HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 ANNEXATION 129 02-01-82' 6, Inter-Corn
THRU:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
R.K. FLEAGLE
PROPOSED NEWPORT/VANDERLIP ANNEXATION NO. 129
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to LAFCO in regard to Annexation No,
129, substantially as drafted.
BACKGROUND:
A request was filed by 13 property owners on the west side of Newport
Avenue southerly of 17th Street for the annexation of their properties to
the City of Tustin as an "uninhabited" annexation.
The City initiated a request to LAFCO on behalf of the property owners by
adoption of Resolution No. 81-119.
The Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on January 13,
1982. Protests to the annexation were presented by the Foothill
Association, SMAC, and other residents of the adjoining areas. No protest
was made by any property owner subject to annexation.
LAFCO closed the public hearing and continued the deliberations until the
meeting of February 10, 1982 to allow the City of Tustin to review the
boundaries of the proposed annexation with the suggestion that the
boundaries should be extended northerly to 17th Street and westerly to the
flood control channel.
DISCUSSION:
The protests that were presented to LAFCO ranged from a desire to preserve
the rural atmosphere and goats to those that contended that city taxes are
higher than for county residents. Property owners petitioning for
annexation based their case on a desire to be relieved from the arbitrary
controls of SMAC and to be subject to the representative Council of the
City of Tustin.
Land uses were discussed but ruled by the Commission as non-relevant,
The suggestion that the boundaries be enlarged was submitted by the LAFCO
staff and endorsed by Steve Johnson of SMAC.
To enlarge the boundaries as suggested would change the character of the
annexation to an "inhabited" annexation. On the basis of the protests that
were presented to LAFCO, it is certain that an enlarged annexation proposal
would require an election and probable defeat. The city would thus be
required to expend money for an election that would produce no positive
benefits for anyone.
If the annexation is approved as submitted, there are other adjoining
property owners who would desire to be in the city. In addition, the area
is an urbanized area receiving urban services. As such, it is the intent
of the State Legislature for LAFCO to approve such annexations without
discretion.
To avoid the necessity and expense of an election, it is recommended that a
letter from the Mayor advising LAFCO that there is no interest of the City
Council to expand this proposal from an uninhabited to an inhabited
annexation.
R.K. FLEAGLE
RKF;dmt
January 26, 1982
Office of the Mayor
Honorable Chairman and Members
Hall of ~dministration Building
10 Civic Center Plaza, Boom 458
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: PROPO~D Ng~R:OIR~/VANDERLIP ANNEXATI(1N NO. 129 TO ~HE CITY C~ TUSTIN
Honorable Chairman and Members:
Thank you for your consideratic~ and continued deliberatic~ of the proposed
Newport/Vanderlip Annexation No. 129 to the City of Tustin until February
10, 1982.
Cc~missioner Stantcn suggested that the City consider expanding the
proposed annexation boundaries to 17th Street c~ the north and the Flood
Control Channel on the west. The City Council considered this suggestion
on February 1, 1982 and directed that I inform you of the Council's
response, based on the following considerations:
The City submitted this proposal at the request of the majority of the
property owners based c~ the policy and premise that owners of
urbanized properties adjacent to the City boundaries and within the
sphere of influence have a right to request annexation and the City is
willing to serve the properties.
2. The subject properties are developed and can be served efficiently by
the City without undue financial burden.
e
The City is not pursuing an aggressive annexation policy but is
willing to serve those properties and residents that wish to be within
the incorporated limits.
o
Upon adoption of urban service boundaries, the subject properties
would fall within the purview of Sections 35051 amd 35150(a)(2) of the
Government Code.
The approval of this proposal will result in a request of adjoining
property owners to be annexed to the City to gain the benefit of urban
services, which would not be possible unless they are contiguous.
300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890
Local Agency Formation Commission
January 26, 1982
page two
o
As evidenced from past annexation proposals and testimony presented at
the LAFCO hearing on January 13, 1982, enlarging the boundaries as
suggested to create an "inhabited" area would result in the necessity
of an election at an added cost to the City ar~ organized resistance
that would probably result in defeat of the proposal.
The City Council of the City of Tustin requests that annexation proposal
No. 129 be approved with the boundaries as submitted in the interest of
recognizing the desires of the property owner and the urbanized ~haracter
of the subject properties.
~spectfully,
JAM~-g B. SHARP,
Mayor
JS:KF:dmt