12-17-1962 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

103 The Vice-Mayor then asked the Clerk whether an~ additional coe~unications pertaining to the proposed annexation had been received by the City. The Clerk reported that a letter of December 13, 1962, had been received f~om Mr. John R. McKinney Circle Drive, Idyllwild, California, as follows: '~During the month of July M~. Sam Hurwitz and I, while in Sacramento, California, confsrred with the Director of Public ~orks for the State of California, Mr. Robert B. B~adford. Also present at the conference was Mr. Robert E. Reed, Chief Counsel in the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The subject of our conversation was the proposed annexation to the City of Santa Ana of a portion of the 'Moulton Ranch Property' in Orange County, and the protest that had been filed with the City of Santa Ana by the Depar~ent of Public Works concerning such annexation. Director Bradford stated that the protest was filed by the Department at the request of the Board of Regents of the University of California. Director Bradford further stated that the annexation per se was not in any way detrimental to the Depar~ent of Public Works but had been filed only because it was requested do so by a (sic) sister agency, that is the Board of Regents of the University of California, and that he felt that one department of the state should assist another department in making an annexation protest when so requested? After the Clerk read said letter, the Council, by motion made by Councilman Brewer, by Councilman Gilmore, unanimously ordered that said letter be received and filed in the record of the proceedings. Mr. Hurwitz stated that all written protests previously made under both Resolution No. 62-122 and Resolution No. 62-145 had been referred to Mr. Hugh Foreman, Director of Public Works, for examination and report. At the request of Vice-Mayor Hubbard, Mr. Foreman stated that he had examined all such pro- tests and that the protests made under Resolutions Nos. 62-122 and 62-145 were indentical to the persons protesting and the lands represented by such protests. Mr. Foreman stated that for the purpose of determini~ assessed valuations of the Irvine Company, lam claimed to be owned by the Irvine Ranch W~ter District (which had been assigned an assessed valuati¢ of $1,500.OO by the County Assessor for protest purposes), had been included in the total privately owned property. Mr. Foreman further stated that the assessed value, as shown on the County assessment roll, of all privately owned property within the territory proposed be annexed was $194,260 for the 1961-1962 fiscal year and was $229,020 for the 1962-1963 fiscal year, and that the assessed value of property represented by ~11 written protests of owners of privately owned property for the 1961-1962 fiscal year was $61,180 or 31.5% of the total and for the 1962-1963 fiscal year was $71,781 or 31.0% of the total. He stated that where it became necessary to apportion the assessed value of property which lay bothwithin and without the territory proposed to be annexed, such apportionment had been made on the basis of the proportionate areas within and without the territory proposed to be annexed. Mr. Foreman stated that the territory proposed to be annexed included certain state pre consisting of a portion of the freeway comonly known as the ~anta Ana or San Diego Freeway, and that the Director of Public Works of the State of California, at the request of the Regents of the State of California, had made a protest on account of such freeway. Mr. Foreman stated that he had examined this state property, both on the ground and from maps of record, and that such state property was used in its entirety fur freeway and related purposes. He also advised that the County Assessor had assigned an assessed value of $229 to this state property for protest purposes. He indicated that there was no publicly owned property in the territory proposed to be annexed within the meaning of the annexation laws. Upon inquiry of Vice-Mayor Hubbard, Mr. Foreman stated that the written protests of owned property represented less than one-half of the assessed value of privately owned pro- perty within the territory p~oposed to be annexed.