HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 ANNEXATION 121 01-19-81DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 13, 1981
OLD BUSINESS
! nter - C om
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
R.K. Fleagle, Community Development Consultant
Annexation No. 121
The value of written protests of registered voters and property owners within
the proposed Irvine-Dean Street Annexation No. 121 has been calculated.
The protests do not meet the requirements of the state law and the Council has
the authority to order the annexation on the premise that less than 25% of the
registered voters of the area filed a legal protest. As an alternative, it is
recommended that the City Council, on the basis that 45% of the registered
voters and owners of 43% of the assessed value of the land in the area have
expressed a desire not to be annexed or else to have the annexation proposal
submitted to an election, order the annexation of the area to the city,
subject to the confirmation of the voters at the next regular election.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adoption of Resolution No. 81- 5 , ordering the annexation of the
Irvlne-Dean Street Annexation No. 121, subject to the confirmation of the
voters of the area at the next regular election to be held June 2, 1981. ·
RKF:mm
1
2
$
6
?
9
10
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$2
RESOLUTION NO. 8 ] - 5
A RESOLUTICN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CI~[Y Of' TUSTIN,
DETER/~INING THE VALUE OF W}tIrITEN PRfTI'ESTS AND ORDERING
THE ANNEXATION OF RTfE AREA KNC~ AS "IRVINE BOULEVkRD-DEAN'
STREE~i~ fg~NEXATION NO. 121" %0 THE CITY OF riUSTIN, SUBJECI'
%0 THE CONFIIR, kATIGN BY RlqE VOTERS.
The City
I.
Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 2 of Title 4 of the
Government oode, preliminary proceedings were co,~plete~ by the
Local Agency Forglation Co~ission Nover~ber 26, 1980 ar~ Dy
Resolution No. 80-93 the City of Tustin was Gesignated as the
conducting authority and aut/norized to procee(] with the annexati°n
to the City of 1%stin the area designated "Irvlne Boulevard-Dean
Street Annexation No. 121", described in Exhibit "A" attache~
hereto, and incx~rporated herein by this reference as though set
forth herein in full.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
The City Council, pursuant to Section 3520] of the Government co~e,
adopted Resolution No. 80-128, initiating annexation proceedings
and fixing a time and place for a protest hearing.
Due notice was given and a protest hearing was conducts3 at 5:30
p.m. December 29, 1980. Written protests to the proposed
annexation were filed by ~71 of the 378 registerc~ voters within
the inhabited territory proposed to te annexeG, an~ written
protests were filed by owners of 96 of the 218 properties within
the subject territory.
Pursuant to Section 35205 of the Governn~nt oCde, the City Council
finds that of t~m protests filed, only 10 protests met the
requirements for the showing of the Gate that each signature was
affixed to such protest.
Pursuant to Section 35228 of the Goverrm~nt CoGe, the City Council
finds that had the protests been legally sufficient, t~he value of
written protests is 45% of the registered voters~ owners of land
who own 43% of the total assessed value of lan~ within the
territory.
The City Council hereby orders trm annexation to the City of Tustin
the i~-Jnaoited territory ~esignated "Irvine Boulevard-Dean Street
Annexation No. 121", subject to t~-~ confirmation by the voters
residing within the effected territory on the question of Whether
it shall be annexed to the City.
The City Clerk shall scaedule sai~ matter at the next regular
election to be held on J~ne 2, 1981 ~nd s~all cause notice of the
election to be given a~ prescribed in Section 35U55 of the
Government Code and an election to he oonducted as prescribed Dy
Chapter 1, Article 4, Section 35060 et seq. of the Municipal
Organization Act of ~977.
PASSED AND AI)O~£ED at a regular meeting of t~]e City Council held on the 19t~
day of January, 1981.
ATTEST:
~D~ j. SALTAR~.L[.i,
Mayor
~IiY E. W~q~N,
City Clerk
' IRVItIE BLVD.
DEAU STREET(. '
AIt~;£XATJ'O:i N0. 12)
TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFOR;IIA
Beginning at the point of intersection of thecenterlines of Red tlill' Avenue and lrvine
Boulevard as shown on a map of Tract No. 5059, recorded in Book 188. pages 20 and
Miscellaneous Haps, Records of Orange County, California, said point of intersection
also being the northerly corner of Lot 3, Block 12, of Irvine's Subdivision, as per
map recorded in Book l, pJge 88, Niscellaneous Naps, Records of said Orange County;
Thence, S50°00'17'' E., along said centerline of lrvine Boulevard, a distance of 1300.34
feet to the point of intersection with thenortheaster)y prolonga.tion of the northwesterl7
line of Lot A of said Tract No. 5059;
Thence, leaving said centerline'of irvine Boulevard, S. 39°54'21" W.. a distance of .
660.97 feet to the p'oint of intersection with the southwesterly boundary of said
Tract Ilo. 5059;
Thence, N. 50°O0'12'' k'., along said south~-:esterly boundary, a distance of )o. O0 feet
to the point of intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot A of Tract h'o. 3858, as
per Nap Recorded in Book 142, pages 44 and :,5, Hiscellaneous Naps, Records of said Orange
Court ty;
Thence, S. 39°54'21'' W., along the northwesterly line of Lot A of said Tract I(o. 3858,
a distance of 660.00 feet to the point of intersection with the existing City of Tustin
bounda~ as .established by the Bryan AveAue Annexation, per Ord. No. 217, passed and
adopted May 20, 1963;
Thence, along the existing City of Tustin boundary as establised by the above mentioned
Bryan Avenue Annexation ; the Bryan ~ Red lilt) Annexation, per Ord. No. )72, passed
and adopted June 4, )962; the Bryan ~ Red Hill Annexation !1o. 2, per Ord. No. 267.
passed and adop~e(! January 7, 1965; the Red Hill - Melvin Annexation No. lOB, per Ord.
Ilo. 737, uassed and adopted September 6, 1977; the previously I~.?r:tioned Bryan - Red HiJl
Annexation; and the Red Hill - Irvine Annexation No. 70, per Res. rio. 71-6Z, passed
and adopted October 18, 1971 through tire following courses;
Thence,
lhence
Thence
lhence
Thence
Thence
lhence
Thence
Thence
Thence
Thence
)hence
N. 50°00'12"
S. 39054'37"
ti. 50o00'00''
N. 39o54'30"
N. 50000'00"
N. 39o54'15"
N. 50000'50"
N. 39o54'15"
S. 50o00'12''
~. 39o54'18"
N. 50°00~15''
N. 39054'15"
~. 58o00'15''
W. a distance of
W. a distance of
~. a distance of
E. a distance of
U. a distance of
E. a distance of
a distance of
E., a distance of
E., a distance of
[., a distance of
~., a distance of
E., a distance of
~., a distance of
3OO.18 feet;
1,360.9B. feet;
330.18 feet;
700.48 feet;
610.32 feet;
312.52 feet;
50.00 feet;
242.95 feet;
600.30 feet;
434.77 feet;
125.40 feet;
165.00 feet;
184.O6 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 250.00 feet; thence,
northwesterly, along tile arc of said curve through a central an.qle of 20°33',10'' an arc
distance of 89.71 feet to tile beginning of, a tangen. L reverse curve, concave southwesterly
and having a radius of 250.00 feet;
Thence nor'tiiwesterly, along the arc of last mentioned curve through a central angle
of 20o39'10'', ~n arc distance of 90.)1 feet;
of beginning.
Thence, N. 506 05'.15" W., a distance of 175.09 feet;
Thence, N. 39°54'15" E., a distance of 133.6l Feet;
lhence, N. 50000'0? ~;., a distance of 6bU.81 feet;
lhence; Il. 39059'20.. E., a distance of 300.00 feet;
Thence, S. 50000'03.. [., a distance of 660./8 feet;
"lhence', h'. 39°54'15.. E., a distance of 350.45 feet to the point
EXrll O I T
.... Page 1
This rrcpos~.l does meet the
,.pprc..~ .., ,,,~ -,..y' ..-,-, ~ O,ftc,..
~" '" '-'/ "-";"" q'-,'"'--.',~r
"" ;"" '-,'l/Y' "'l/'/''~ y''/'-''''' '
DATE:
January 7, 1981
NEW BUSINESS
No. !
1-19~-81
Inter-Corn
TO: DAN BLANKENSHIP, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: HUGH WEST, MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT
SUBJECT: PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST TO REMOVE CITY TREE
Mr. Zapata of 14631Hyannis Port has requested the City remove a Brazilian
Pepper from the parkway in front of his residence.
The Brazilian Pepper tree is not an approved parkway tree. They grow
very grotesque wi'th a tremendous spreading top and produce a berry cluster
that makes them very messy. Their root growth habit though not as bad
as an Ash tree, is very similar.
Letters were sent to the neighborhood advising them of Mr. Zapatas request,
and no objections were received,
Recommendations
Remove the tree at,.City cost as requested and replace with a more suitable
City approved tree,
u~ghWes~t~'~'d~-
Maintenance Superintendent
October 8, 1980
Dear Home Owner:
Mr. Oscar Zapata has requested that the City remove the Parkway
tree in front of his house,at 14631Hyannis Port Road, Tustin.
It takes years to grow a tree and the removal of one effects the
environment in which you live. We request your comments in writing.
If we have received no objections from you within ten days we will
assume that you have no objections to the removal.
If you have any further questions on the subject, call my office
544-8890. and ask the operator for the Maintenance Department.
Sincerely,
Hugh L. West
Maintenance Superintendent
HW:ls
City Center Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-8890
September 25,1980
City of Tustin
300 Cente~mial Way
Tustln, Ca 92680
Attention: H. West
Dear Sir:
I am writing in regar~ to the tree on lz~631
Hyannis Po~-t Road, Tustin.
Fhe tree has been a tremendous problem. The
roots have gro~n above the sidewslk. It has
been a hazard and caused accidents, ky mother
feel while getting out ot the car. Our guests
have also had the same experience. Children
have slid on their bikes from the droppings
of the tree. The sprin~ler system does not
work because of the roots of the tree.
I would like very much to have the tree
removed. This will also eliminate an~
possibilities of lawsuits against the city.
I would appreciate it if you could take care
of this problem.
/ ery truly yours,
Oscar Z~ p~rt a