HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 REORGANIZATION 53 3-21-83 DA --~~ PUBLIC HEARING
A GEN
DATE: March 16, 1983 k~~ lntel*-Com
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BILL HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
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 City 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 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.
J
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.
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 Irvine 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,
lg83 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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RESOLUTION NO. 83-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS
AND ORDERING REORGANIZATION NO. 53 AND ll~ANSFER
OF TERRITORY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF IRVINE AND TUSTIN
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
Pursuant to Part 2 of Title 4, Division 2, commencing with
Section 35200 et. seq. of the Government Code, preliminary
proceedings were completed by the Local Agency Formation
Commission on January 26, 1983, and by LAFCO Resolution No.
83-4 the City of Tustin was designated the conducting
authority and authorized to proceed with the transfer of
territory between the cities of Irvine and Tustin designated
"Orange County {Municipal) Reorganization No. 53".
II.
The Tustin City Council, pursuant to Section 35300 of the
Government'Code, adopted Resolution No. 83-10, initiating
reorganization proceedings and scheduling a public hearing
for 7:30 p.m., March 21, 1983.
III.
Due notice was given and a protest hearing was conducted at
the advertised time and place. Protests filed by ~
property owner(s) representing % of the total assessed
value of land and protests--~-i"Fed by registered voters
representing l~--the registered voters within the area
proposed for reorganizaiton were received prior to the close
of the hearing.
IV,.
Pursuant to Section 35307 of the Government Code, the Tustin
City Council hereby makes a finding that written protests
have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25% of the
registered voters within the territory and less than 25% of
the number of owners of land who also own less than 25% of
the total assessed value of land within the territory.
The Tustin City Council, as conducting authority, hereby
orders Reorganization No. 53, without an election for the
transfer of the territory described by Exhibits A and B,
attached hereto and a part hereof, to consist of the
following actions:
A. The detachment from the City of Irvine and the
annexation to the City of Tustin of Parcel 1 (+96.64
acres);
B. The detachment from the City of Tustin and the
annexation to the City of Irvine of Parcel 2 (+ 147.87
acres).
28
1
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
Resolution No. 83-22
March 21, 1983
Page 2
VI.
Subject transfer of property shall be effective upon the
filing and recording of the certificate of completion by the
Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Con~nission.
VII.
The City Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution to the Executive Officer Of the Local Agency
Formation Commission, the City Clerk of the City of Irvine,
Commanding General MCAS E1 Toro and The Irvine Company.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a
regular meeting held on the day of , 1983.
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
Maw E. Wynn
City Clerk
Existing Boundaries
1
!
l
WALNUT AVE
MCAS (H)
BARRANCA RD.
Areas To Be Exchanged
Walnut Village
[¥1AR 1 5 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 same purpose of serving our country. Our military men have
chosen the commitment to serve and, therefore, so have their families. In
exchange for that "intangible benefit" to our country, the'serviceman 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 community. 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
Family Services, which deal with family stress due to military life; Navy
Relief Society, which deals with f.m{ ly financial problems that are usually
caused by military lifestyle; Red Cross, which is an invaluable co~nicate
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
with the quality of police support and protection we receive from Tustin
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 unitl We want to continue to enjoy and grow with our quality
of lifestyle!
Respectfully,
SUSAN A. O'BRIEN
UNITED STATES MARINE
MARINe.' COelI~ AIR S~ATIOH
2BD:RDV: ~p
23 Feb ~983
City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tuscin, CA 92680
Ia: Opposition to Municipal Resolution No. 83-10
Deer Council Members:
This co----nd, as has been a ~atter of record for ~any years, opposes any
plan wb/ch would se,w to [ragment or otherwise divide the geographical
~nCee-rtt7 of M~&~(H).
Municipal Resolution 83-10 proposes to alter cit7 boundaries of Tuscin
and lrvine along a line which is currently undergoing analysis as a possible
route for future North-South arterial highway -~p-nsion. Although I recog-
nize the requirement [or expanded North-South traffic flgw capability, any
road through M.GAS(H) would be vi,w*d with serious concern. I therefore
believe. Char basing city boundaries along'a'.'l/ne.tHat.is only.one of....
several highway routing op'cions under consideration i~ premature..
Large portions o£ the current mmicipal boundary in question between
Irvine sna TusCin is foz~ed by the U. S. Government property line which also
forms the ~As(H) Tuscin base periMcer. This property line provides a
readily identifiable physical feature and is com~acible with U. SMG adm/nis-
tree[on' aboard ~AS(H).
As you are aware', the Tuscin Police Depart--nC ~LtnCalns Jurisdiction
aboard Mcl~(H) in all cases where requested or required. The worhin$
relationships be=ween mbers of the Mmal(H) Security Department =-~ Tustin
Police has been close and continuous; a similar circumstance exists with
County oS Orange in regard to Fire Protection. We believe chac to divide
municipal Jurisdictions aboard ~AS(H) will adversely i~pact these and
other professio--~ comemtty se~vlce relationships. With hisher projected
military f--~ly densities aboard M~AS(H), efficient ~nd effective
services becomes even more critical in the future. Forc/ng stall members .
and service a~encies to deal with additio-~l civil/an 8etviCe counterparts
would needlessly complicate coordinations --~ could prove co reduce the
overall quality o5 life loc our Wirine [--~Eas living aboard H CAS(H).
Staff ~embers, as well es te---c units and individual ~arinas serving
aboard M~A~(H) Tustin, have tr!d!tio--I 1y enjoyed cordial relations and close
ties with citizens and officials from the City of Tustin. Indeed, the primary
arguuent made during annexation proceedings in the 1974-76 time ir---- seemed
2BD:RDV:~p
11011/5
23 Feb 1983
to be the wealth of existing mtual interests. Attempting to divide the ~-i-
cipal Jurisdictions within MCAS(H) seems to refute the written word of Tustin
Mayor Joseph B. Langley who stated in a letter to the Secretary of the Nev~:
~The Cl~y of Tustin has continued to be highly supportive of the
mission of Mc~$(H) and identifies closely with it and its per-
sonnel, ~any of whom live in Tustin.
"Annexation to Tustin w~ll help to stren~hen City support of the
continuin~ ,~ssion of H~(H) a~ brine other e~ce~n=s of
~rove~n=s ~d pro~ =o =he S=aclon. T~=tn's support of
=he SCa=ion is espe~ly 4~or~C bemuse of =he flight
pa~e~ of M~A~(H) ~ are over T~c~n ~erri~o~.
"Shall the Cie7 of Tnstin consider only the direct interests of
its existing residents in these important decision ahead? Or,
shall the tit7 of Tustin, with the annexation of the Marine Corps
Air Station (Helicopter), accept the broader responsibilit7 Co
suppor~ and protect the Station as well? We sincerely believe
chez the latter role is in the long range interest of both the
City end the Navy and hope you will concur by giving your consent
to the annexation.'
.'.As you .may be a~are, the Commanding'officer o2 HCAS(H) Tusttn serves on
the Tusti~Chamber of Commerce Board"of Directors and h~. traditionally been
a member of' the Tuscan Eotary C[ubo. ~n addition, Marines ~romHCAS(H) have'
been deeply involved in'numerous co~--tCy acCivit~es with Tustin ci~izens.
Tustin T~ller Days, Tustin Witness' for Fitness, Tustin Boys Club assistance,
'-Tus~in H~gh School Band Booster fund rs/sing assistance ars a few
of the de~ree ~-~ breath of involvement our Marines have enjoyed. Also,
numerous tour ~roups, school classes, a~4 c/tizens SToups have been routlnely
welcomed aboard
Zt is in this spirit of maCua~ respect and interest thet'I ask you to
consider leaving the boundary between Irv~ne and Tustin as the U. S. Govern-
sent property line which forms the ~Ag(H) Tustin base perimeter, where
applicable, or delay Jurisdictional reali~nment actions un=il such time as
the North-South arterial matter is finally resolved. ~f the c~ty boundery
is allowed to remain as is currently in existence, USMC considerations will
have been mat --~ the stated objectives of the City Council Resolution will
have been achieved.
staff is prepared to discuss this matter further, if deemed desirable.
Sincerely,
~. G. ~ITua~L
Colonel, U. S. ~arine Corps
Commanding
March 2, 1983
Office of the City 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 bounda~ 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 M~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 Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) $44-8890
Colonel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page two
The Moulton 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 ~esponse 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 currently situated in the Irvine 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 1trine
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, safelkv and welfare of
Marine dependents.
With regard to the extension of ~ford 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 Myford 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 highw~ routing options under consideration is
premature. This statement is erroneous in that there are essentially only
two options: extend t~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 comments 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 c~ties have only recently or without"
due consideration of the Marine Corps promoted the extension of Myford 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
1trine in 1971.
As you will recall, all the affected parties met with the Deputy 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.
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.
The heavy lift operations would be relocated.
Colonel Mitchell
March 2, 1983
page four
5. 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 Fiyford 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 ~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