 3, 1988 an application for reconsideration of LAFCO Resolution No. 87-70 was denied. PRO,1ECT ABALYSIS: The proposed La Col ina-Beverly Glen Annexation No. 142 consists of territory bounded by La Colina on the south, the Tustin Ranch on the east, Beverly Glen Drive and lots fronting on Theta Road on the north, and a line drawn parallel with and appr. oximately 500 feet westerly of Browning Avenue on the west. The area is developed with 140 single family residences. According to the Orange County Registrar's Office there are 351 registered voters with an estimated population of 532. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan designates the proposed annexation territory for residential use. The Land Use Element of the City of Tustin's General P.lan also designates the territory for residential use. The zoning for the area is E-4. The Tustin City 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 an E-4 zoning des.ignation, 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 a~nexation 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 existing 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. Corn munity Development Department City Council Report March 7, 1988. Annexation No. 142 Page three 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: Terminate proceedings if 50~ or more of the registered voters residing in the area have filed and not withdrawn written protest. Order the change of organization subject to confirmation by the registered voters residing within the affected territory if at leaast 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. Order the change of organization without an .election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25[ of the registered voters and/or by less than 25[ of the number of owners of land and/or owning less than 25[ of the assessed value of land within the affected terri tory. Ma~y Ann ~amberlain ': ' Christine Shingleton/ -- /x/ - Associate Planner Director of Community De)~lopment MAC'pef. Attachments' Fiscal Impact Analysis LAFCO Resolution No. 87-70 Map Corn munity Development Department FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS 137, 138, 139 140, t41, 142 CITY OF TUSTIN FLAY, 1987 I. S~RY The City of'Tustin has recently approved two annexations (No. 137 and 1387 and is ~rrently considering the potential annexation of at least four (4) additional areas in the North Tustin Area (Annexation No.s 139, 140, 141 and 1427 as shown on Figure 1. A fiscal impact analysis has been completed of these annexations in order to project estimated cost~ and revenues to be encountered by the City. Results of the fiscal impact analysis have revealed the following: 1. Annexations 139 and 140 are the major thresholds that result in significant additional City costs being incurred due to the cumulative impacts of previously approved annexations and the actual size and location of Annexations 13g and 140. During fiscal year 1987-88, annual revenue for proposed annexations is projected at $$17,980 and annual costs at $746,24S resulting in a net deficit in fiscal year 1987-88 for the proposed annexations of $228,265 (See Table 1 and 2). One-time costs estimated for vehicle and equipment 'outlays required for services to the annexation areas represent $98,87S 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 $32.9,397. 3. Ourtng Fiscal Year 1988-89 annual recurring revenue for proposed annexations ts projec~d at $71[,758 and annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,[93. In the event that Annexations [4! and 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations [37 - [40'during fiscal year [987-88 would be $[I8,360. 4.. The fiscal impact analysis only considers impacts on operating costs. If capt~al improvement expenditures are required in annexation areas, they would clearly result In substantially larger financial liabilities to the City. 5. Personnel, vehicle and equipment costs have been prorated, as appropriate to the Ci~/'s existtng operations or to proposed needs in East Tusttn. In the case of East Tusttn the General Fund will carry the East Tusttn's prorated share or balance sooner than would otherwise be the case. II. ~#ERAL BACICGROUND TNFORFIAT%ON General background information on each annexation area evaluated in this fiscal impact report is presented tn Table [. Figure t graphically illustrates each annexation area. Approximately 62! acres in size, the entire annexation study area will result in an increase of 8,0[3 persons and 2,109 dwelltng units. Largely a single faintly residential area, other uses found jn the s134dy area include 301 multiple family dwellings and a school. Total assessed valuation for the study area is estimated at $178 million. NORTH NOT TO SCALE ~ ::3 4d o III. FISCAL ~HPACT ASSUI, tPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY A. FZSCAL ]:HPACT ~SIMPT~:ONS The folloNtng major assumptions were used in developing the fiscal impact analysts: revenue estimates are based on the most current popula.tton, economlc and land use da~a available. The analysts is presented, tn constant ].986-].987 dollars with no adjustments for Inflation. ' ' Costs were dtrectly estimated for City departments. The analysts does not include any capttal improvement expendi:ures needed in annexation areas. B. HETHODOLOGY The following discussion defines estimation methodologies used in projecting various City revenues and costs resulting from annexation of' the study area. ].. REV£NUES Property Tax Under the t4aster Proper~y Tax Transfer Agreemen:, 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 approximately ].3~. Property Transfer Tax The City mcetves an allocation of $.55 per 1,000 valuation of property sold, excluding the ortgtnal 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. I~otor Vehtcle [n-Lteu $28.89 per captta -4- · ¢_t,~arette Tax . SI.SO per capita plus a $400 base Gas Tax Sectton' 2106 - $4.56 per captta Sectton 2107 - $8;54 per captta Vehtcle Code Fines $3.76 per capita r4unt ct pa 1 Ftnes, per captta Communi.t7 Development (Butldtn~ and Plan Check) fees Revenue estimates assume that the majority of single family homes are at least 20 years old and .OS of these units will be reroofed per year as deferred maintenance.- The average permit for a reroof is $60. It ls also assumed that .01 of total single family units will see interior or exterior remodeling per year at a ratio of 7S~ major remodels and 2S% minor:remodels. Valuations of each of these tmp rovement types i s an average of $2S, 000 and $10,000 respectfully. These valuations were then applied against the City's current plan check and building permit fee schedules. Homeowners Propert7 Tax Relief .0276 multiplier times total property tax Interest i 2.5S of all projected recurring revenues . 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 llO hours per week of Police Officer time. -5- Experience has also shown that calls for service which are generated by additional population will result in over l,$00 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 Departmen..t.. Publlc Works costs are estimated for four major 11ne divisions that would be servtce tmpacted 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 total Ctty curb miles (32.~7/~50.2 = 21.41%). Thls percentage:was then applted agatnst total estimated 11ne dtvtston operational costs projected for each dtvtsion in expenditure worksheets for the ftscal year ~g87-B8 budget. Personnel and capi.tal vehicle and equipment costs were directly estimated based on input from the Publtc Works Department. However, it was assured that personnel and capital costs for street sweeping could be prorated for use in the East Tusttn development at a rate of 20% to annexation areas and 80% to East Tusttn. 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 uttllzed within the City's existing operations. Communt ~ Development The addition of 2,10g dwelling units will result in additional requests for service from the Building. Division of the Department of Community Development for' code enforcement and inspection services largely related to building improvements on existing single family dwellings. Calls for service on newly annexed areas historically have Increased as residents dtscover response ts 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 ~978 Tusttn has received fire protection and suppression servt, ces through the Orange County Fire District. Fire protection costs to contracting cities are based on an allocation of the Fire District budget. Removing certain unique expendi.tures, an adjusted total is allocated to each contracting city based on assessed valuation of improvements and unsecured valuation, number of calls for service in preceding year, population and area in square miles. It is assumed that structural fire protection costs per.capita will -6- be approximately $29.87, $614 costs per million of assessed valuation and $22,[86 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 in fire contract costs are expected to be the worse case. The City is currently reviewing i~s ~ax share agree~n~ wt~h. the County and at~e~ing ~o clartfy what amount ~he City should be en~t~led to receive. Should ~he Ct~'s interpretation of the agree~n% be favorable, ~he City could see an additional $50,000 credited agains~ fire con%rac~ costs. Liability Insurance Assumes an increase of $6.~per capita. IY. Z987-88' FISCAL ~PACTS Tables 2 and 3 indicate estimated revenues and costs for the study area during fiscal year 1987-88. Annual revenues are projected at $517,980 and annual costs are projected at $746 ;245, resulting tn a first year deficit between revenue and costs of $228,265. One-time vehicle and equipment purchase and capttalizaton costs represent $98,875 of this deficit. In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexations 137 - 140 would be $329,397 during Fiscal Year 1987-88. Major revenue sources during Fiscal Year 1987-88 will be property tax, .motor vehicle tn-lieu payments, cigarette taxes and homeowner's property tax relief. Although .subventions would not normally-be received from the State until the fiscal year following certification of population by the California Department of Finance, the Ctty may conduct a special census of population. Once estimates from a special census are certified by the State, s.ubventions 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. ~PACTS Tables 4 and 5 indicate estimated revenue and costs for the study area during Ftscal Year 1988-89. Annual recurring revenues are projected at $711,758 and annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,[93. In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deficit of Annexatlons 137 - 140 would be $118,360 during Flscal Year [988-89. 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 ~wo 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 t~e Police Department, CAS:pef. -7- T&BLE 2 C~FT OF TUSTIN A SUIg4A~Y OF COST/REYENUE PRO~IECTIONS FOR ANNEXATIONS (1) FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 Revenues i Property tax Proper%~ ~ax transfer Motor Vehicle ]:n-lieu Ct garette ~ax Gas tax Yehtcle code fines Huntctpal ftnes Co~ntW Oevelop~nt (Bldg & Plan check) fees Ho~ner's proper~y ~x reltef Znterest To~l Revenues $212,962 6,452 135,038 8,411 61,170 27,426 4,520 9,500 45,102 7,409 $517,980 Costs POlt ce Department Personnel Opera~tng Vehtcles/equtpmen~ (one ttme) Subtotal · · Publtc Works Personnel Operattng Vehtcles and equipment (ode ttme) Subtotal $123,306 7,200 19,000 $Z49,506 $ 37,640 163,225 79,876 $270,74O Community Development Operating $ 20, OOQ Miscellaneous Fire contract Liability Insurance Cost of special census (2) Subtotal $228,000 48,000 30,000 $306,000 TOTAL COSTS $746,245 To~al Costs Whlch 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- I I (2) TABLE 4 CITY OF TUSTI# A SU~RY OF COST/REYE)IUE PROJECTIONS FOR AN#EXATIO#S (1) FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Revenues_ Property tax ~ Proper%'y ~ax transfer, Motor Vehtcle In-lt eu Ct garette ~ax Gas ~ax Vehtcle code ftnes Hun~ c~ pa1 f~ nes Community Development (bldg & plan check) fees Ho~ne~' s p~ope~y ~ax ~el~ef ~n~e~est To~l Re.hues Recur~ n~ Costs Polt ce Department Personnel Operattng Subtotal Public Works Personnel Operating Subtotal Community Development Operating Ft re contract Ltabt 1t ty tnsurance Subtoi~l TOTAL COSTS Dlfferem:e be~,en Recur~ Revenue/Costs * Annexations 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 All fi gures are I n 1987-88 dollars CAS 5/18/87 -Il- $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 $20,000 $239,400 48,000 $287,4oQ $689,S65 $ 22,193 o OI r..31 0 0 0 ~ RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 4, 1987 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a resol uti on for the proposed annexation desi gnated La Colina-Beverly Glen Annexation No. 142 to the City of Tustin in the County of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of Tustin and accepted for filing April 15, 1987 by the Executive Officer of this Local ~kgency Formation Commission pursuant to Part 3 of Title 5, Division 3, commencing ~c~th Section 56000 et seq of the Government Code; WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56828 set June 3, 1987 as the hearing date on this proposal and gave the required notice of hearing; and WHEREAS, the subject annexation was continued until August 12, 1987, and again continued until November 4, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56833, '~ reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including his recommendation ,'eon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and WHEREAS, this CdmmisSion called this proposal for public hearing on June 3, August 12, and November 4, 1987, heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the report of the Executive Officer, and 'considered the factors determined by the Commission to be relevant to this proposal, including, but not limited to, factors specified in Government Code Section 56841; and WHEREAS, the city of Tustin, as lead agency, determined the proposed annexation to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: Section 1. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal is approved. Section 2. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Tustin are specifically-described in the legal description attached hereto and by this refrence made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be inhabited and is assigned the following short-form designation: LA COLINA-BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Resolution No. 87- 70 Section 3. Secti on 4. Secti on, 5. Section 6. AYES: COMMISSIONERS 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 resol uti on. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for annexation shall be called, held and conducted upon such annexation only within the territory ordered to. be annexed. The City of Tustin, as applicant, shall be liable for and pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings in compliance with this resolution. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner as provided in Section 56853 of the Government Code. EVELYN HART, PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE-and DONALD A. HOLT, JR. l: COMMISSIONERS AmS£NT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'COUNTY OF ORANGE NONE ROGER R. STANTON and GADDI H. VASQUEZ SS 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 4th day of November, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of November, · 1 987. RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California Resolution No. 87- 70 1 2 3 4 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 BLOCK 5753 5853 MODULES 80,81,82,90,91,92,93 01,02,03 EXHIBIT "A' LA COLINA - BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY OF TUiTIN .. Those portions of Lots 320 and 340 in Block 43, and of Lot 318 in Block 13, together with that portion of Block 42, all in Irvine's subdivision, in the Unincorporated Territory of the County of Orange, State of California, per msp recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Niscsllaneous Naps, in the office o~ the County Recorder of said Orange County, Cslifornia, described as follows: BEGIHNING at an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin aa established by the 'Eveningside-Rainbow Annexation No. 139', said angle point being the moat easterly corner of said Annexation, and also being on the centerline of La Colina Drive; Thence along said existing boundary line of 'the City of Tustin as established by the '£veningside-Rainbow Annexation No. 139' and along said centerline of La Colina Drive in a generally northwesterly direction to the most · northerly corner of said Annexation, also being the cen~er- line intersection of La Colina Drive and Browning Avenue, and said point ales being the moat easterly corner of the 'La Online-Browning Annexation No. 140' to said Cit~; Thence along.said existing boundary line of the City · of Tustin as established by the 'La Colina-Browning Annexa- tion No. 140' and continuimg along the centerline of La Colina Drive, N. 49° 57' 40 ' W., 805.16 feet to the south- westerly prolongation of the southeasterly boundary line of Tract No. 1441, as shown on a map recorded in Book 47, Page 1 of 6 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 EXHIBIT "A' LA COLINA - BEVERLY 'GLEN · ANN£XATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN .. page 45 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California; Thence leaving said existing boundary line of the City of Tus~in, and along said southwesterly prolongation and said southeasterly boundary line of Tract No. 1441, N. 39° 59' 20" E., 314.08 feet to the most easterly corner of said Tract, said point also being the most northerly . corner of that certain parcel of land shown as containing 0.223 acres on a map filed in Book 37, page 5 of Records of Surveys, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange · County, California; Thence along the easterly boundary of said 0.223 acre parcel of land,'S. 6" 36' 00" E., 198.23 feet to an angle point therein; Thence N. 40° 01' 18" E., 482.96 feet to the most westerly corner of Tract No. 8084, as shown on a map recorded in Book 403, pages 6 and 7 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California; Thence along the northwesterly boundary line of said Tract No. 8084, N. 39" 59' 45" £., 660.43 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 2943, as shown on a map recorded in Book 98, pages 38 through 41 of Miscella- neous Maps, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California; Thence along the northwesterly 'boundary line of said Page 2 of 6 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 EXHIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY-.OF TUSTIN Tract No. 2943, N. 40° 00' 28" E.,. 200.90..feet to the most northerly corner of Lot 6i of said Tract, said point also being,the most _~esterly corner of Parcel 3 as described in deed recorded January 2, 1973, in Book 10497, page 340 o£ Official Records, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California;- Thence along the boundary line of amid Parcel 3 the following courses and distances: S. 58" 46' 11" E., 93.00 feet; Thence N. 20" 56' 41" £., 103.86 feet to the most .southerly corner of Parcel 2 as described in said deed recorded in Book 10497, page 340 of Official Records; Thence along the boundary line of said Parcel 2, N. 20" 56' 41" E., 177.55 feet to the most northerly corner of said Parcel 2, being a point on the aforementioned northwesterly boundary line of Tract No. 2943; Thence along said northwesterly boundary line of Tract No. 2943, N. 40° 00' 28" E., 180.00 feet to the most northerly corner of said Tract, said point also being the most westerly corner of Trac~ No. 3520, as shown on s map recorded in Bock 123, pages 36 and 37 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California; Thence along the northwesterly boundary line of said Tract No. 3520, and along its northeasterly prolongation, N. 40" 00' 28" E., 660.18 feet to the Point of Intersection Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £XHIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BEV£RLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO THE CITY QF TUBTIN of a 50. O0-foot radius curve in the centerline of Skyline Drive, shown on the map oE said Tract No. '3320 as being monumented with a "Fd. Boat Spike", said point being on the northeasterly line of Lot 318, Block 13 of Irvine's subdivision; Thence along said northeasterly line, S. 49° 55' 38" E., 660.56 feet to the most northerly corner of. Block 43 of said Irvine's subdivision, said point also being the most northerly corner of Tract No. 2806 as shown on a map recorded in Book 132, pages 48 through 50 of · Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of said County Recorder of Orange County, California; Thence along the boundary line o~ said Tract No. 2806, the following courses and distances: S. 58° 31' .39" E., 82.03 feet; Thence S. 69° 14' 25" £., 39.81 feet; Thence S. 70° 14' 39" £., 39.93 feet; Thence S. 67° 56' 51" £., 32.00 feet; Thence S. 60° 48' 06" E., 42.72 feet; Thence S. 55° 28' 24" E., 30.01 feet; Thence S. 48° 14' 25" £., 24.12 feet; Thence S. 46° 48' 40" E., 33.80 feet; Thence S. 44'° 48' 06" E., 34.93 feet; Thence S. 43~ 23' 58" E., 37.01 feet; Thence S. 4i° 08' 44" E., 32.60 feet; Thence S. 38~ 39'.52" E., 36.00 feet; Page 4 of 6 -. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12.. 13 1'4 1'5 16 17 18 19 20 2:~1' 23 2.4 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £XHIBZT "A" LA COLINA - B£V£RLY GL£N ANN£XATION NO. 142 TO TH£ CITY O~.TUSTIN Thence S. 40° 24' 35" £., 22.47 Feet; Thence S. 39° 40' 39" £., 23.95 feet; Thence S. 31° 53' 33" £., 32.17 feet; Thence S. 28° 52' 50" £., 23.12 feet; Thence S. 27° 45' 20" E., 21.18 feet; Thence S. 26° 09' 24' E., 36.34 feet; Thence S~ 18° 54' 28' E., 24.54 feet; Thence S. 16° 32' 28" £., 16.59 feet; Thence S. ii° Il' 44" £., 40.08 feet; Thence S. 2° 51' 25" W., i47.50 feet; Thence S. lO° 36' 05" W., 155.00 feet; .Thence S. 8° 41' 05" W., 196.50 feet; Thence S. 6~ 37' 05" W., 119.75 feet; Thence S. 0° 29' [9" £., 107.70 feet to the most southerly corner of said Tract No. 2806, said point being on the existing boundary line of the City of Tustin as established by the "Irvine/Peters Canyon Annexation No. · liT' to said City, said point being S. 49° 57' 44" £., 414.27 feet from the northeasterly terminus of that certain course described in said Annexation as "N. 39° 38' 46" £., 4621.35 feet"; Thence along said existing boundary line of the City o~ Tustin as established by the Irvine/Peters Canyon Annexation No. li7", N. 49° 57' 44" W., 414.27 feet; Thence continuing along said existing boundary line of the City of Tustin the following courses and distances: Page 5 of 6 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 EXHIBIT "A" LA COLINA - BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 CITY OF TUSTIN $. 40° 00' 21' W., 660.60 feet; Thence S. 39° 59' 39 ' W., 1460.69 'E'e~t to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Ail as more Particularly shown on a map, 'EXHIBIT B", attached.hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. , . CONTAINING~ 83.220 acres = 0.1332 sq. mi. Legal Description prepared by: ! I m, ~12~ J ~Lice~sed Land Sur'veyor No. 4123 30-88 ~' / /License expiration date 6- ) \%... __:,,'/ This pr(~3os31 does mee{ the approv~llol the Orang_~/~unty Surveyor's Office C.R. N~;;~County lurve~y°r ~. ~ ~ ' Page 6.of 6 i;';;%;':';%%;;;;"' I'" t ~''~L'~' 3:?.. , : , ::::::: i:...:' 7'ADIII./ITION OF /)Ot/NI.)/I/¢ y /./,ME DA TA (.~) ...... ....... . ......, .,., t.~') - ~ ....... ....... ., .., .,,. 6;) - (:,)-t,.. ,.,,,..-t ......... to) -' ^, ....0.,...;,-... ,, ~ ...., 0,0 ..,,~..,., .# ~- ., ...... (F') -- ,,,- ~0.0.,., .t,-,r ..... .... t,,.~)-. ,, .....,.. ,,...,,. , - · ..~,· .....,.~, ,,....,. (~[; ~,,} .... .,.,....,.,~ ,.,. ~, (,:,~) '- ~ ~:',. ,,' ~ ,,...o. (~0 - : ,~'.,,,'*',. .,: ..:' [..',:1 , · ...~ ,...~ ..~ ,...., .. (~e ....... ','..~,, ..~.,... ..,. _ t~;, ~""I ~ ..... '" '" "" '" '" ~, ...., ~4.,, ... ,.,. ~z?.-., .,,,..,..,co,. ..... .. ~.'u) -., .,..',.., ,,-t. .v (d'"~ ~ · .,:,-,,., ,.~'c ,.., ..~ (,..~ .: '.' '" ..,e.,: ,.,-, ct ,... (J,,, . .~....,-,,,....,... ..; ~,,~u,, 'Z ; ""'"'"'~ · ,..~..~.,...# .~. .,~ ..... ~?).-.L ,,"..,,...'.v*-, ,,. ,.., · ~..,~).: "'"' .,.,-,: .......... · ." .*., ,v....~. (,,4 .- ..,. ,.,o a..,,..,,. ,:,. (.n~)-., .e-.,,..,,..,v ,,~ .... ~) -- ... ~. ~.....:..,,, ,., i,v;.) .. .. .,...., ,.,. ~ . (".9 .^. ,.,-......,.~ ,, .,,., ..,. · ('~ ~..'d · · ,:*"o..o ,-,-,v . ,.,,.,, ~..,,-