Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLocal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) - 6/10/91 to 12/7/ 15:C E4,g, PRELIMINARY AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION 27 COMMI IO 1 Planning Commission Hearing Room ; 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 DECEMBER 7, 1994 9:00 A.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES OF A PREVIOUS MEETING OR MEETINGS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM AT THE TIME THAT ITEM IS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. PROPOSED GUNCKEL & MITCHELL ANNEXATION TO SANITATION .DISTRICT NO. 7 (DA94-03) Approximately 1.76 acres located at 11242 and 11252 La Vereda, north of Foothill Drive, in the community of Lemon Heights. Filed by Sanitation District No. 7 Resolution No. 94-68-7. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act)'. 2., PROPOSED TURNER ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 (DA94--07) Approximately 1.54 acres located southeast of the intersection of Amapola Avenue and Ranchwood Trail in the Orange Park Acres area. Filed by Sanitation District No. 7 Resolution No.94-103-7. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act). 3. PROPOSED EMC MORTGAGE ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 (DA94-06) Approximately.81 acre located southeast of Old Ranch Road and Country Hill Road in the city of Anaheim. Filed by Sanitation District No. 2 Resolution No. 94-99-2. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act) y } December 7, 1994 Local Agency Formation Commission Page 2 B. COMMISSION INFORMATION: 1. STATUS REPORT ON CITY OF GARDEN GROVE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION(R094-11) Dissolution of Garden Grove Sanitary District and Detachment of Territory from Midway City Sanitary District. 2. STATUS REPORT ON THE PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT (DD94-01) 3. PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE LAFCO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GUIDELINES 4. ADOPTION OF A THREE YEAR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE WORK PROGRAM C. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 1. EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: An evaluation is scheduled for January, 1995. Preliminary information will be provided. 2. ELECTION OF CHARLES V. SMITH, MAYOR OF WESTiVIINSTER, TO REGULAR LAFCO CITY MEMBER 3. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER JAMES A. WARNER 4. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER HARRIETT WIEDER December 7, 1994 Local Agency Formation Commission Page 3 D. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: At this time members of the Commission may comment on agenda or non-agenda matters, ask questions of or give directions to staff, provided that NO action may be taken on off- agenda items unless authorized by law. N MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 10, 1994 The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, was held on August 10, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Members of the Commission present were: James H. Flora, Chairman; Evelyn Hart, Harnett Wieder, David Boran, Charles R. Wall and John Withers. Alternate Members present: Charles V. Smith. Members Absent: William G. Steiner, Vernon Evans and James A. Wahner. In attendance: Ben de Mayo, Deputy County Counsel; Sara F. Anderson, Executive Officer;Dana N1. Smith, Assistant Executive Officer and Marion. Jasierdecki, Secretary. Commissioner Wall led the Pledge of Allegiance. IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 13, 1994 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the minutes of the meeting of July 13, 1994, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN, CHARLES R. WALL, JOHN WITHERS AND JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER AND HARRIETT WIEDER IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 148 - CRAWFORD HILLS On motion of Commissioner Boran, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed annexation to Sanitation District No. 7,Annexation No. 148 - Crawford Hills, as recommended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DAVID BORAN, EVELYN HART, CHARLES WALL, JOHN WITHERS AND JAivIES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER AND HARRIETT WIEDER RESOLUTION NO. 94-08 (See File) cli C ^+ c rn _ co 215 ; August 10, 1994 IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 145 - TRC ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Boran, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed annexation to Sanitation District No. 7, Annexation No. 145 - TRC Annexation, as recommended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DAVID BORAN, EVELYN HART, CHARLES WALL, JOHN WITHERS AND JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER AND HARRIETT WIEDER RESOLUTION NO. 94-09 (See File) IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 139 - GARR ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Boran, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the proposed annexation to Sanitation District No. 7, Annexation No. 139 - Garr Annexation, as recommended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DAVID BORAN, EVELYN HART, CHARLES WALL, JOHN WITHERS AND JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER AND HARRIETT WIEDER RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 (See File) Commissioner Wieder arrives at the meeting. IN RE: CONSIDERATION OF GRAND JURY REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION OF WATER DISTRICTS Executive Officer Sara Anderson summarized the Grand Jury Report on Water Districts which recommended the consolidation of four wholesale and five retail water districts now serving parts of Orange County. Ms. Anderson stated the Report concluded that the Tri-Cities Municipal Water District, Coastal Municipal Water District and East Orange County Water District should consolidate with the Municipal Water District of Orange County; and further that El Toro Water District, Los Alisos Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and Moulton Niguel Water District should 216 August 10, 1994 consolidate with Irvine Ranch Water District. The Executive Officer noted that any changes of organization must be consistent with the spheres of influence, and also recommended that policies and procedures be developed for the initiation of district reorganizations by LAFCO. Commissioner Wall stated that from the Special Districts'viewpoint, the Grand Jury Report, although comprehensive, did not have substance to prove the points mentioned; based on the fact it had no rate comparisons of other districts in other counties. - ConimissionerVieder stated their recommendations were based on broader issues. She indicated that the role of water districts has changed since they were first instituted. Commissioner Hart questioned LAFCO'S financial resources to pay for needed studies in considering consolidations in this county Ms. Anderson responded by saying that the approved LAFCO budget included the possible need for technical consultant services for LAFCO initiated district changes of organization. Commissioner Hart suggested initiating policies for districts to help fund and prepare studies which would allow LAFCO staff and Commission to respond and to also utilize the districts' expertise. Chairman Flora stated the LAFCO budget was prepared under some financial restrictions prior to receiving the Grand Jury Report. Commissioner Hart questioned if the charge for the review of Spheres of Influence is sufficient. The Executive Officer stated that there is a charge if the applicant requests the review. However, if it i�LAFCO initiated, the cost is absorbed. Commissioner Withers stated that he and Commissioner Wall have studied this report at special district meetings and stated that there is agreement to assemble a technical advisor committee that could advise LAFCO staff of some general perimeters, issues and criteria when considering specific applications. Also,WACO has drafted guidelines for considering reorganizations and consolidations in an attempt to be pro-active and to possibly come to a consensus on a voluntary basis to make changes or improvements. Commissioner Wall discussed the response the Commission received from the Coastal Municipal Water District which indicated that the district is an extremely efficient organization. 217 August 10, 1994 Chairman Flora stated the noted response did not contain enough detail. Commissioner Hart asked when the Commission will discuss the special district issue again. Ms. Anderson replied, stating that no specific date has been set Mr. Mark Sloate, Board Member, Independent Special Districts of Orange County (ISDOC), informed the Commission that WACO has submitted its Rules and Regulations and ISDOC and LAFCO will work together. Commissioner Wieder asked if it would be appropriate to direct staff to respond to the Grand Jury report and to other responses with a vested interest; or to have a representative group of this board meet with staff for discussion before considering formal action. Chairman Flora replied the upcoming study session would be a lead part of this. The Executive Officer stated the intent of the October study session would focus specifically on spheres of influence; and to broaden the scope, two workshops would need to be scheduled. Commissioner Wieder added that, whether it is a workshop or a subcommittee, it is the responsibility of the Commission to develop a direction or point of view. Commissioner Wall emphasized the need for much information as possible in considering this issue and the effect it will have on the voters. Chairman Flora recommended consideration of Commissioner Wieder's suggestions at a future meeting. Commissioner Wieder stressed the importance of discussion of the spheres of influence and all input received. Mr. John Baird, former member of the Grand Jury, addressed the fact that the media and other parties indicated that the Report did not identify any savings; whereas the submitted report identified $3,000,000.00 as direct annual administrative expense; and if any of the districts were consolidated, it could reduce the amount of increase in water rates. Chairman Flora complimented the Grand Jury on its Report. Mr. Baird expressed appreciation to the Commission and its staff on the coordination 218 M d August 10, 1994 of their efforts. On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the recommended action as follows: 1. Direct staff to solicit comments on the Orange County Grand Jury Report on Consolidation of Water Districts from those Districts that are specifically cited in the report and to return to the Commission with a summary of the comments received. 2. Direct staffto prepare draft policies and procedures for initiation of district reorganizations by LAFCO. 3. Direct staff to prepare a work program for conducting sphere of influence updates for the districts referenced in the Grand Jury's report. 4. Direct staff to prepare a response to the Orange County Grand Jury pursuant to Section 933(c) of the Penal Code. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN, CHARLES WALL, JOHN WITHERS, HARRIETT WIEDER AND JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER IN RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH PETERSON AND PRICE FOR LEGAL. SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROCESSING OF THE DISSOLUTION OF SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT Assistant Executive Officer Dana Smith stated the:contract with Peterson and Price for legal services is returned to the Commission for formal approval. Commissioner Withers commented on the assumption that this contract is on a time and materials basis and there is a not-to-exceed amount. Ms. Smith stated the amount is not to exceed $15,000. Commissioner Wall stated that he assumed that proposals were received from local attorneys; and questioned how travel time will be computed. 219 ,y August 10, 1994 Ms. Smith responded that much travel time is not expected and most communication is by conference call. On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission directed the Executive Officer to execute the contract with Peterson and Price for legal services associated with the processing of the dissolution of Santa Margarita Water District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN, HARRIETT WIEDER, CHARLES R. WALL, JOHN WITHERS AND JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM G. STEINER IN RE: CALAFCO ANNUAL CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 21-23, 1994 Executive Officer Anderson informed the Commission of the CALAFCO Annual Fall Conference to be held in Oxnard, hosted by Ventura LAFCO, on September 21 - 23, 1994. IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT None IN RE: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chairman Flora thanked staff for preparing the Proposal Summary presented to the Commission at each meeting. Ms. Anderson informed the Commission that Supervisor Stanton was appointed as the Alternate County Member on LAFCO. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. ATTEST: ;��e��?�I;�I—, - z"'z� ,�- - - Secretary ✓� 81094.min 220 p MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 19, 1992 The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, was held on August 19, 1992, at 2: 00 p.m. Members of the Commission present were: David Boran, Chairman; Don R. Roth, Evelyn Hart and James H. Flora. Alternate Members Present: Vernon Evans and Charles V. Smith. Members Absent: Gaddi H. Vasquez. In Attendance: John R. Griset, Deputy County Counsel; James J. Colangelo, Executive Officer; Sara Anderson, Assistant Executive Officer; and Faye J. Fritz, Acting Secretary. Commissioner Flora led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Hart gave the Invocation. IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 1, 1992 On motion of Commissioner Flora, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the minutes of the meeting of July 1, 1992 . AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES H. FLORA, EVELYN HART and DAVID BORAN. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ ABSTAIN: ' COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-821-91 (Continued from meeting of July 1, 1992) On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission continued the proposed Annexation No. B- 82i-91 to Garden Grove Sanitary District to a time uncertain. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DON R. ROTH, JAMES H. FLORA and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA ANNEXATION NO. 89-03 The Executive Officer gave a brief description of the annexation. On motion of Commissioner Roth, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed Annexation No. 89- 03 to the City of Yorba Linda, as recommended. 135 August 19, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH, JAMES H. FLORA, EVELYN HART and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ RESOLUTION NO. 92-19 (See File) IN RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT RETAINING THE FIRM OF PETERSON & PRICE TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO LAFCO FOR THE PROPOSED AEGEAN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO IN RE: CONSENT FOR COUNTY COUNSEL TO CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ON THE PROPOSED AEGEAN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO The Executive'Of f icer stated that LAFCO has been required to retain the services of outside legal counsel related to the annexation of the Aegean Hills area. He stated that the City of Mission Viejo had sued LAFCO, himself personally, and the County of Orange attempting to force the Commission to force him to issue a certificate of filing and set the annexation for hearing. He said that LAFCO's position has been to act only when property tax transfer agreements between the two parties are transmitted to LAFCO. He reminded the Commission that they have no ,jurisdiction to set such a hearing without the property tax resolutions. He stated that the City's July 1, 1992 , letter mentions a potential conflict of interest with County Counsel representing LAFCO and the County. Therefore, the firm of Peterson and Price has been hired to represent LAFCO on this issue. The recommended action would extend an existing contract with Peterson and Price to cover the legal costs associated with the Aegean Hills annexation. The second recommended action is to consent to the request by County Counsel to continue to represent the County of Orange with regard to the proposed Aegean Hills annexation. Commissioner Hart asked how comfortable the Executive Officer was with the amount of money proposed in the contract amendment. Mr. Colangelo stated that the law suit was on hold and that things were slowing down and they might be resolved: Discussions with Peterson and Price indicate that the amount is adequate. Commissioner Hart asked if there are methods of recovering the costs. Mr. Colangelo stated that the City of Mission Viejo staff said that we could bill them but they would not guarantee payment. He added that LAFCO's position would be that before LAFCO would accept the application as an official filing a deposit for the legal fees incurred would be necessary. However, he added that if 136 t� August 19, 1992 they do not move forward, there is no real way to recover those costs. Commissioner Flora asked if they realize they are asking LAFCO to do something illegal? On motion of Commissioner Roth, duly seconded and carried, the Commission directed the Executive Officer to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement between Peterson & Price and the Orange County LAFCO and consented to the request by County Counsel to continue to represent the County of Orange with regard to the proposed Aegean Hills annexation to the City of Mission Viejo. YES: COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH, EVELYN HART, JAMES H. FLORA and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ IN RE: CALAFCO ANNUAL CONFERENCE, September 16-18, 1992, Huntington Beach On motion of Commissioner Roth, duly seconded and carried, the Commission appointed any attending Commissioner or staff person as a voting representative of the Orange County LAFCO, and authorized the reimbursement for expenditures resulting from the attendance at the 1992 Annual Conference for any attending Commissioner, Executive Officer' James J. Colangelo, and Assistant Executive Officer Sara Anderson. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH, JAMES H. FLORA, EVELYN HART and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ IN RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The Chairman ordered the Legislative Update received and filed. IN RE: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 393 TO THE CITY OF ORANGE On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission determined, by a two-thirds vote, that the need for action on this item arose on August 17, 1992, which was subsequent to the posting of the agenda. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DON R. ROTH, JAMES H. FLORA and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ 137 fi August 19, 1992 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the Impartial Analysis for the proposed Annexation No. 393 to the City of Orange. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, JAMES H. FLORA, DON R. ROTH and DAVID BORAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ ATTEST: �• Secretary 138 P E C r I PRELIMINARY AGENDA H„ LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION } ` OF ORANGE COUNTY [ „ e JUNE 19 , 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF A PREVIOUS MEETING OR MEETINGS A. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 1 . PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN NEWPORT/WASS ANNEXATION NO. 150 Approximately 26 acres bounded by Newport Avenue on the west, Sycamore Elementary School in the north and east and Wass Street on the south, in the north Tustin area. Filed by the City of Tustin Resolution 'No. 91-12 . (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) 2 . PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN ESPLANADE/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151 Approximately 746 acres located south of Fairhaven Avenue and west of Esplanade Avenue in the north Tustin area. Filed by City of Tustin Resolution No.91-14 . (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) 3 . PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN IRVINE BOULEVARD/BROWNING AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 152 Approximately 63 acres located north of Irvine Boulevard and east of Browning Avenue, in .the north Tustin area. Filed by City of Tustin Resolution No. 91-17 . (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) JUNE 19 , 1991 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 4 . PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO -THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 392 Approximately 32. 52 acres located north of Fairhaven Avenue between Yorba Street and Laurinda Lane in the south central Orange area. Filed by the City of Orange: (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) 5 . PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 393 Approximately 18 . 32 acres located northerly of Fairhaven Avenue between Yorba Street and Prospect Avenue in the south central Orange area. Filed by the City of Orange. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) 6. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 394 Approximately 43 . 33 acres located northerly of Fairhaven Avenue and easterly of Prospect Avenue in the south central Orange area. Filed by the City of Orange. (The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ) 7 . PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY REORGANIZATION NO. 127 INCORPORATION OF THE COMMUNITY OF NORTH TUSTIN AND THE DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 5 , AND THE REVIEW AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE SPHERES. OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITIES OF TUSTIN AND ORANGE AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 5 . Approximately 5, 820 unincorporated acres located between the cities of Tustin and Orange, generally bounded by the Newport-Costa Mesa (55) Freeway on the west, Irvine Boulevard on the south, the east Tustin area on the east and Chapman Avenue on the north. (LAFCO has issued a negative declaration` on this proposal in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ) JUNE 19 , 19912 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PAGE 3 B. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission provided that no action may be taken - on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APRIL 31 1991 The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, was held on April 3, 1991, at 2 : 00 p.m. Members of the Commission present were: James H. Flora, Chairman; David Boran, Don R. Roth, Gaddi H. Vasquez and Evelyn Hart. Alternate Members Present: Vernon Evans and Charles V. Smith. In attendance: Benjamin de Mayo, Deputy County Counsel; James J. Colangelo, Executive Officer; Sara Anderson, Assistant Executive Officer; and Marion- Jasieniecki, Secretary. Commissioner Boran led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Vasquez gave the Invocation. 114 RE: MINUTE'S OF THE MEETING OF rEBRUARY 61 1991 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the minutes of its meeting of February 6, 1991, as submitted. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN, DON R. ROTH and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-818-90 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed Annexation No. B- 818-90 to the Garden Grove Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 (See File) IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-819-90 On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly . seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed Annexation No. B- 819-90 to the Garden Grove Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE RESOLUTION NO. 91-6 (See File) 67 F April 3, 1991 7 IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 389 (Continued from meeting of March 6, 1991) On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the proposed Annexation No. 389 to the City of Orange. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 (See File) IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 390 (Continued from meeting of march 6, 1991) On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved- the proposed Annexation No. 390 to the City of Orange. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE RESOLUTION NO. 91-8 (See File) IN RE: APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR ORANGE COUNTY REORGANIZATION NO. 127 Executive Officer Colangelo explained to the Commission that twelve letters were received in response to the Negative Declaration five of which specifically appealed the Negative Declaration. He stated that the letters did not raise any new environmental concerns and that an Environmental Impact Report does not need to be prepared. He indicated that staff would continue to analyze the project as i.t continues through the LAFCO process and if new environmental issues do arise they will be addressed. Mr. Colangelo recommended that the Commission deny the appeal -,of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Vasquez asked if any EIRs had been prepared for the recent incorporations in the County. Mr. Colangelo stated that no EIRs have been required. Chairman Flora outlined the rules and procedure that would be observed during the meeting. Mr. Jim Brooks, North Tustin Citizens Against Incorporation, stated that the Commission should wait to make a decision until completion of the review of the feasibility report. He stated that the Negative Declaration assumes that the new city will be fiscally viable. 68 k April 3, 1991 Mr. Marshall Krupp, Community Systems Associates, recited sections of the California Government Code and the purpose of .the California Environmental Quality Act that he believed supported his opinion that an EIR should be prepared. He reviewed the comments he had presented to the Commission in writing. Mr. Bruce Nestande, Co-Chairman of Citizens for More Local Control, stated that his group strongly supports staff s recommendation and that the environmental impacts of planning decisions made by the elected town council would be addressed in the future Mr. Mike Bannon, Christensen and Wallace, stated that the comments received could be categorized as either being speculation or fiscal issues, neither of which is required to be addressed by CEQA. He stated that the actions of a future City Council cannot be predicted. Mr. Bannon recommended adoption of the negative Declaration. Mr. Jack Mallinckrodt, Citizens for More Local Control, stated that the materials received seem to make the impression that there is serious public concern over the environmental impacts of the proposed incorporation. He believes that these letters do not represent the will of the people in North Tustin. Mr. Richard Edgar, Mayor of the City of Tustin, stated that he disagreed with the staff report. He read a letter that he submitted to the Commission. Ms. Irene Dardashti, stated that the'democratic process should continue and that the local citizens decide their destiny. She also asked that consideration of the annexations be postponed. Dr. Marvin Rawitch, Citizens for More Local Control, stated that an EIR was not required and that a change in local governance is proposed, nothing else. Mr. Victor Gorham, stated that the code sections regarding the disagreement among experts and the serious public controversy suggest that the Commission ought to require an EIR. Mr. Tom McCauley, member of the North Tustin Advisory Commission, but speaking as a resident, stated that there' is nothing unusual in the Negative Declaration and supported staff° s conclusions. Ms. Phyllis Spivey stated that the incorporation proposal is precedent setting and that an EIR should be required. She also identified specific concerns she had that were presented in her written comments. Mr. Tony Coco stated that he wants to preserve the quality of life in North Tustin and that an EIR be prepared. 69 April 3, 1991 Chairman Flora gave each party the opportunity for rebuttal. Commissioner Hart stated that there would be controversy whether an EIR or Negative Declaration was prepared. She also stated that she believed that the Negative Declaration was adequate and would be willing to. make a motion. Commissioner Vasquez asked County Counsel if there would be any opportunity to require an EIR in the future. Mr. Ben DeMayo stated that there would be an opportunity to require an EIR if new information was presented that indicated that the incorporation would cause significant environmental impact. On motion of Commissioner Hart, the Commission denied the appeal of the Negative Declaration prepared for Orange County Reorganization No. 127. AYES: COMMISSIONERS. EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN, DON R. ROTH, GADDI H. VASQUEZ and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: ORANGE COUNTY REORGANIZATION NO. 127, .INCORPORATION OF THE COMMUNITY OF NORTH TUSTIN AND THE DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 5, AND THE REVIEW AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE SPHERES OF% INFLUENCE OF THE CITIES OF TIISTIN AND ORANGE AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 5 Executive Officer Colangelo presented staffs report. He stated that the Commission could not take action on the incorporation proposal until the State Controller has completed their review. Using a map, Mr. Colangelo also showed the Commission the location of the annexations, spheres of influence and incorporation boundaries. He also stated reasons why the annexations could not be considered for approval at that time. Staff recommended that the Commission continue Reorganization No. 127..to June 19, 1991, direct staff to schedule public hearings. for the proposed Annexation Nos. 150, 151, and 152 to the City of Tustin for June 19, 1991, assuming LAFCO has complete applications at that time, and direct staff to coordinate with the City of Orange to ensure that proposed annexations Nos. 392, 393, 394, and 397 are filed and scheduled for public hearing on June 19, 1991. Commissioner Hart asked for clarification of the existing spheres of influence. Chairman Flora stated the rules and procedure for public testimony on the item, reminded those present that no action would be taken on the item and opened the public hearing. Mr. Nestande requested that the people of North Tustin be given the right of self determination once LAFCO determines that 70 y April 3, 1991 the proposal is feasible. He stated that it is not likely that the area will. exist in perpetuity as unincorporated territory. Mr. Nestande indicated that the Cities of Tustin and Orange have never proposed annexing the entire area. He also stated that the proponents welcomed the Controller's review, but they objected to it being . funded by the City of Tustin. He requested that the incorporation item be heard first as it was proposed first. Commissioner Roth asked if Mr. Nestande felt that they could attain their wish to have control over development approval if the entire area were annexed into one city. Mr. Nestande stated that the record of annexations to Tustin have resulted in land use changes contrary to the density desired by the incorporation proposals. Discussion of the potential to annex the entire CSA 5 to either city took place. Mr. Bannon stated the number of studies his firm had prepared and had been approved. He said that opponents always either challenge the environmental documentation or the fiscal analysis. Dr. Rawitch stated that in the past a proposed pre- annexation agreement with Tustin was denied. Chairman Flora indicated that Commissioner Boran would be leaving the meeting and his alternate, Vernon Evans, would take his place. Commission Boran stated that he would listen to the tapes of the meeting so that he could continue to participate in the items. Mr. Brooks said that there were problems with the proponents application, State subvention funds, feasibility, use of Measure I'M" funds, using 1989-90 data, booking fees, and insurance fees. Mr. Krupp offered his interpretation of the problems associated with annexation of the- entire area to the City of Tustin. He stated that he challenged the validity of the feasibility report and outlined his concerns that were presented in writing. Mayor Edgar read a letter that he presented to the. Commission. The letter among many things, requests that the annexation requests be heard within the specific timelines defined by the Government Code. He stated that it was his belief that LAFCO staff was attempting to influence the scope of the Controller's review. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he believed that staff had acted correctly and that the Controller was defining the scoope of the review. He offered Mr. Colangelo the opportunity to respond to the criticisms made by the City of Tustin. 71 April 3, 1991 Mr. Colangelo stated that annexation submittals were not complete at the time the hearing legal notices were due for publication. He also stated that the existing boundaries were a result of the cities non-aggressive annexation policies. Mr. Jere Murphy, representing the Mayor Gene Beyer of the City of Orange, stated that he was not aware of the letter from the Orange County Mining Company opposing annexation. He added that the new city should maintain facilities comparable to those of the surrounding cities. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Murphy if the City of Orange was open to pre-annexation agreements. A short discussion of this topic ensued. Mr. Michael Grey, Chairman of the North Tustin Advisory CouiuitLee, stated that Annexation No. 151 is a response to the incorporation effort. Mr. Stephen Johnson stated that the proposal should be taken to the voters. Mr. Douglas M. Chapman commented that he was disappointed that the annexations were not moving forward. He offered his perspective on pre-annexation agreements. He criticized_ the feasibility study. and stated that many of the funds cited are temporary. Mr. Richard Gregory said that he was the principle proponent for Annexation No. 152 . He stated that they wish to be excluded from the incorporation area because they are not a semi- rural community and have strong ties to the City of Tustin. Mr. Niles Koines stated that incorporation proposal should go first and if it, is defeated -the annexations should move forward. Ms. Dessa Schroeder, a resident in the Annexation No. 151 area, stated that she was involved in the original offer to annex the entire sphere of influence into the City. She stated that it is appropriate to defer the annexation proposals. Mr. Thomas Borchard, legal counsel to the Orange County Mining Company, stated that his client is not supportive of their annexation to the City of Orange. Ms. Francine Pace Scinto, Citizens for More Local Control, stated that they believe that incorporation is the best way to preserve the character of .north Tustin. Mr. Chad O°Hanian stated that he would like to see the opportunity to vote on incorporation. Mr. Don Fife stated that he does not want to be annexed to the City of Tustin. 72 April 3, 1991 Mr. Brook Nosier stated that he wants local control and a cityhood vote. Mr. Daniel Scinto said that he would like to see the area maintained as it is and would like the opportunity to vote on cityhood. Commissioner Roth clarified his comments regarding his quality of life statement. Mr. Bob Mancini stated that he was against incorporation.: Mr. Jeff Cox stated that staff should know where the financial resources come from for Mr. ' .Krupp°s study and the relationship between all parties. Ms. Spivey feels that the residents of North Tustin need to know the true cost of the utility tax. Ms. Lois Correl stated that she supports incorporation. Ms. Sharon Anglin White stated that she was not supportive of the incorporation of an exclusive community. She stated that her. identity is with the City of Tustin. Mr. Jay Peterson stated that he and his family are not supportive of incorporation. Mr. Coco stated that people in the center of the incorporation area cannot annex to a city. He urged the Commission to move forward with the annexation. Mr. McCauley stated that the City of Tustin has violated the provisions of the North Tustin Specific Plan and he does not want to become a part of that city. He asked that the Commission allow the residents to vote on the issue of local control. Chairman Flora offered each party the opportunity for rebuttal. Commissioner Roth asked Mr. Colangelo for information regarding any shifts in Master Property Tax Agreement procedures. Mr. Colangelo said that incorporations are not subject to the Master Property Tax Agreement procedures. Commissioner Vasquez asked if there is expected any sales tax issues similar to those experienced recent in south County incorporations. Mr. Colangelo said that he did not expect these types of concerns. , Commissioner Roth stated his concerns regarding the costs to the County to provide police, fire and other services to new 73 April 3, 1991 cities that contract with the County. Commissioners Roth and Vasquez advised the incorporation proponents that they might want to analyze the fiscal impacts of providing services without County contracts. On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the Commission continued the consideration of the proposed Orange County Reorganization No. 127 to June 19, 1991. AYES: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN, EVELYN HART and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: REPORT ON PENDING ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN (Annexations Nos. 150, 151 and 152) On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the Commission ordered the report received and filed. AYES: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, EVELYN HART, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: CITY OF ORANGE POLICY LETTER REGARDING REORGANIZATION NO. 127 On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the Commission ordered the letter from the City of Orange received and filed. AYES: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, EVELYN HART, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE REGARDING ANALYSIS OF COMPREHENSIVE FISCAL AIivALYSIO PREPARED FOR REORGANIZATION NO. 127 Mr. Krupp requested that the scope of the Controller's review be expanded to include review of the assumptions and premisses. Mr. DeMayo stated that LAFCO or its staff is not in a position to define the scope. On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the contract with the California State Controller's ,Office regarding analysis of comprehensive fiscal analysis prepared for Reorganization No. 127. 74 J April 3, 1991 AYES: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, EVELYN HART, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: SUBMISSION OF FINAL LAFCO BUDGET FOR 1991/92 On motion of Commissioner Roth, duly seconded and carried, the Commission approved the LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 1991/92 . AYES: COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DAVID BORAN, EVELYN HART and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: PROPOSED LAFCO POLICY LETTER REGARDING LAFCO'S ROLE IN THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT PROCESS On motion of Commissioner Hart, duly seconded I and carried, the Commission directed staff to prepare an appropriate LAFCO policy letter for the Chairman's signature. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EVELYN HART, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DON R. ROTH, DAVID BORAN and JAMES H. FLORA NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary 75