HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 REORGANIZATION 53 05-02-83 Inter-Corn
: April 27, 1983 ~
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BILL HUSTON
REORGANIZATION NO. 53
This item was continued from the March 21, 1983 meeting in order that
additional information could be obtained pursuant to the Council's
direction.
At the March 21, 1983 meeting, the Council requested:
1. The amount of acreage to be transferred to City of Irvine that is
owned by the U.S. Navy and the amount owned by the Irvine Company.
2. The amount of military housing that could be constructed on land south
of MCAS(H) that is currently within the City limits of Irvine.
The attached map delineates the portion of the 147 acres to be transferred
to the City of Irvine owned by the Irvine Company (approximately 39 acres)
and the portion owned by the U.S. Navy (approximately 108 acres). The
Irvine Company acquired the 39 acres from the U.S. Navy in connection with
a land exchange/acquisition transaction which provided for the realignment
of Moulton Parkway. Subsequent to assuming ownership of the 39 acres, the
Irvine Company dedicated the right-of-way for the realignment project.
With regard to the military housing, there are approximately 861 units
situated within the 147 acres. The Marine Corps has an option on two 59
acre parcels south of Warner Avenue for additional military housing. The
City recently was contacted by an environmental firm retained by the U.S.
Navy to assess the environmental effects of constructing approximately 400
military housing units on the option parcels which are delineated on the
attached map. Both option parcels are within the present Irvine City
limits.
Upon closure of the public hearing, staff will review the Council's options
regarding Reorganization No. 53.
BH:dmt
~. ,~_ SANTA ANA FWY. ,.~
~& ,,_. '.'..'.. · ,,
'~!~ ~ WALNUT A~
59+ AC ~ ~ '~ MILITARY
DATE March 16, 1983 Inter-Corn
FROM:
BILL HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REORGANIZATION NO. 53 - ADJUSTMENT
OF TUSTIN/IRVINE CITY BOUNDARIES
BACKGROUND:
Reorganization No. 53, the adjustment of the Tustin/Irvine city boundaries,
was initiated by the Cfty of Tustin on October 10, 1980. The Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved the reorganization at its January 26,
1983 meeting and designated the Tustin City Council as the conducting
authority for completing the proceedings. The City Council subsequently
set March 21, 1983 as the date for a public hearing to consider any
protests filed by affected registered voters and property owners.
There are 127 registered voters within the affected area. Notices have
been sent, 24 of which were returned as undeliverable. The two property
owners, the U.S. Federal Government and the Irvine Company have been
notified of the hearing.
The reorganization provides for the exchange of 96+ acres (Parcel 1) from
the City of Irvine to the City of Tustin and 147+ acres (Parcel 2) from the
City of Tustin to the City of Irvine. Maps delineating the parcels are
attached.
DISCUSSION:
Reorganization No. 53 is the final phase of a three phase program initiated
by the cities and LAFCO to adjust the Tustin/Irvine boundary.
Colonel Robert Mitchell, Commanding Officer of MCAS{H) Tustin has submitted
a letter dated February 23, 1983 (a copy of which is attached) opposing the
reorganization on the basis that the boundary adjustment should not proceed
until the alignment of Myford Road is settled. The City has maintained
that Reorganization No. 53 and the alignment of MYford Road as it relates
to MCAS(H) Tustin are separate issues. Per the attached response to Col.
Mitchell from the City Manager's office, the reorganization should proceed
notwithstanding the alignment of Myford Road south of Moulton Parkway for
the following reasons:
The City is con~nencing its specific planning process for the Peters
Canyon area. The 96 acres to be transferred from 1trine to Tustin
through the reorganization is adjacent to and compatible with the
Irvine Industrial Park in Tustin and should therefore be part of the
Peters Canyon Specific Plan.
The Moulton Parkway realignment project scheduled to start
construction this year includes construction of an over-pass at the
Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The over-pass will provide for extension
of Myford Road along the eastern boundary of the 96 acres to be
transferred to Tustin. Transferring the 96 acres to Tustin is
consistent with LAFCO's determination that Myford Road, in so far as
possible, should be the Tustin/Irvine boundary.
3. The Peters Canyon wash is a natural boundray through MCAS(H).
The Irvine Police Department is capable of responding to the portion
of the base to be transferred to Irvine and, in fact, can provide a.
quicker response time to that portion of the base. Since the
dependent housing adjacent to Harvard Avenue is not included in a
routine patrol area, it takes the Tustin Police longer to respond
than would the 1trine Police because of the proximity of the housing
to developed areas of Irvine.
To date the only other written protest filed is from a Mrs. Susan A.
O'Brien, a copy of which is attached.
The Council has the following options:
If sufficient protests requiring an election are not filed, adopt
Resolution No. 83-22 ordering Reorganization No. 53 following closure
of the public hearing. The resolution could be adopted on March 21,
1983 or within 30 days thereafter.
If protests are filed and not withdrawn (either by 25% or more of the
registered voters or by property owners representing 25% or more of
the total assessed value of the land, the Council would continue the
matter to April 4, 1983 at which time an election on the proposed
reorganization would be scheduled.
3. Open the public hearing and continue it up to sixty (60) days.
BH:dmt
~. cB_ SANTA ANA FWY. ~.
MCAS (H) ' , = ~
BARRANCA RD.
AREAS TO BE EXCHANGED
~ AREA TO BE INCLUDED IN IRVINE (PAR~L 2)
~AREA TO ~ INCLUDED IN TUSTIN (PARCEL I)
1983
March 14, 1983
Tustin City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Re: Proposition 53
I am presently a resident of the military housing at the Tustin Helicopter
base. I am also a native Californian, born in Los Angeles, raised in the mili-
tary all over the world until 1968, when my family returned and settled in the
City of Anaheim. I am a Californian registered voter in Anaheim, because that
is my home of record for military purposes.
This letter is a protest against the rezoning of the military housing in
Tustin base. There are no advantages to becoming part of Irvine City to the
military families and housing area.
We, in the housing community, are Just that; a community that is brought
together for the sams purpose of serving our country. Our military msn have
chosen the commitment to serve and, therefore, so have their families. In
exchange for that "intangible benefit" to our country, the servicemsn and his
family is given an allowance for housing and a community with common interests
and goals to live in.
You may ask what are these interests and goals, well, they are no different
than most communities -- the right to live a peaceful and cooperative existence.
But we have one basic difference, we all share the same life commitment; to
serve our country as a military comzmnity. In our community our primary law
enforcement is the military police. These gentlemen enforce all regulations
from speeding to family disturbances. They deal with the military family and
their stresses with understanding because they are living our lifestyle as well.
Our community has special needs because of the stress from our lifestyle.
That is why we have our community services available on base. These include
F~mtly Services, which deal with family stress due to military life'; Navy
Relief Society, which deals with family financial problems that are usually
caused by military lifestyle; Red Cross, which is an invaluable communicate
to the serviceman and family in time of crisis, no matter where in the world.
And I could go on (e.g., Child Care Center, bowling alley, swimming pool,
football field, parks).
But most importantly is the support we neighbors give one another when our
men are gone. How are we able to give of ourselves, because we wives and
families know we are secure under the protection of our government. We have
the protection of the military police primarily and we have had the support of
the Tustin police as well.
I can only see the rezoning of our military housing as a destruction of
a useful constructive community. I view changing the city boundary so as
to separate the MCAS(H) family housing from that of the main base as a
destructive action that will tend to create an emotional, isolated feeling
in the minds of those of us who live in the housing. We are very satisfied
police department.
We, in the military housing area, belong to the Helicopter base because
of our commitment to our chosen military lifestyle and because all of our
services are at the Helicopter base.
We are a unit!
of lifestyle!
We want to continue to enjoy and grow with our quality
.Respectfully,
SUSAN A. O'BRIEN
UNITED STATES MARINE COII]~ C I~ I V ~,
MARINI' CONN AIN STATION
~?~ ii011/5
23 Feb
City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Vay
Tuscan, CA 92680
Re: Opposition to ~.micipal Resolution No. 83-10
Dear Council Me~bers:
This con.and, as has been a ~aCCer of record for many years, opposes any
plan wh/chwould serve Co fragment or otherwise divide the geographical
integrity of
Municipal Resolution 83-10 proposes to alter city boundaries of Tuscan
and IL.ins along a line which is currently undergoing ~-olysis as a possible
route for furore North-South arterial highway expansion. Although I recog-
nize the requirement for expanded North-South traffic fl.ow capability, any
road through H~(H) would be viewed with serious concern. I therefore
believe.that basing city boundaries along'arians.tHat.is o-iy.one of ...
several highway routing options under Consideration is premature..
.
Large portions of the current ,~-t cipal boundary in question between
Irvine and Tustin is for~ed by the U. S. ~overn~ant property linewhich also
for~s the MCAS(H) Tustin base perimeter. This property lineprovides a
readily identifiable physfcal feature ~-4 i~ compatible with USMC adminis-
tration' aboard HCAS(H).
As you are aware, the TusCin Police Department ~ainCains Jurisdiction
aboard HCAS(H) in all ¢~es where requested or required. The working
relationships between ~embers of the MrA~(H) Security Department ~nd Tuscan
Police has been close and continuous; a similar circumstance exists with
County of Orange in regard Co Fire Protection. Ve believe chat to divide
municipal Jurisdictions aboard HCAS(H) will adversely impact these and
other professional co~unity service rslationships. With higher projected
· /litary f-~ly densities aboard M~-A~(H), efficient and effective
services becomes even~ore critical in the future. Forcing staff ~embers
and service a~encies to deal with additional civilian Service counterparts
would needlessly co~plicate coordinations and could prove to reduce the
overall quality of life for our Marine families living aboard H CAS(H).
Staff ~embers, as well as tenant units and individualHarines Se~v£n~
aboard ~CAS(H) Tuscan, have tr-dttionally enjoyed cordial relations and close
ties with citizens and officials from the City of Tustin. Indeed, the primary
argument made during ann--~tion proceedings in the 197&-76 time frame seemed
2RD'. RD~: ~p
11011/5
~3 Feb 1983
to be the wealth of existing mtual interests. Attempting to divide the .-,-i-
cipal jurisdictions witltin ItCAS(H) see~s to refute the written word of Tuscin
Mayor Joseph B. Langley who stated in a letter to the Secretary of the Nav~:
'The City of Tustln has continued to be highly supportive of the
mission of HCAS(H) ~,,d identifies closely with it and its per-
sonnel, .-,ny of whom live in Tustin.
"Annexation Co Tustin will help to serene%hen City support of the
continuin~ mission of H~-A.~(H) and bring ocher enhancements of
improve~ents and pro%T--- to the Station. Tustin's support of
the Station is especially /mportant because of the flight
patterns of H~-A-~(H) which are over Tustin territory.
"Shall the City of Tustin consider only the direct interests of
its --~sting residence in these important decision ahead? Or,
shall the City of Tuscin, with the annexation of cbs Marine Corps
Air Station (Helicopter), accept the broader responsibili~y to
support and protect the Station aa well? We sincerely believe
chac the latter role is in the lon$ range interest of both the
City and the Navy and hope you vill concur by giving your consent
to the --,,~T~tion.'
· '.As you .~ay be aWare, the Comnding'Officer o2 M~.A.q(H) Tuskin serve~ on
the Thatin Chmtber of Commute Board-'of Directors and has traditionally been
a ~ember of' the Tusttn Rotary CTub. In addition, Marines [rom MCAS(H) have '
been deeply involved in nuMrou8 community activities with Tustin ci~izens.
Tustin Tiller Days,' Tustin ~/itnee8' for Fitness, Tustin Boys Club assistance,
TusCin l~.gh School Band Booster fund raising assistance are a few e~n-ples
of the degree -_-4 breath of involveuent our Ma~ines have enjoyed. Also,
numerous tour groups, school classes, and citizens groups have been routinely
welcomed aboard MCA.q(H).
lc is in this spirit of ,-,Cual respect ~-~ interest theC 'I ask you to
consider leaving the boundary between l~,lne and Tuscin aa the U. S. ~overn-
ment property line which fot'm~ the N~-&-~(H) Tuetin base perimeter, where
applicable, or delay Jurisdictional realig~uont actions until such time as
the North-South arterial matter is finally resolved. If the city boundary
is allowed to retain as is currently in existence, USHC considerations will
have been met and the stated objectives of the City Council Resolution will
have been a~hiaved.
staff is prepared to discuss this matter further, if deemed desirable.
Sincerely,
E. G. HXTc-~-LL
Colonel, U. S. ~arine Corps
Cou-andtng
2
March 2, 1983
Office o~ the Oty Manager
Colonel Robert Mitchell
United States Marine Corps
Marine Corps Air Station, Helicopter
Tustin, CA 92710
Dear Colonel Mitchell:
I am responding to your letter of February 23, 1983 concerning Municipal
Reorganization No. 53.
As you probably are aware, the City Council is conducting a public hearing
on March 21, 1983 concerning the proposed reorganization. The Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved the reorganization at its January 26,
1983 meeting.
Your letter addresses two separate issues: the boundary adjustment between
the Cities of Tustin and Irvine and the alignment of Myford Road.
'With regard to the boundary adjustment, it is important to realize that
Reorganization No. 53 is the third phase of a program initiated by the
cities and LAFCO to align the common boundary between Irvine and Tustin
along Myford Road. On January 14, 1981 LAFCO redefined the easterly
boundary of the City of Tustin's sphere of influence to coincide with the
centerline of the realignment and extension of ~ford Road.
The final phase, which is Municipal Reorganization No. 53, was initiated by
the City of Tustin on October 10, 1980. It should be clear that the
proposed reorganization has been thoroughly reviewed by all affected
parties for over two years.
At the January 26, 1983 LAFCO meeting, the City of Tustin testified that
the reorganization should proceed notwithstanding the alignment of Myford
Road south of Moulton Parkway for the following reasons:
The City is commencing its specific planning process for the Peters
Canyon area. The 96 acres to be transferred from Irvine to Tustin
through the reorganization is adjacent to and compatible with the
Irvine Industrial Park in Tustin and should therefore be part of the
Peters Canyon Specific Plan.
300 Centennial Hay * Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890
Colonel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page two
e
The Moult on Parkway realignment project scheduled to start
construction this year includes construction of an over-pass at the
Sante Fe Railroad tracks. The over-pass will provide for extension
of Myford Road along the eastern boundary of the 96 acres to be
transferred to Tustin. Transferring the 96 acres to Tustin is
consistent with LAFCO's determination that Myford Road, in so far as
possible, should be the Tustin/Irvine boundary.
3. The Peters Canyon wash is a natural boundary through MCAS(H).
The Irvine Police Department is capable of responding to the portion
of the base to be transferred to Irvine and, in fact, can provide a
quicker Wesponse time to that portion of the base. Since the
dependent housing adjacent to Harvard Avenue is not included in a
routine patrol area, it takes the Tustin Police longer to respond
than would the Irvine Police because of the proximity of the housing
to developed areas of Irvine.
We certainly understand your concern about dividing the base, however, we
do not feel it will cause any major burden upon the. administration of
MCAS(H). Both Tustin and Irvine are served by the Orange County Fire
Department so there will be no change in the level of fire protection. The
dependent housing is curregtly situated in the 1trine School District so
there will be no change in school attendance. The City of Tustin has
enjoyed a positive working relationship with the personnel of MCAS(H) and
would expect it to continue. We are confident that the City of Irvine
would establish and sustain an equally positive working relationship with
MCAS(H).
The City of Tustin is pursuing the reorganization because of the reasons
cited above and not whether Myford Road should be extended through the
base. From a land use planning perspective and in order to provide more
efficient civilian law enforcement service to the base, the reorganization
should proceed. We totally disagree that the reorganizatin could reduce
the overall quality of life for Marine families at MCAS(H). There will not
be any material changes which affect the health, safety and welfare of
Marine dependents.
With regard to the extension of Myford Road through the base, there has
been a tremendous effort put forth by the Cities of Tustin and Irvine and
the Irvine Company to resolve this issue. This has been a matter of
discussion among the affected parties, including the Marine Corps for at
least ten years. We simply cannot allow the issue of the ultimate
alignment of this critical north/south arterial highway to linger any
longer.
Colonel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page three
We feel that the need for Myford Road has been clearly demonstrated. The
economic viability of Tustin and the resolution of its critical traffic
problems depend upon the completion of l~yford Road between Jamboree and the
ultimate alignment of the Foothill Corridor. With the preparation of the
Peters Canyon Specific Plan now underway, time is of the essence.
You state in your letter that basing City boundaries along a line that is
only one of several highway routing options under consideration is
premature. This statement is erroneous in that there are essentially only
two options: extend ~[yford Road through MCAS(H) or build a road around the
base following the present alignment of Harvard Avenue. The Harvard Avenue
alignment is totally unacceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint
because the severe curvature of that alignment would not be conducive to
proper traffic flow.
In 1981 a technical engineering and environmental report evaluating
alternative highway alignments through MCAS(H) was presented to the Marine
Corps. Local Marine Corps personnel concluded the report was valid and
their comnents were incorporated into the final report. The cities have
concluded that the only viable option is extension of Myford Road through
the base. Our position has been clearly articulated and presented to the
Marine Corps on numerous occasions during the past two years.
It is inaccurate to assume that the cities have only recently or without
due consideration of the Marine Corps promoted the extension of MB'ford Road
through the base. In fact, the north/south arterial through MCAS(H) was
shown on the County Master Plan of Highways prior to the incorporation of
Irvine in 1971.
As you will recall, all the affected parties met with the Depu~ Assistant
Secretary of the Navy on April 16, 1982 in an attempt to reach an agreement
on this matter. The meeting resulted in an agreement on the following
points:
The land use restrictions in the Browning Corridor could apply for 20
years rather than perpetuity.
2. Rental housing could be considered in the corridor.
A corridor width of 750' is not an absolute minimum, but one with
which the cities and The Irvine Company should attempt to comply.
4. The heavy lift operations would be relocated.
C010nel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page four
Further discussion was needed on compensation to the Marine Corps for
the right-of-way through the base and on compensation to The Irvine
Company for the loss of development potential in the corridor.
The Under-Secretary requested that the two cities and The Irvine Company
prepare a specific offer to the Marine Corps in response to the above
points. Such a proposal was drafted and presented to the Marine Corps on
December 7, 1982, at which time the Marine Corps presented new views
counter to what had been conceptually agreed upon. Since the meeting in
December, 1982, the Marine Corps has not submitted a proposal to the cities
and The Irvine Company and has failed to meet its committment that an
agreement would be reached by February 1983.
The Cities of Tustin and Irvine and The Irvine Company have made sincere
and diligent efforts to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the
Marine Corps. I must be candid and tell you that the Marine Corps has
hampered efforts to reach a final agreement due to its shifts in position
and lack of follow-through when specific proposals have been formulated.
We have also been frustrated by the lack of a consistent position from
within the Marine Corps. On the one hand, Under-Secretary Cox and General
Cooke have been receptive to extending Myford Road through the base and on
the other hand, the local command has consistently opposed our plans.
The City of Tustin has and does support the mission of MCAS(H). The
relationship between the City and Marine Corps can only be sustained on a
positive basis if each party is understanding of the other's
circumstances. We feel we have given MCAS(H) every consideration and have
fully acknowledged its concerns relative to the extension of Myford Road.
We do not feel that extending Myford Road through the base will impair the
mission of MCAS(H) or adversely affect the persons residing in the
dependent housing. In fact, there would be less noise impact upon the
housing, for example, by extending Myford Road as proposed by the City
rather than the Harvard Road alignment which you favor.
Without a properly engineered alignment of Myford Road and its ultimate
extension between Jamboree and the Foothill Corridor, the City's economic
base and the quality of municipal services provided Tustin residents could
suffer. Redhill Avenue and Newport Avenue cannot remain as the only
north/south arterial highway otherwise the quality of life in Tustin will
deteriorate.
Colonel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page five
We are willing to discuss this matter further but would ask that the Marine
Corps put forth a definitive proposal which is feasible and addresses our
design criteria. We would also ask that the Marine Corps respond in a
timely manner. I must also stress that as far as I am concered
Reorganization No. 53 and the alignment of M~ford Road are separate issues
which must be dealt with on their own merits.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM A. HUSTON,
City Manager
WH:dmt
cc: City Council
Bob Wakeman
Jeff McElderry