Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing #1 7-20-87 ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS NO. 1 ' NDA . 20, ,9s7 Inter Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE I~AYOR AMD I~ERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COI~NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTHENT PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 141 PROSPECT[YANDENOERG RECOII~ENOATZON: It is recommended that the City Counctl: 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 August 3, 1987 meeting or as soon thereafter as poss!~le. 5. 0trec~ starry,to dreamt a~ut~u~oa~e~L~on~e BACKGROUNO: Annexation No. 141 was initiated by the Tusttn City Council on March 16, 1987 (Resolution No. 87-36) tn response to residents living tn the area. On June 3, 1987 the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation subject to the following term and conditions (LAFCO Resolution No. 87-27). The City of Tusttn is designated as the conducting authority and the. legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation procedtngs in compliance with this resolution. Any election called upon the question of conforming an order for annexation shall be called, held and conducted upon such annexation only within the territory ordered to be annexed. The City of Tusttn, as applicant, shall be 1table for and pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings in compliance with this resolution. Annexation No. 141 ~uly 20, 1987 Page two PROJECT AIIALYS]S: ' The area is generally bounded by Prospect Avenue on the east, the Orange County Flood Control Channel on the south, present City boundary on the west, and Vandenberg Lane and the present Ctty boundary on the north (see attached map). The area conststs of 182 stngle family residences. According to the Orange County Regtstrar's offfce, there are approximately 367 registered voters tn this area. The estimated population of the area is approximately 691. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan designates the subject terrttor~ proposed for annexation in residential use. The Land Use Element of the City of Tusttn's General Plan also designates the territory for residential use. The zoning for the area is E-4 (Estate Residential). 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 an E-4 zoning designation, 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 servipes, 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. Th~ 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 Tusttn'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 Ctty Council Report Annexation No. 141 Page three A Ftscal Impact .Analysts of recent annexation proposals has been completed tS attached for the Council's Information. Also attached are responses to the most commonly asked questions and tssues about annexation to the Ct ty of Tusttn tn Annexation area No. 141. 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 protest~ filed and not withdrawn, and take one of the following actions: 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 notmore 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 254 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 vpters or less than 25% of the number of owners of land owning less than-25~ of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. Christine Shtngleton D~velopment Dtrector of Community MAC:per Attachments: Fiscal Impact Analysis Questions and Issues LAFCO Resolution No. 87-27 Map Corn rnunity Development Depar~rnent ATTACgHENT. I RESPONSES TO HOST COPDION'LY ~SXED QUESTZONS' AND ISSUES ABOUT AMN£XATXON TO THE CXT~ OF TUSTZN tltll the Clty Constder lle~ Taxes, Assessments For Servtses Or Clmr~es For CIm In Tho Level Of Smr~lce In Anxexatlon Ams? There are no such p]ans. ¥tll Mater Rates Xncrease #1th Aonexe't'lon? Hater rates are the same tnstde or outside of the City and would not change as a function of annexation. #tll Flre Servtce Cost #ore Upon Annexation7 Stnce 1978 Tusttn has received ftre protection and suppression services through the Orange County Fire District. Ftre protection for the services to proposed annexation area wtll not change as a result of annexation and there 'will be no additional costs to ne~ residents of the City. ¥tll Tusttn Pollon Be Spread Thlfl? The City will provide adequate police personnel to extend service to annexation areas. There wtll be no tnttial Interruption or reductions tn service. The Ctty of Tusttn maintains a full service municipal police department whtch provides l~affic control, patrol, Investigative and crime prevention services and emergency first response within City boundaries. The curreot emergency response time to any locatton within the City is averaging 3.6 mtnutes as compared to over 6 ndnutes for the County Sheriff. Zn addition to traditional law enforcement services, the Oepar~nent strives for active interaction with Ctty residents, schools, and businesses. This interaction ts accomplished through the Ctty*s award-~tnntng crime prevention/neighborhood watch program and 1ts earthquake preparedness programs. Zn conjunction wtth the schools, Parent's Who Care, and the National Council on Alcoholism, the Oepar~ment also provides high profile programs 'for al~ ages about the a~ernattves for substance abuse. ~m mt initv I"lr~v~Jnnm~.nt ~nnrtm~nt ,, RESPONSES TO MOST COMIqONLY ASKED QUESTZONS AND ZSSUES ABOUT ANNEXATZON TOT HE CITY OF TUSTIN' · Page Two ' Tbe~e A Legal .Requteemat Foe. Notification Of Peopeet70unere Prior To Those opposed to annexation hav·clatmed t~ thetr distributed' mtar~als that there ts no legal requirement for. the Ctty of Tusttn to nottfy homeowners pr.tot to annexation. Thts statement ts grossly Irresponsible. The Tusttn Sphere of Znfluence was estabtshed .by the Local Agency Formt~on Coumtsston (LAFCO) tn 1973, and has not changed stnce that date. Under the annexation laws of-the State of California, the Ctty may undertake annexations that are considered logtcal for servtce purposes whtch are wtthtn the sphere of Influence. Zt has been the Ctty Council's pollcy not to tntttata and transndt to LAFCO an annexation proposal unless the Tusttn Ctty Counc11 has been petitioned by residents tn an area who wtsh to annex tnto the Ctty. The Ctty ts not legally requtred to nottfy residents prior to transmittal of an annexation application to LAFCO. However, tt has been Tusttn Ctty Counctl poltcy to notify residents tn these areas and provtde thee an opportunity to be heard prtor to transmittal of an application to LAFCO. Prtvate ctttzens tn unincorporated areas .may al~o, on theJr own, petltton .LAFCO for annexation tf they have a common boundary wtth ~h·Ctty. Z¢ LAFCO approves the proposed annexations, then they order the Ctty to hold a protest heartng. According to State Law, the Ctty Clerk must then nottfy ali landowners wtthtn the proposed annexation area. The Hur~ Xn Proce~st~j Annexaffons? The Ctty of Tusttn ts not tn a hurry to annex, but rather the Ctty ts merely responding to c~ttzen requestj for annexation areas that have common boundaries wtth present Ctty 11etta. Proposed annexations are not hurry up annexations. The proponents of these annexations have been vorktng to collect signatures for the past several months, and feel tha~ their best alternative ts to annex Into the Ctty, tn order to. have better urban servtces for the same tax dollar. Are ZeetnsChemjes PlanmodOeExpectedFoeAnnexatlon Areas? #o changes to ex~sttng zontng vt~h~n proposed*annexation areas are expected as a result of annexation. The C1ty's ex~st~ng zoning designations are s~m~lar to those .~n the County to ensure compatabt]~ty. Zn addition, Sectton 9213 of Chapter 2 of the Hunt~tpa~ Code provides that any te~'~tory annexed to the CJty shall be designated by the zone which the territory vas under the*County Zoning 0rd~nance, provided that the C~ty has a Zontng Otstrlct beartng the sam designation. Communlt'yDevelopmen~ Depanrnen! RESPONSES TO HOST COI~IONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ISSUES ABOUT ANNEXATION TO THE CZTY OF TUSTZN Page Three Whtle tt has been.argued by ~hose oppostng annexation that S8 of the ~tty's last $0 annexations resulted tn rezontng whtch have increased densities or rezoned property from residential to com"mrctal ~se, these.claims are grossly. Inaccurate. The CttY's revte~ of t~s annexation records for the last decade or more has revee]ed that the mJortty of annexations have not resulted tn a change tn residential or com"mrotal zontng designations. The City tn 1970 and 1971 selectively annexed and pre-zoned three mJor land holdtngs on 17th S~roet from residential to commorctal to per,dr development of community shopplng facilities iuch as the Enderle Center and the French Quarter. At that ttmo, l?th Street was upgraded from.a residential collector to a mJor artertal htgh"my because of tncroased ~rafftc demnds tn North Tusttn. It ts generally not good planntng precttce to develop lo~-denstty stngle famtly uses on'major highways. These selective a,nexattons were also largely vacant and pre,zoned at the request of the property o~ners. The City also, tn annext~g the East Tusttn Area tn 1979, rezoned property from agriculture1 use to permft developmnt. Are~reAn~0ther Ff"mnclal Or Indirect Benefits Of Annexation? Ali revenues recetved by the City, whtch tnclude sales tax, property, tax, state subventions and other revenues are spent by the City within the City. County funds recetved from unlncorporatod areas adjacent to the Ctty of Tusttn ,my be spent throughout Orange Coun~7. There would be no tncroase tn'property taxes as a result of annexatt~'n. The Ctty and County have an agreement which provides that upon annexation, a portion of the County bastc tax rate ts assumed by the Ctty. The Tusttn Ctty Counctl has a pollc~ that the Ctty's present Ctvtc Center and Parks bond tax rates do not apply to annexed areas. The current assessments for these bonds typically range from $9.30 to $16.60 per year. The Ctty- provtdes a fdll range of pubttc works servtces Including street "mtntonance, street tree ~rtmtng, s~eet s~eeptng and refuse collection. The current fee for refuse collection tn the Ctty ts $6.36 per.month as compared to $6.20 per month tn the County. The Tusttn Community Servtcas Oeparlflnent offers a vartety of programs whtch enable residents of all ages, tntorost, and capabilities to participate in letsure actt'vtttes. Hhtle the City discourages no one from participating tn 1ts programs, non-Ctty residents are charged a surcharge of up to 6OS more than rostden~s when they regtstor for a class. Ctty restdent, s also have the opportunity to regtster before non-City residents so they have the opportunity to get into the more popular .classes before they c~ose. Com muni~/ Developmen~ Depanmen~ RESPONSES TO HOST COHMONLY .ASKED QUESTIONS AND ISSUES ABOUT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN Page Four .,.. ~. The Ctty his several facilities available to rent to the. publlc for vartous prtvate functions such as weddtng receptions, ptcntcs and, sports activities. TustJn residents are also offered a lower rate for the use of these facile'ties' and have a ftrst pr~ortty of up to 60 days earlier to request use of a facility. ¥1mtP4rtJclpatlm~Opportunttles Are Av~tlable.To#evRestdents? In Tusttn there ts loc~l control and concern about communtt~ tssues. Counct] me~bers and Plannt~g Com,rlsstoners ,usg l~ve tn Tusttn. As a Ctty restdent you my run for loc~] offtce or vo~e for the persons who · you-thtnk w~ll .best serve the Commontty and assure Tusttn of continued qualt~y ,,Jntctpal servtces and develop,eng. You c~n dtrectly participate tn the planning .of Tus~ln to create a distinctive, pleasant and a~trac~tve atmosphere. Neet~ngs of the Tu~t4n C~y Council and P]anntng Co~.;ss~on are held tn the eventng hours go alloy most persons an opportunity go participate wtthout taking t~me off from work. Community Development Department ATTACHMENT II FISCAL IMPACT ANALYS IS PROPOSEO ANNEXATIONS 137, 138, 139 140, '141, 142 CITY OF' TUSTIN MAY, 1987 Te The City of Tustin has recently approved two annexations (No. 137 and 138) and ls currently considering the potential annexation of at least four (4) additional areas tn the ~iorth Tustln Area (Annexation ~;o.s 139, 140, 141 and 142) as sho~n on Ftgure 1. A ftscal tmpact analysts has., been completed of these annexations in order to project estimated costs and revenues to be. encountered by the Ctty. Results of the fiscal tmpact analysts have revealed the following: Annexations 139 and 140 are the major thresholds that result In significant additional City costs being incurred due to the .cumulative tmpacts of previously approved annexations and the actual stze and locatton of Annexations 139 and 140. During ftscal year 1987-88, annual revenue for proposed annexations ts projected at $517,980 and annual costs at $746,245 resulting In a net deftctt tn ftscal year 1987-88 for the proposed annexations of $228,265 (See Table 1 and 2). One-time costs estimated for vehicle and equlpment outlays required for services to the annexation areas represent $98,875 of this deftctt. [n the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deftctt of Annexations 137 - 140 during fiscal year 1987-88 would be $329,397. Ourtng Fiscal Yea~ 1988-89 annual recurring revenue for proposed annexations is projected at $711,758 and annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,193. In the event that Annexations 141 and 142 are not completed, the net deftctt of Annexations 137 - 140 durtng fiscal year 1987-88 would be $118,360. The ftscal Impact analysts only considers lmpacts on operating costs. If capil~l improvement expenditures are required in annexation areas, they would clearly result In substantially larger financial 11abilities to the Ctty. Personnel, vehicle and equipment costs have been prorated, as appropriate to the City"s existing operations or to proposed needs tn East Tusttn. In the case of East Tusttn the General Fund will car~y the East Tusttn's prorated share or balance sooner than would othenvtse be the case. II. GENERAL BACXGROUND INFOI;gATION G,n,re1 background Information on each annexation area evaluated tn this ftscal Impact report Is presented In Table 1. Figure 1 graphically illustrates each annexation area. Approximately 62! acres tn size, the entire annexation study area will result in an Increase of 8,013 persons and 2,109 d~elling untts. Largely a single family residential area, other uses found tn the study area include 301 multiple famtly d~elltngs and a school. To~al assessed valuation for the study area ts estimated at $t78 millton. -1- NOT NORTH TO SCALE IXX. FXSCAL ]XPACT ASSUMPTXOMS AMD METHODOLOGY An FISCAL ZI~PACT ASSURPTIONS The following me,or assumptions were used in developing the ftscal tmpact analysts: . _ ~ · All revenue esttmetes are based on the most current population. economic and land use data available. The analysis is presented In constant 1986-1987 dollars with no ad~us~nents for Inflation. " Costs were directly esttmeted for Ctty departments. The analysts does not tnclude any capttal Improvement expenditures needed in annexation areas. B. t~rHODOLOGY The following discussion defines esttmetton methodologies used tn projecting vartous City revenues and costs resulting from annexation of the study area. 1. REVEBUES Property Tax Under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement, the Ctty recetves approxtmetely 45Z of the County share and the share of affected spectal districts. Tusttn's share of the bastc levy under this Agreement would be approxtmetely 13Z. Property Transfer Tax The Ctty receives an allocation of $.55 per 1,000 valuation of property sold, excluding the ortglnal equity on property and extsttng 'financing assumed by a buyer. A .10 turnover rate ts assumed wtth an .80 consideration rate for equity and financing. Motor Vehtcle In-Lieu $28.89 per capita -4- ¢t~aret~e Tax $1,50 per capt~ plus a $400 base ~as Tax Sectton 2106 - $4.56 per capita Sectlon 2107 - $8.54 per captta ~ Vehtcle Code Ftnes $3.76 per capita Municipal Ftnes $.52 per capita Communtt~ Deve]opment (Butldln9 and Plan Check) fees Revenue esttmetes assume that the meJortty of stngle famtly homes are at least 20 years old and .05 of these untts wtll be reroofed per year as deferred maintenance. The average permtt for a retool ts $50. It is also assumed that .01 of total single family units will see interior or exterio~ remodeling per year at a ratio of 15% 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 Police 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 whtch 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 Wo~s 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 addltton of one full time tree crew, it was also assumed that 75~ of the costs of the crew could also be utilized wlthtn the City's existing operations. Community. Development The addition of 2,109 dwelling units will result in additional requests for service from the Building Division of the Department of Community Oevelopment for code enforcement and inspection serv4ces largely related to butldtng improvements on existing stngle 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. l~e 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 Spectal Census Estimates provided by the State Department of Finance. Fire Increases Since 1978 Tusttn has received fire protection and suppression services through the Orange County Fire District. Fire protection costs to contracting cities are based on an allocation of the Fire District budget. Removing certain unique 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, $61.4 costs per mtllton of assessed valuation and $22,186 per square mile served, along with a 5~ increase tn the base rate ~ue to current labor negotiations unde~ay at the County. The City's projected, increases in fire contract costa are expected to be the worse case. The City is currently reviewing its tax share ageeement with the County' and attempting to clartfy what. amount the Ctty should ~e entitled'to ~ecelve. Should the Ctty's Interpretation of the agreement be favorable, the .Ctty could see an additional $50,000 credtted agalnst ftre contract costs. Llab111~ ]nsurance Assumes an Increase of $6 per captte. IV. 1987-88' FISCAL INPACT~ Tables 2 and 3 tndtcate esttmeted ~evenues and costs for the study area durtng ftscal year X987-88. Annual revenues are projected at $5X7,980 and annual costs are projected at $746,245, resulting in a first year deficit be~veen revenue and costs of $228,265. One-ttme vehtcle and equipment purchase and capttaltzalon costs represent $98,875 of thts deflctt. In the event that Annexations ~4! and ~42 are not completed, the net deflctt of Annexations ~37 - ~40 would be $329,397 during Fiscal Year ~987-88. r~aJor revenue sources durlng Fiscal Year zg87-88 w111 be property tax, motor vehicle Jrt-lieu payments, cigarette taxes and homeowner's property ~ax relief. Although subventions would not normally be received from the State unttl the ftscal year following certification of population by the California Department of Ftnance, the Ctty may conduct a spectal census of population. Once estimates from a spectal census are certified by the State, subventions are recetved wtthtn 30 days. As a result of thts certification process, the City is expected to receive 7 months of subventions during fiscal year xg87-88. V. 1988-1989 FISCAL DIPACTS Tables 4 and 5 lndlcate estimated revenue and costs for the study area during Ftscal Year X988-89. Annual recurring revenues are projected at $7~X,758 and annual recurring costs at $689,565 resulting in excess revenues of $22,193. In the event that Annexations X4! and ~42 are not completed, the net deficlt of Annexations Z37 - ~40 would be $~Z8,360 durtng Ftscal Year 1988-89. ~aJor revenue sources wtll be the property tax, motor vehicle in lleu payments, and gas tex. Costs are generally the same as Fiscal Year ~987-88 with ~wo exceptions. Personnel costs for pollce offtcers and publlc works which were only parttaly budgeted tn Z987-88 wtll tncrease wtth a full year of budgeting and there wtll be no one-time vehicle or equipment purchases in either Publtc Works or the Pollce Department. CAS:pef -7- TABLE 2 CITT OF TUSTI# A SIIIIARYOF COST/REYENUE PRO~IECTZONS FOR ANNEXATTONS (1) FZSCAL YEAR 1987-88 Reveflues Property tax Property tax transfer Hotor Vehicle In-lteu Cigarette tax Gas tax Yehtcle code fines Huntcipal fines Community Oevelopment (81dg & Plan check) fees Homeowner's propert~ tax relief Interest Total Revenues Costs ];~T~Departmnt Personnel Operating Vehicles/equipment (one ttme) Subtotal Publlc Works Personnel Operating Vehicles and equipment (one time) Subtotal Community Development Operating Miscellaneous Fire contract Liability insurance Cost of spectal census (2) Subtotal TOTAL COSTS Total Costs Whtch Exceed Revenues (1) * Annexations 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 $212,952 6,452 135,038 8,411 61,170 27,426 4,520 9,500 45,102 $123,305 7,200 19~000 $149,50S $ 37,640 153,225 79~875 $270,740 $228,000 48,000 30,000 $306,000 $746~245 $228,266 (2) The City wtll conduct a special census in order to recleve subventions earlier than they might be received otherwise this is a one time cost. CAS:per (5/18/87) -8- TABLE:' 4 · · C~TY OF TUSTXN A SUHI4ARY OF COST/REVENUE PROJ£CTXONS FOR ANNEXATIONS (1) FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Property tax Property ~ax transfer Motor Vehtcle [n-lteu Ct g&re~te tax G&s tax Vehtcle code ftnes Flunlctpal ftnes Community Development (bldg & p~an check) fees Homeowner's property tax reltef [ntePest To~al Revenues Recm'r'i ng Costs_ Poll ce Dep&r~ment Personne! Operattng Subtotal Public Morks Personne~ Operating ' Subtotal Community Deve;opment Operating Fire contract Liability Insurance Subtotal TOTAL COSTS Dlffe~eflce bet~eefl Recurrtq Revenue/Costs $240,884 7,279 231,495 14,420 104,861 30,094 4,960 9,500 51,141 $171,555 7,200 50,185 $239,400 48,000 S287,4O0 $689~565 $ ~2,193 (1) * Annexations 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 (2) All ftgures are tn 1987-88 dollars - CAS 5/18/87 -11- C RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FOR~UkTION COb~4ISSION OF ORANGE COUNI~', CALIFORNIA June 3, 1987 On motion of Commissioner Holt, duly seconded and carried; the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a 'resolution for the proposed annexation designated Prospect-Vandenberg Annexation No. 141 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 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 June 3, 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 June 3, 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, Government Code Section §6841; and WHEREAS, the city of Tustin, annexation to be categorically exempt Environmental Quality Act of 1970. but not limited to, factors specified in as lead agency, determined the proposed from the requirements of the California NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: Section 1. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal is approved. Section 2. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the City'of Tustin are specifically described in the legal description attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be inhabited and is assigned the following short-form designation: PROSPECT-VANDENBERG ANNEXATION NO. 141 TO THE CI~ OF TUSTIN. Resolution No. 87-27 14 2; 28 Section 3. Section 4. · Section 5. Section 6. 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. AYES:' COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DONALD A. HOLT, JR,, EVELYN HART and PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE ROGER R. STANTON and THOMAS F. RILEY NONE SS COUNTY OF OP~RNGE 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 3rd day of June, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of June 1987. RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California . _ Secr~xa~,y Resolution No. 87-27. 2. BLOCK 5852 01,02,11 12, 21,22 £XHIBIT "A" PROSPECT - YAND£NBERG ANNEXATION NO. 141 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN _ That portion of the land allotted to Teodocio Yorba, 8 ss described in the Final Decree o~ Partition of the Rancho 9 Santiago de Santa Ana, in the Unincorporated Territory of 10 the County of Orange, State of California, which Decree was 11 entered September 12, 1868, in Book B, page 410 o~ 12 Judgmentm o~ the District Court o~ the 1?th Judloial lB Dtstrlot in and ~or Los AngeZes County, California, 14 described es follovs~ 15 BEGINNING at an angle point tn the existing boundary 18 ~ine of the City o~ Tustin as established by the "Prospect- 17 Zrvine-Newport Annexa~ion ~o. 68 {Revised)~" sai~ angle 18 point being on the ~eaterZlne o~ Prospect Avenue at the 19 vesterly terminus of that certain course described as "S. 20 89' 4~' ~5" ~., 22~6.06 ~eet" in said Annexation, and said 2~ point aiso being described therein as the southwesterly 22 corner of Tract No. 2020 per map recorded in Book 72, pages 23 46 and 47 of Miscellaneous Maps, records o2 said Orange 24 ~ounty, ~alifornia; 25 Thence a~ong said existing boundary line of the City 26 o~ Tustin as estab~ished by said "P~ospect-:rvine-Newport 27 Annexation No. 68 (Revised)," by the "Marvin ~. Lawrence 28 Annexation," by the "Yorba Street Annexation," by the 29 "Seventeenth Street-Prospect Avenue Annexation No. 62 30 ' ~ {Revised)," and by the "Meredith Annexation No. 69," in a 3~ genera~ southerly, westerly, northerly, easterly and 32 southerly direction to the southerly terminus o~ that Page 1 of 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £XHIBIT "A" PROSPECT - VANDENBERG ANNEXATION NO. 141 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN certain course described ss 'S. 000 14° lO' E., 96.54 ~eet" in said "Meredith Annexation No. 69," being s point on the centerline o~ Prospect Avenue at the northwesterly corner o~ Trsot No. 2922 per map recorded in Book iOi, pages 47 and 48 o~ Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, California; Thence leaving the existing boundary tine o~ the City of Tuetin, and along said centerline of Prospect Avenue, S. O° 14' ~0" E., 2i~2.[4 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Ail as more particu[ariy shown on a map, Exhibit attached hereto and by this reEerence made a part hereof. CONTAINING: ~9.746 acres = 0.0934 sq. mi. Legal description prepared by: ~RY R. SI Licensed Land Surveyor No. 4125 (License expiration date 6-30-88) This proposal does meet the epp~o~l O! Ihs Oran~0unly SuweyoF$ Office Page 2 of m?,:--. GARY .SIEGEL e~ COt'APANY PROSPECT- VAND.ENBERG '"/ I :ANNE/~ATION'.:.NO.. 141 TO THE.CITY OF TUSTIN,' CALIFORNIA.