HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hear #1 10-07-87 Annex~'~ ~ ~; I DA PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1987 *
TO: HONORABLE NAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: COI~IUNZTY DEVELOPHERT DEPARTRENT
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 144 - FAIRHAVEN AVENUE
RECOF1NEHDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 87-105 which petitions the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to proceed with proposed Annexation No. 144 - Fatrhaven
Avenue.
8ACI~GROUND AND DISCU$SIO#:
The Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 authorizes the City
Council to make application to LAFCO for the annexation of territory after the
adoption of a resolution. In the past it has been City Council policy to
initiate annexations when citizens of the area had filed a petition with the
City. In this case a petition was filed by approximately 8% of the registered
voters in the area. This area also qualifies as an inhabited "island"
annexation because it is surrounded by the City of Tustin on three sides.
The hearing before the City Council is an information hearing to provide an
opportunity'for the residents of the area to express their concerns and views on
the resolution of application. This is not a protest hearth. 9 and the filing of
a protest at this hearing has no validity as to the status of the annexation
proposal.
The area is bounded by Fairhaven Avenue on the north, Prospect Avenue on the
east, on the south by Santa Clara and present City limits and on the west by
present City limits which are 100 feet easterly of Marshall Lane-(see attached
map). The area of 160 acres consists of 451 single family residences and the
zoning classifications include R-l, E-4 100 and E-4 80. According to the Orange
County Registrar's Office there are 1209 registered voters in the area with an
estimated population of approximately 1713.
If the City Council adopts the attached resolution, the Local Agency Formation
Commision then conducts a fact finding hearing to determine if the subject
proposal meets the requirements of the Government Code. Upon LAFCO's
determination, the matter is referred to the City Council as the "conducting
Ct ty Counct1 Report
October 7, 1987
Annexation No. 144
Page two
authority" for a protest heartng. In the case of Inhabited territory, tf less
than 25~ of the registered voters of the area f~le a protest then the
"conducting" authority orders the annexation completed. If more than 25~ and
less than 50~ of the registered voters file a wrttten protest then an elect~on
must be held. If more than 50~ of the registered voters ~lle a written protest,
then the annexation would be terminated.
A F~scal Impact Analys~s of recent annexation proposals has been completed and
~s attached for the Council's information.
Christine Shingle/t~b'n
Rssoclate Planner Director of Comm~lty Oevelopment
MAC:per
Attachments:Resolutlon No. 87-105
Hap
Legal OescrtptJon
Fiscal Impact Analysts
~ Corn munity Development Department ~'
1
2 RESOLUTION NO. 87-105
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE
INHABITED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS FAIRHAVEN
4 ANNEXATION NO. 144
5 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin on its own motion has
initiated preliminary proceedings for the annexation of certain inhabited
6 territory; and
? WHEREAS, the City'of Tustln has the ability to extend the full range
of municipal services to the subject territory to better serve the needs of
8 the residents of the area; and
9 WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1987 did adopt a resolution
of application for annexation of the subject territory to the City of
10 Tustin; and
11 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation
is a Categorical Class 19 exemption from the requirement of CEQA;
12
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
13 Tustin, California that:
14 1. The proposal for the Fairhaven Annexation No. 144 to the City of
Tustin is made pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Cortese-Knox
15 Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
10 2. The proposed change of organization consists of the annexation
of 160 acres of inhabited territory, surrounded by the
17 incorporated limits of the City of Tustin, the City of Orange
and the County of Orange, and said territory will derive
18 benefits of full municipal services as a result of the
annexation.
3. The subject territory is bounded by Fairhaven Avenue on the
20 north, Prospect Avenue on the east, Santa Clara on the south
along present City boundaries and present City boundaries on the
21 west (which is 100 feet easterly of Marshall Lane).
22 4. The proposed annexation is made for the purpose of increasing
the econom~ and efficiency of government services by
23 incorporating territory within the City's sphere of influence.
1
2 Resolution No, 87-105
Page two
5 5. The application for annexation is submitted by the City Council
of the City of Tustin on its own motion along with a request
6 from various owners in the area.
7 6. The Local Agency Formation Commission is hereby requested to
undertake annexation proceedings pursuant to Part 2, Chapter 3
$ of the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
9 PASSED AND ADOPTED. at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California on the day of , 1987.
10
11
12 Richard B. Edgar
Mayor
Mary E. Wynn
City Clerk
17
18
19
20
FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144
TI) TIlE I~ITY OF TUI;TI#. EALIFI)II#IA
PASSED ADO ADOPTEO I'll DES. liD. OATEn__
~:EDTIFII~O B'~ TH~. S~I~DSTAKY DF STATE
ACRE~
FISCAL IHPACT
ANAJ.YSIS
PROPOSED ANNEXATTONS
144, 145, 1.46
cI'rY OF TUSTZN
OCTOBER, 1987
[. SIIPlARY
The City of Tustln is currently considering the potential annexation of three
(3) additional areas in the North Tusttn Area (Annexation No.s 144, 145, and
146) aS shown on Figure 1. A fiscal impact analysts has been completed of
these annexations In order to project estimated costs and revenues to be
encountered by the Ctty. Results of the ftscal Impact analysts have revealed
the following:
Annexation 144 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 1988-89, 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 1988-89 for the proposed annexations of $47,051
{See Table 2). Revenues over costs realized for fiscal year 1988-89 for
Annexation 145 and 146 will result in excess revenues of $959 and $2,918
respectively.
3. The fiscal 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 Tusttn the General Fund will carry the East Tustin's
prorated share or balance sooner than would otherwise be the case.
II. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORfqATIO#
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.
-1-
1" = 800'
TABLE !
NORTH I:us'rIN ANNEXATION AREAS
SUP~qARY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND ZNFO~ATZON
144 145 146
Total acres 160.28 16.49 8.9
Total square miles .250 .026 .014
Current population
estimate 1713 201 68
Estimated persons
per household 3.8 3.8 3.8
Registered voters (prel.) 1209 123 43
Existing land uses
Single Family 451 53 18
-' Office 1
Pre-school 1
Curb miles 10.3 1.1 0.4
1987 - 88 Current Assessed
Value $37,206,662 $3,664,637 $2,335,009
1988 - 89 Projected
Assessed Value $37,950,795 $3,811,222 $2,381,709
III. FI~JU. IMPACT ASSIJHPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
A. FISCAL I#PACT ASSUHPTIONS
The following major assumptions were used tn developing the ftscal impact
analysts:
° ~ll revenue estimates are based on the most current popula=lon,
economic and land use data available.
The analysts ts presented tn constant 1986-1987 dollars wtth no
adjustments for Inflation.
° Costs were directly estimated for Ctty departments.
° The analysts does not tnclude actual capital Improvement
expenditures needed In annexation areas although It ts expected that
said Improvements could represent significant future costs.
° The analysis looks at the first possible full fiscal year after
which the annexations would be completed for determining costs and
revenues.
B. METHODOLOGY
The following discussion defines estimation methodologies used in
projecting various City revenues and costs resulting from annexation of
the study area.
i. REVENUES
Property Tax
Under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement, the City receives
approximately 45~ of the County share and the share of affected
special districts. Tusttn's share of the basic levy under this
Agreement would be approximately 13~.
Property Transfer Tax
The City receives an allocation of $.55 per [,000 valuation of
property sold, excluding the ortgtnal equtty on property and
existing financing assumed by a buyer. A .[0 turnover rate is
assumed with an .80 consideration rate for equity and financing.
Motor Vehicle [n-Lieu
$28.89 per capita
-2-
Cigarette 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 Fines
$.62 per capita
Community Development (Building and Plan Check) fees
Revenue estimates assume that the majority of single family homes
are at least 20 years old and .05 of these units will be reroofed
per year as deferred maintenance. The average permit for a 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 75~ major
remodels and 255 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
Inte~st
2.55 of all projected recurring revenues
2. COSTS
Police Department
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
CZTY OF TUSTZN
A DE'rAIL OF COST/REVENUE PROdECTIONS
· FOR ANNEXATZONS
FISCAL YEAR 1988-89
Recurrln9 Revenues 144 145 146 Tota]s
Property tax 49,277 4,955 3,096 57,328
Property tax transfer 1,668 168 105 1,941
Motor Vehicle Zn-11eu 49,489 5,807 1,965 57,261
Cigarette tax 2,970 702 502 4,174
Gas tax 22,440 2,634 890 25,964
Vehicle code fines 6,441 756 226 7,423
Municipal fines 5,670 230 42 5,942
Community Development (Bldg &
plan check)fees 10,462 1,052 657 12,171
Homeowner's property tax relief 3,710 408 187 4,305
[nterest
Total Revenues 152,127 16,712 7,670 176,509
RecurrJn9 Costs
Poltce
'~-sonnel 40,000
:rattng 2,000
Subtotal 42,000
Public ~orks (1)
Personnel 13,695
Operating 53,650 5,755 2,135 61,540
Subtotal 67,345 5,755 2,135 61,540
Fire contract (2) 79,555 8,792 375 88,722
Liability insurance 10,278 1,206 408 11,892
Subtotal 89,833 9,998 783 100,614
TOTAL COSTS 199,178 15,753 2,918 217,849
Difference bel~een Recurrtn~
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
· equtred that could result in larger financial liabilities.
Public Works Oepartment
Public Works costs'are estimated for four major line divisions that
would be service impacted by proposed annexations - Streets, Trees,
Yehicles. 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 lg87-88 budget.
Personnel and capital vehicle and equipment costs were directly
estimated based on input from the Public Works Oepartment. 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 14S and 146 could be absorbed 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-$ 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
Fatrhaven Avenues
All roads within Area 145 have been recently overlayed and should
pose no major problems for the next ten years. Laurtnda 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 Tncreases
Stnce 1978 Tus~cln has received fire protection and suppression
servtces through the Orange County Fire Otstrtct. Fire protection
costs to contracting ctttes are based on an allocation of the F~re
Dtstrtct budget. Removing certain unique expenditures, an adjusted
total ts allocated to each contracting ctty based on assessed
valuation of Improvements and unsecured valuation, number of calls
for servtce tn preceding year., population and area In square mtles.
It ts assumed that structural ftre protection costs per Captta wtll
be approximately $29.87, $614 costs per mtllton of assessed
valuation and $22,186 per square mtle served, along with a 5~;
increase tn the base rate due to current labor negotiations underway
at the County. The City's projected Increases In ftre contract
costs are expected to be the worse case.
Ltabtllt7 :Znsurance
Assumes an Increase of $5 per capita.
1988-89 FISCAL IMPACTS
Table 2 indicates estimated revenue and costs for annexation areas during Fiscal
,)[ear 1988-89.
.,mual revenues for Annexation Area 144 are projected at $152,127 and annual costs
are projected at $199,178, resulting In a deftcit between revenues in 1988-89 of
$47,051. As noted earlier, however, tt ts known that significant capital
improvements are required that could, depending on schedu~ing, result tn larger
financial 11abi~1tles on the City over ttme.
Annual revenues for Annexation Areas 145 and 145 are projected at $15,712 and
$7,570 respectively and annual costs at $15,753 and $2,918 resulting tn excess of
revenues for Annexation Area 145 of $959 for Annexation 146 $2,918.
CAS :per
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
FAIRHAVENAVENUE ANNEXATION NO.
TO 1 .... CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STA1. JF CALIFORNIA
1 BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTINC CITY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY
2 OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS ESTAHLISHED BY THE
3 THE MARSHALL ANNEXATION PElt ORDINANCE NO. 145, PASSED AND ADOPTED
4 FEBRUARY 16, 1961, SAID POINT BEING TIlE NORTtI~EST CORNER OF TRACT NO.
6' 3697, RECORDED IN BOOK 129, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORR~
6 OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT IN THE EXI'STING
? CITY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, AS ESTABLISHED BY CITY
8 OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 227, PER ORDINANCE NO. 56-64, PASSED AND
9 ADOPTED DECEMBER 10, 1964;
10
11 THENCE NORTH' 8?° 4?' 48" EAST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN AND CITY OF
49 ORANGE BOUNDARY AND ALONG THE NORlqlERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT NO. 3697
13 A DISTANCE OF 430.21 FEET TO TME NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO.
44 369?, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ~EST LINE OF LOT 10 OF TRACT NO. 1816,
15 RECORDED IN BO01~ 55, PA~E 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS OF SAID
16 ORANGE COUNTY;
48 ~Iq~ENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY ~t~D ALONG SAID CITY
49 OF ORANOE BOUNDARY NORTH O00 23' 15" ~EST ALONG SAID CITY HOUNDARY OF
~0 THE CITY OF ORANGE AND ALONG THE ~EST LINE OF SAID LOT 10 OF SAID TRACT
91 NO. 1816 A DISTANCE OF 22.46 PEET TO A POINT 30.00 FEET SOUTH OP TIlE
~ CENTERLINE OF PAIRHAVEN AVENUE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES;
2~
24 TDENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY NORTli 89° 52' 39"
~S EAST ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 30 FEET SOUTHERLY
28 FROM THE CENTERLINE OF FAIltflAVRN AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 320.20 PEET TO THE
2~ NORTHEAST CORNE~t OF LOT I OF SAID TRACT NO. 1816;
~8
~9 THENCE CONtiNUING ALONG SAID CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY NORTH 10 FEET, MORE
~0 oR LESS;
31
~ THENCE CONTINUINO ALONG SAID CITY OF ORANOE BOUNDARY NORTH 890 52' 39"
1 EAST ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 20 FEET SOUTHERLY
2 FRO~ THE CENTERLINE OF I~AIRUAVEN AVENUE AS HEASURED ~ RIGHT ANGLES 190
~3 FEET, HORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 30 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF YORBA
4 STREET AND 20 FEET SOUTH OF TIlE CENTERLINE OF FAIRHAVEN AVENUE;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CI'~Y OF ORANGE BOUNDARY NORTH 00° O7* 21'*
? WEST ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 30 FEET EASTERLY
FROH THE CENTERLINE OF YORBA STREET, A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET TO TIlE CENT-
9 ERLINE OF 'FAxRHAvEN AVENUE, SAID POINT AL~O BEING A POINT ON TIlE NORTH
10 LiNE OF FI~C~xoNAL SECTION' 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST;
12 THENCE DEPARTING FROH SAID CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY NORTH 89° S2' 39"
13 EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF FAIREAVEN AVENUE AND SAID NORTH LINE A
14 DISTANCE OF 2207.90 FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF FAIR-
15 HAVEN AVENUE AND PROSPECT AVENUE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON TIlE
16 EAST LINE OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP S SOUTH, RANGE 9 ~EST;
17
18 THENCE DEPARTING FltOH THE CENTERLINE OF FAIREAVEN AVENUE AND SAID NORTH
19 LINE SOUTH 03° 07' 49" ~EST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND
90 ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 2225.18 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF
21 TEE CEI~ERLINES OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SANTA CLARA AVENUE~
22
2~3 THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLXNE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SAID EAST
94 LINE SOUTH 03° 07' 6,9" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.04 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION
25 OF THE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF
26 THE HOST NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION PER
27 ORDINANCE NO. 266. PASSED AND ADOPTED JANUARY 7, 1965;
28
29 TllENCE DEPARTING FROH THE CENTERLINE OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND SAID EAST
30 LINE SOUTN 89° 6,§' 6,9" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION A DISTANCE
31 OF 25 FEET, HORE OR LESS, TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTING CITY OF
~ ~32 TUSTIN BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION,
P~E ~0
1 SAID POINT BEING THE HOST NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID R~VISED SANTA CLARA
ANNEXATION; ., ·
THENCE SOUTH 89° 45' 4.9" WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BODND~J{Y A DIS-
TANCE OF 353 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT IN TIlE F~ISTING CITY
6 OF TUNTIN BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID REVISED SANTA CLAP~A ANNEXATION;
7
8 THENCE SOUTH O0° 21' 16" WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY A DIS-
9 TANCE ~F !5.00 PEET TO AN ANGLE POINT iN THE EXISTING CITY OF TUSTIN
10 BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID REVISED SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION;
12 THENCE SOUTH 89° 45' 49" WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF .TUSTIN BOUNDARY A DIS-
13 TANCE 0P 407.09 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 3465,
14 RECORDED IN BOOK 120, PAGES 14 AND 15 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
15 SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTllEAST CORNER OF YORBA
16 STREET ANNEXATION NO. 2 PER ORDINANCE NO. 139, PASSED AND ADOPTED
17 OCTOBER 10, 1960;
19 THENCE CONTINUING S~UTH 890' &5' 49" ' WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN
20 BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 1278.59 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTING
21 CITY-~F T~-~TIN BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID YORBA STREET ANNEXATION
22 NO. 2, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
23 YOE~A STI~ET;
24
25 THENCE SOUTH O0° 17' 07" EAST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY AND
26 SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 465.10 FEET TO AN ANGLE
27 POINT IN THE EXISTING CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISllED BY SAID
28 YORBA STREET ANNEXATION NO. 2;
29
~0 TRENCE DEPARTING I~OM SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOI.FrH 8~° ~§* 49"
31 WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 365 FEET, MOEE 0E
32 LESS, TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTINC CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY AS
PAGE THREE
I ESTABLISHED BY SAID YOEBA STREET ANNEXATION NO. 2 AND THE AFOREHENTIONED
2 HARSHALL ANNEXATION, PER' ORDINANCE NO. 139, PASSED AND ADOPTED OCTOBER
10~ 1960, SAID POINT BEING ON TIlE HOST EASTERLY LINE OF SAID HARSEALL
ANNI~ATION;
THENCE NORTH O0° 22" 55" I~EST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY A DIS-
TANCE OF I75o08 FEET TO THE SOUTNEAST CORNER OF TIlE FAIRNONT I~AY ANNEXA-
TION, PER ORDINANCE NO. 308, PASSED AND ADOPTED OCTOBER 10, 1960~
1 THENCE CONTINUING NORTH OOO 22* 5~~ ~EST ALONC SA~[~D CITY OF TUSTIN
11 BOUNDARY AND TIlE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID FAIRHONT WAY ANNEXATION A DIS-
12 TANCE OF 330°02 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE F.~ISTINC CITY OF TUSTIN
1'1 BOUNDARY AND TO THE CENTERLINE OF SANTA CLARA AVENUE, SAID ANGLE POINT
14 BEY. NC THE NORTIIEAST CORNER OF SAID FAIRNONT WAY ANNEXATION;
16 THENCE CONTINU'rNC SOOTH 89° 45" &9" WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN
17 BOUNDARY AND ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SANTA CLARA AVENUE A DISTANCE OF
18 156~./+3 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TIlE SANTA CLARA AVENUE AND FAIR-
19 HONT ~/AY ~NNEXAT~'ON PER RESOLUTION NO. 420, PASSED AND ADOPTED,
20 OCTOBER 29, 1968;
21
22 THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89° ~.5~ /~9' WEST ALONG SAID CITY OF TUST1N
23 BOUNDARY AND ALONG SAID CENTEHLINE OF SANTA CLARA AVENUE A DISTANCE OF
94 3~6.52 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THI~ EXISTING CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY
25 AS ESTABLISHED BY THE HARSHALL ANNEXATION BY ORDINANCE NO. 145, PASSED
26 AND ADOPTED JANUARY 16) 1961;
27
28 THENCE DEPART~N(~ FROH SAID CENTEItLINE OF SANTA CLARA AVENUE AND CONTINU-
29 ING ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY NORTH O0° 24' 21" WEST A DISTANCE
30 OF 1~.00 FEET TO TIlE HOST ~/ESTERLY SOUTI[~EST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 1520,
31 RECORDED IN BOOK 74, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS HAPS, RECORDS OF
32 SAID ORANGE COUNTY~
PACE FOUR ,. ,
1 THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY NORTH O0° 24' 21"
2 ~/EST ALONG THE HOST 14ESTERL¥ LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1520 A DISTANCE OF
3 906.19 FEET TO THE NoItTH~EST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 1520 AND THE
4 SOUTH~ES'g CORNER OF TRACT NO. 3612, RECORDED IN BOOK 125, PACES 24 AND
S' 25 OF MISCELLANEOUS HAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
$
? THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY NORTII O0° 24' 21"
8 ~EST ALONG THE ~/ESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 3612 A DISTANCE OF 258°80
9 FEET TO TIlE NORTI~EST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 3612, SAID POINT BEING
10 ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 3697, RECORDED IN BOOK 129,
11 PAGES 8 AND 9-OF HISCELLANEOUS HAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY~
13 THENCE CONTINUINO ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY SOUTI! 89° 49~ 14"
14 ~EST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 3697 A DISTANCE OF
15 68.70 FEET TO TIlE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 3697;
16
17 TIlENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY NORTII OO° 24~ 21"
18 ~4ES~ ALONG TIlE ~/ESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 3697 A DISTANCE
19 OF 839.46 FEE~ TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
20
21 CONTAINING 160.28 ACRES.
25 ANNA H. BF.M,, L.S. 4955 No. 4955
RE:GISTEATION EXPIRATION DAT£.- 13-31-89 Expires 12/3118~.
~8
~0
3~
165-01-144
JUNE 30~, 1987
PACE FIVE