Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IS044_GPA 80-2 LAND USE GROWTH ELEM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIII� ,Sow NtGATIVE DECLARATION / 0 `/ Z) -� TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 80-2 a proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of City of Newport Beach General Plan. PROJECT LOCATION: County Triangle area PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined- that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: FEred Talar* nvironmenta Coordinator Date: July 31 ,. 1980 tNEGATIVE DECLARATION I T0: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard X Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA -92702 NAME OF PROJECT General Plan Amendment ' GPA 80-2 a proposed amendment to the Lana Use and Residehtial Growth Elements of City of Newport Beach General Pl.hn. PROJECT LOCATION: County Triangle area PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determi ned' that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Ired Talaric5 nvironment3 Coordinator Date: July 31 ,. 1'980 �� h•u INI ,�Ll� rQY For 'C �2 ' A proposed amendm ht','r , the; Land Use, and Residential Growtt'� ,1; is of the General Plan of the City bl :, rt Beach , Calffornia . rug s• W< 4y Prepared. V d for : City of p,o,ft Beach 3300 Newpo� 'Boulevard ' Newport Beach;'�� I fornia 92663 4 + DRAFT r'; ;, COMPLETED: 7/31/80 ' FINAL fit, Xa , COMPLETED: ' 4 1c 1' TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page i Table of Contents ; i I . INTRODUCTION 1 II ., PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 tIII . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 23 V . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 26 ' Appendi-x I - Minutes Appendix II - Staff Reports 1 1 1 i i i ' 1 ' m - I . INTRODUCTION - ' This Initial Study summarizes and evaluates the environmental impacts of proposed amendment to the Land Use & Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan designated GPA 80-2. The purpose of this report is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines , and City Policy related to the aforementioned. The document will be expanded and revised based upon comments received during the official review periods and Planning Commission determinations on the proposals . This Initial Study consists of this document, subsequent re- visions to said, staff reports on GPA 80-2 , and other infor- mation presented to the City of Newport Beach including public ' testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings . ' The focus on this Initial Study is on the Environmental Impacts that can be anticipated from the Amendment to theuNewport Beach General Pl-an ( GPA 80-2) . This document has been- prepared in accordance with the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act, "State EIR Guidelines" and City Policies on the aforementioned, specifically Section 15080 of the "State EIR Guidelines . " Final action on the p-ropose.d project will not' be taken by the City of Newport Beach until such time as determination of environmental impact through either a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report occurs.. The purposes of this Initial Study are to : 1 ) Identify envi- ronmental impacts 2) Enable the City to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is written or required 3) If an EIR is required, to focus said document on only those potentially significant environmental effects 4) To facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project and 5) To provide documentation of the factual basis for findings in a Negative Declaration if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study will be used in the following manner as defined in the "State EIR Guidelines . " ' 1 (d) Uses . (1 ) The Initial Study shall be used to provide a written determination of whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. (2) Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would ' occur, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project would still result in one or more 2 significant effects on the environment after mitigation ' measures are added to the project, an EIR shall be prepared . (3) The EIR shall emphasize study of the impacts , determined to be significant and can omit further examination of those impacts found to be clearly insignificant in the Initial Study. " It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to issue a Negative Declaration for this project which could have a significant effect on the environment, if the City can find , on the basis of this Initial Study that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This will be accomplished as required by Section 1'5083 of the "State EIR Guidelines ." The City will prepare an EIR on this project if the findings , arguments , or issues contained in Section 15084 listed below are substantial through the environmental documentation process . 1115084. Decision to Prepare an EIR. (a) If the 'Lead Agency finds after an Initial Study that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency must prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report. (b) An EIR should be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) An EIR should be prepared when these is serious public , controversy concerning the environmental effete t of a project. Controversy not related to an environmental issue does not require the preparation of an EIR." u . i 2 f- 1 ■ i II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION i - 1 i 3 U PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment •80.a,2 .p•,roposes to amend the Land U'se , and Residential Growth 'E1•e•men,is of General Plan of the City of Newport Beach . The ame.n.dme,nt will change the dxisting General Plan from: ; 1 EXISTING GENERAL ,P.LAN'' General Plan Desigrratio'n Acreage 1 Multiple-Family Residential 9.805 Retail and Service:- Commercial 7. 17 General Industry 37.93 which we anticipate to develop as follows : ' Multi- Family Condos 9. 805 acres/ 147 DU' s . Office 3. 8 acres/ 331 ,056 sq .ft. General Commercial 3.64 acres/ ' 202 ,976 sq .ft. Industrial 36 .072 acres/ 1 ,571 ,296 sq . ft. Church . 32 acres/ 2500 sq . ftc. tl Private School 1 .0 acres/ 400 students ' to PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN General Plan Designation Acreage Multiple- Family Residential 39. 832 ' 1 Retail and Service Commercial 8. 154 General Industry 6 .923 which we anticipate to develop as follows : Multi-Family Condos 37. 834 acres/ 747 DU' s Office 7 . 34 acres/ 639 ,460 sq . ft. a 4 ' General 'Commercial 3.64 acres/ r 202,976 s.q . ft. Industrial i( 4.1 acres 178, 596 sq .ft. , Church .32 acres/ 2500 sq .ft. Private School 400 students i t t a . a 1 Y A- 1 i 1 1 1 III . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ! 1 1 ! 1 r 5 . 324.6 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register M No.4t—io4.I ' Appendix H ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by applicant) Date Filed� GENERAL INFORMATION s _D 1 and¢ddr orf devel or r t V O• J '2 Address of project: t r Assessor's Bloek and Lot Number & Name ad telellhot e tact ce ,. proj to w 4. Ih sate number of a permit application for the project to which this•Form pertains: \, S. Listand be any other related permits and other public Approval$required for th0 project cl required by city.regional,state and federal agencies:_ 6. Existing zoning d6bicC ` Y DY — '�''",�/"'�,. i 8� 1980 . 7. Proposed use of site Jett for hic foten Is ) I a r T a ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ../. & Site size. 01 s4 r °e/{' eM � t""�" �S 117 (o 9. Squarefootage.See S}n.}`I r �J I %gj !qed 10. Number of floors of constructidn. JJ�jt sI 11.'Amount of offstreet parl ,g provided, 12 Attach plans. Sae S}af ye7"{-_ 13. Propose scheduling, pJ A 14. Associated projects. J(/ n a 1S. Anticipated incremen dbbelopment. I 16. Ifresidential,Include the number of units,schedulepfy�it sizes,r geo ep ces q or rents,and type of household size expected. Sea Ste Yi f f - �p7i 7' /8� l O 0 17. If commercial,indicate the type,whether neighborhood,ci o egionally o 'ent- ed,square footage of sales area and loading facWties SeE S jL T'QyO0 — a( �i0es/,�y f 8 /98,0 1& If industrial,indicate type,estimated employment per shift,and oading facilities. See 19. If institutional,indicate the rnq)or function,estimated employment per shin,es. / a timated occupanc7,loading'"ties,and Community benefits to be derived from the project Alf 4 20. If the project involves a variance,conditional use or ez ming application,state this and indicate clearly why the application 1s required. FIX Are the following items applicable to the project or its effecp?Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). ` YES NO 21. Change in existing features of any bays,tidelands,beaches,lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground Contours. .�22 Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. _ 23. Change InI pattern,scale or character of general area of project. * s *Amendment 80-2 changes the City's General Plan land use pattern from 74% Industrial, 16% Multi-Family Residential and 10% Commercial to the land use pattern of the current County General Plan which is 25% Industrial , 71% Multi-Family Residential and 4% Commercial . See attached staff report dated July 18, 1980 for additional information. TT1•C,E 14 RESOURCES 324.7 (Apiatar ri,Nw N—te►ri) YES. NO ' C _ _ 24, Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 23. Change in dust,ash,smoke,fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean,bay,lake,stream or ground water quality or quantity, ' or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 97. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site an filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ' 99. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous material, such as toxic sub- stances,flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for muNcipal services(police,fire,water, sewage,etc.). •� _ 31. Substantially Increase fond fubl consumption(electricity,oll,natural ges, eta). �32. Relationship to&larger project or series of projects. ( ENVIRONMENTAL S$177N0 , 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project,including information on topography,sofl stability,plants and rntma%and any cultural,historical'or scenic aspeem Describe any existing structures on the site,and khe use of the structures.Attach photo graphs of the site.Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ' ,I 34. Describe the surrounding properties,Including Information on plants and animals ' and any cultural,historical or Kw*aspects.Indleste the type of Ind use(residential, commerclal,ete.),intensity oflanduse(one•fnngy,apartmanthouses,shops,departrnent ' stores,etc.),and scale of development(height,frontage,setback,rearyord,etc.).Attach photographs'of the vicinity.Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify'that the statements fsmis cd above and In the attached exhibits ppresent'the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my'ability,and that the facts,statement o • n presented are true and correct to t e best of my knowledge and belt Date RaC�' Non:Authority cited:Section 21083 and 211167.Public esources Code..Aeference: Section 21000-21176,Public Resources lode, History 1. New Appendix H filed 10.8.76;effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76,No.40).Note:Order designates that complfmmmith this appendix I _ authorized but not mandatory before 1.1.77. o . 7 ATTACHMENT 9 ' ' ', 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION COUNTY "TRIANGLE ANNEXATION -NO . 87 To- The City of Newport Beach All of Lots 715 , through 717, 815 through 819, 915 through 919, 1015 through 1017 and a portion of Monrovia Avenue, Placentia Avenue and Newport Avenue and all of 15th Street as shown on • the " First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract" recorded in Book 8, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder in the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows : ' Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as created by "Annexation No . 54" and the "Superior Avenue Annexation" said point being the most westerly southwest corner of said "Superior Avenue Annexation" ; thence along said existing boundary line per said "Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "First Addition to Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "Annexation No . 58" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Ro'ad Annexation Nd .79" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No . 14" and per "Annexation ' No . 54" in a general Easterly, Southwesterly, and Northwesterly direction to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of *land contains 63.6 acres, more ■1 or less . Corrected copy 3/13/80 i vlxoouaivµ ts:rce • Ic Q - � � 15 Tf1 6tItELt x uw _ of • a - ADVANCE PLANNING • ' I DIVISION U.0 LI ;r r ,.r ;r 9 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ' 116-320-08 116-320-14 116-320-25 116-320-26 116-320-27 116-320-28 424-011-01 424-011-02 424-011-03 424-011-04 424-011-05 424-011-06 424-Oil-07 424-011-08 424-031-09 ' 424-011-10 424-OT1-11 424-011-12 424-011-13 424-011-14 424-011-15 ° 424-011-16 1 424-011-17 424-011-18 424-011-19 424-011-20 a 424-011-21 424-011-22 424-011-23 424-011-27 424-011-28 • o 424-011-29 U ' 424-012-01 424-021-06 424-021-07 a 424-021-08 424-021-12 424-021-13 424-021-14 424-021-16 424-021-19 424-021-21 424-021-24 1 ' 424-021-25 424-151-01 424-151-02 ' 424-051-03 , 424-051-04 424-051-05 ' 424-051-06 424-161-01 424-161-02 424-161-03 424-161-04 i 424-161-05 424-161-06 424-161-08 424-161-09 10 ' H1 �, APPENDIX H e Filed Environmental Information Form ' (To be completed by•applicant) GENERAL 3 RMATION , 1. Name and dress of developer or project ,eponsor: 2. Address of pr eet: Assessor's Block I'o um er 3. Name, address, ephon e , number of person to be contacted concerning 'this project: 4. Indicate number of the pe it application for the project to which this form pertains: — 5. e am"escribe any o er re ted permits and other public , approvals required for this project, nciuding those required by city, regional, state and federal age lea: 6. Existing zoning district: ' 7. Proposed use of site (Project. for which t s form is filed): PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Slte size. ' 9. Square footage. 10. ?.%_fiber of floors of construction. 11 . it .:).,!It of off-street parking pt•ovided. 111, Ar.tach plans. li. Proposed ,scheduling. 14. Associated projects. 15. Anticipated incremental developmont. U ,Q dz 16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city o egionally oriented, square footage of sales area, 'and loading fee sties. 18. I ndustrial•, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loa facilities. 19. If 1net utiohai, indicate the major function, estimated employment shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community efits to be derived from the project. 20. If the proje involves a variance, conditional use or ,rezoning application, state is and indicate clearly why, the application is required. Are the following items placable to the project or. its effects? Discuss- below all items c ked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES No ,. 21. Change in existing stores of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, substantial alteration of ground contours. _ 22. Change in scenic views o istas from existing residential areas or public lau or roads. ` 23. Change in pattern; scale or c eter of general area of project. ' 24. Significant amounts of solid waste r litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or ors- in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or grou water quality or quantity, or alteration or existing d nage patterns. , 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibratio levels in the vicinity. a 78. Site on filled land or on slope or 10 percent or mor _T 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic aubatances, flammibles or explosives. U 12 t ! APPENDIX I FNVIRONNENTAL CHECFLIST FORM ' Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed by Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent C%Tf CF �)cwpa-,r ac� —�'�AUNtU� CoMa4��ON ' 2. -.Address and Phone Number of Proponent �� V1, • InyO�+'2210 3. Date of Checklist Submission �17ruW ylcla0 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Cit'1 Or�Nc.4.r40C-T. 4. Pass of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached ahests.) ms FAYgE NO 1. Earth. Will: the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com— paction 'or overcovering'of the, soil? t� c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi= fication of any unique geologic or ' physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ' f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the ' bed of,the ocean or any bay, inlet or — lake? ' r r 73 Y ' 13 • 113 YI•ll NO 30. Substantial change.in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) . _ 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc . ) . 2. Relationship to a labger project or series of ojects. a ENVIRONMENTAL ETTINO 33• Describe th roject site as it. exists before the project, Including informs n on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cu ral, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structu on the site, and toe use of the structures. Attach photographs- of site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surroundi properties, including information ' on plants and animals and an ultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of d use (residential, •commercial, 1 ets.), intensity of land use (on family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and sea of development (height, frontae t . 9 rear poot Attach be pt hacce ed.hs of the viciniy Snapshots or larid pho will CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that -the tatements furnished above and-in the attached exhibits preset,t a data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation the- best or my ability, and that the facts, statements, and ormation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledg and ,belief. I ' Date gna ure For --- l >1-,,r'I•,' YES MAYBE NO + g. Expu•,ore of peopl'i-- or peopevvy to , geological hazard& such,,'as earth— quakps, landslides, midslides , gruuud v '� lai Inrv•, or •;imilhr hazards? Y. Air. Will the proposal ;es it in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration of ambient bit quality? b. 'The creation of bjectio}nable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal ra+ult in: a. changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?{ s X b. Changes in absorpti}on rates,, drainage r patterns, or the ,rdte and amount of surface runoff? X o c. Alterations to the course of 'flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount.-of surface water ' in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in 10 ' any alteration ofisu'rface water quality, including but 'not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or ' turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate ' of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground , waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an Aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ a h. Substantial reduction in the amount ' of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ' i. Exposure of people or ,property to ' water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves,? 74 PPE-2A:22 - 15 i G YES MAYBE NO 4. Piant, Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of is into an area, or in a barrier plants , P to the normal replenishment of existing species? ! d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? , 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _p c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement ' of animals? ' d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: P a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? --- Y 7. Lipht and Clare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a ' substantial alteration of the present or — planned land use of an area? ' 75 16 YFS MAYRF HQ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any ` natural resources? ' b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset-. Does the proposal involve , a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not , limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or o upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the ' location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? , 12. Noasinx. Will 'the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the . proposal result in: ' a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing ' transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or ' air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or apdestrians? 14. Public Srrvices. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmgntal services in any of the foliou;ng. arms: 76 17 YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? -b. Police protection? ' c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of•public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? x 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: A. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or a �/ energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of ' energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ' b. Communications systems? c. Water? —�- ' d. Sewer or septic tanks? .� e. storm water drainage? -- f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding .� mental health)? rj b. •Exposure of people to potential ' health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically �( offensive site open to4public view? ' 77 18 4 • ! YES MAYBE NO , ! I ^ S ( 19. Recreation. Will the pfiposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational,;opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thr proposal result in an alteration of a ' significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 2f. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the . project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially Feduce. the habitat of a fish or wildlife specisq, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below ' self—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a, plant or animal'community. - reduce the number §r, restrict the range of a rare orSindsngered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of. the major periods of California history or prehistory? i b. Does the project have the potential to ... achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term. ,environmental goals? (A short—term impact by the environment 1a ! one which occurs infa relatively brief definitive Period of time while long-� term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate u resources where the impact on each resource in velatively amall, but ' where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is , significant.) , i , d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial , Iadverse effects on human beings,, either directly or indirectly? lti. Discussion of Fnvironmental Evaluation IT. Determination ^' (To be completed by the lead Agency) , • 78 , 19 hPC-'lA:'Lb � IC Oh the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' Q I find that although the 'proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant•effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' ' I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect* on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ' Date signature for i II (Note: This is only a suggasted ,form. Public agencies are free to devise i their own format for initial studies.) t I i Tg / t l� x 20; -a ' Wt . II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS r The purpose of this section i's to provide an explanation of , all "yes" and "maybe" answers in Section II of the Environ- mental Checklist Form. The'6('p5"anation is provided below by topic subsequent to introductory general comments : General. Com1hents . I The proposed project involves 4n proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan . For the purpose of this environmental analysis the existing, Newport Beach General Plan projections for the project area have represented exisitng environmental conditions upon which the p_ropdsed General Plan Amendemnt ( 80-2) has been measured. The proposed project as directed to be , analyzed by the Newport Beach Planning Commission will involve the following: Existing Amended ' Land Use General Plan General Plan Change Multi-Family (Condo) 147 du's 747 du's +600 du's Office 3310056 sq ,ft 639,460 sq ft +3089404 sq ft General Comm. 202;976 sq ,fi 2629976 sq ft n/c Industrial 1 ,571,296 sq ,ft 178,596, sq ft -1 ,392,700 sq ft , Church 2,500 sq ,ft 2$ 00 sq ft n/c Private School 400 Students 400 Students n/c n/c = no change 1' . ) Earth "b ,c,e and f" : , The proposed project involves a substantial reduction in the number of sq . ft: of Industrial development, but increases in , Multi-Family ( Condo) and Office development. It can not be presently determined if the project will significantly nmpact ea,rth resources beyond that antici.pated for the, existing .Newport , Beach General, P. lan•. R6tefitd,al. impacts include : A. Disruptions due to grading B . Changes in surface re,tef features ' C. Increased off-site erosion D. Changes in siltation 2 . ) Air "d" , The proposed project will result in an increase in air emissions , from automobiles . Average Daily Trips is anticipated to in- crease from 14,964 to 22, 794. ' 21 ' 3 . ) Water "b and e" The proposed project will impact existing absorpiton rates projected for the existing Newport Beach General Plan . A decrease in square footage of paved/covered land is not ' anticipated . An increase in polutants could be expected to be downstream receptors . 6. ) Noise "a and b" It can be anticipated that the increased automobile. traffic ' from the proposed project will increase existing noise levels . People may be exposed to sever noise levels adjacent to high- ways and roads near the project site . ' 7. ) " Light and Glare" The proposed project will create new light and glare . Mixes of commercial , office and residential land use in close proximity may create conflicts . 8. ) Land Use ' The proposal will result in a substantial alteration of present and planned land use for the project site . ' 9. ) Natural Resources "a" The proposal will result in an increased rate of use of natural resources . ' 10 . ) Population ' The proposed project will increase the existing General Plan population projections for the project area from 1 ,000 to 1 ,800 . ' 12 . ) Housing ' The proposed project will provide for housing opportunities that previously did not exist. The existing mobile homes within the area provide affordable housing opportunities . 22 1 13. ) Transportation/Circulation ' The proposed project will add an additional 14,869 ADT ' s to the circulation system. The land use planned will create a demand' for parking spaces and have a substantial impact on the existing transportation system, The increase in office ' space may have an adverse impact on the City' s goals related to the John Wayne/Orange County Airport. 14. ) Public Services "a, d, e , and f" , Fire Protection : The proposed increase in office development may create the demand for higher levels of fire protection within the project area. Parks and Recreation Facilities : The increased population/ ' housing forecast may create a. demand for additional parks and recreational facilities within the proposed project area. ' Presently no local recreation services or facilities exist or are planned for the project area . Maintenance of Public 'FacilA ties , including Roads : The. proposed , project may create additional demand for the maintahce of public facilities and will add additi-onal ADT' s which add to maintenance questions related to roadways . 16 . ) Utilities " c, d and e" The proposed project may create a demand for additional water, storm drainage and sewer capacities or the need for new/altered systems . , 17. ) Human Health "a and b" The proposed project may result in potential health hazards by exposing existing and new residents of the community to high noise levels adjacent to roadways . ' 19. ) Recreation , The proposed project may create a demand for local recreational facilities . , Prior to the evaluation of the proposed project as it would , relate to " Item 21 " - "Mandatory Findings of Significance" the attached list of mitigation measure "Section III " was incorporated into the project design . 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 IV . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 23 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' General Comment The majority of the potential environmental effects of the ' proposed project are related to the large increase in office space development proposed by the GPA. This increase may have a significant effect on air quality, traffic , human health , ' etc. Therefor, a revision to the proposed project is proposed and the following mitigation measures should be incorporated where applicable into project implementation ordinances , etc. ' Mitigation Measures 1 . The project shall be modified so as to maintain the pro- jected Newport Beach General Plan impacts in one of the follow- ing ways : du/ac or Land Use Maximum F.A .R . ' Multi-Family 20 du/ac Office 1 .0 General Commercial 1 .0 Industrial 1 .0 ' Church n/c Private School n/c Though the proposed project as mitigated above will indicate an increase in total ADT' s , it can be assumed that a significant portion (20%) of the existing Newport Beach General Plan lands ' indicated for Industrial Land Use would develop as office, therefore it can be assumed that this impact is not significant. The above modification to the proposed project will eliminate ' or minimize to a degree determined not to be significant those impacts indicated in the following: 1 . Earth "b , c , a and f" 2. Air " d" 3. Water "b and e" 6. Noise "a and b" ' 9. Natural Resources "a" 13. Transportation/Circulation 14. Public Services "a , a and f" ' 17. Human Health "a and b" 24 , 2 . Landform alteration on any site will be subject to the ' approval of a grading permit. The grading permit will be prepared by a Civic Engineer based upon recommendation of , an engineering geologist. The grading permit will include : a . An investigation of surface and subsurface drainage . , b. A complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities . c . A erosion. and dust control plan . d . An erosion and siltation control plan approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board . e . A comprehensive soil and geologic investigation . f. A surface drainage plan that will not create down- stream erosion . es . Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes . 9• P P 3 . All projects will provide for the incorporation of water- ' saving devices for all water-using facilities . 4. All projects will provide for the sorting of recyclable , materials from other solid wastes . B. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport , Beach ' s policy regarding the John Wayne/Ora;nge County Airport will be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants , Conditions , ' and Restrictions which may be recorded against and undeveloped site. Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein , his heirs , successors and assigns , acknowledge ' that: a . The John Wayne/Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business estab- lishments which rely on such service ; b . When an alternate air facility is available, a complete ' phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; c. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose ' additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; _ d . Lessee, his heirs , successors and assigns , will not ' actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. I, 25 ' S . Prior to the development of any site, written verification will be provided that public and quasi-public facilities and ' services will be available . Further, that prior to occupancy of any project, it will be demonstrated that the aforementioned are available . ' 74 . Prior to the development of any site , it will be demonstr&tdd that the project( s ) will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife of their habitat. 1 8._ All multi -family residential developments will provide car wash facilities so that run-off can be directed to sewer ' facilities . 9 . All proposed developments will provide for vacuum street ' sweeping services for non-dedicated streets . 10 . All proposed developments will provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas for Commercial & Industrial Areas and all ' common parking areas of residential projects . 11 . Any proposed development will be subject to the approval ' of a landscape plan . The landscape plan will include the following : ' a . An irrigation plan which minimizes water use and prevents over-watering. b . Heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation . c. A maintenance program for the control of the use of fertilizers and pesticides . d. A plan for the integration of landscaping and construc- tion schedule . ' 12 . That all projects developed in accordance with GPA 80-2 will be designed and certified by an electrical engineer to ' eliminate any glare and ambient light to adjacent public roadways and/or residential communities . ' 13. That all projects developed in accordance with GPA 80-2 , will investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i .e . , solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs . 14. That all residential projects will provide for solar heating, or provide written documentation that alternative measures have been taken in project design that provide equal energy/natural resource conservation . 15 . The proposed project shall be modified so as to require discretionary review for changes to the existing mobile home parks within the project site. No changes to the mobile home park sites should be approved without a finding as to confor- mance with the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. i 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 V . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION - On the basis of the information contained in this initial study, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed in Section 'V have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration is attached . Date Signature For the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City of 1 Newport Beach . 1 . 1 1 1 1 i i r 1 r APPENDIX I - MINUTES r r ( 27 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 10 ROLL CALL^ N`\�\ October 25, 1977 INDFX (g) A letter to Mayor Dostal from Supervisor Riley advising that the bike trail project along San Diego Creek was approved by the card of Supervisors. (Copies mailed to (2800) Caun (h) A reeelution of a al ABeaty Formation Commission approving Anne n No. 85, the "Field Trust" annexation, to the X} of Newport Beach, located southwesterly of (25P) Whittier Avenue and 16th Street extended. (Copies mailed to Council) _ A letter from the Local Agency Formation ^ Commission explaining that a8 1533 has been sianad into law and that it repeals certain c Deere of the Cover[menc Code relating to cities and enacts.i Municipal Organization Aci iagar49j,_6micipal incorporations, reorganizations or changes of organization. (2292) (Copies mailed to Council) ' (j) A letter from the orange County Health Planning Council regarding the public hearing on the components of the 1978 Health Systems Plan. (Copies mailed to Council) (k) A letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles stating they need volunteers on public service panels to assist the in particular and the government in g ral to -�•• become more efficient and sansiti to the needs of the communities that t y serve. (2561) ' (Copies mailed to Council) (1) A latter from Senator Ha Rowe regarding the filibuster in the nited States Senate in regard to nature gas pricing. (Copies t20) mailed to Council> '• (m) _A Notice the with..the-passage of.Assembly Bill 402, s State Transportation Board will none responsible for the designation of n0dific route$ of Statewide significance after February 1, 1978; and that the new Cdlifornie Transportation Commission will /have the authority to deviate from regional (20) priorities. (Attached for Council) ,. (n) Notice of Hearing before the Public Utilities _ Commission of Southern California Gas Company to increase revenues to offset the increase in prices to them by their suppliers. (20) (o) Notice of Hearing before the Public Utilities Commission of Southern California Gas Company to increase revenues to offset the long-term storage costs. (20) Volume 31 - Page 280 i — — 28 CK Y OF NEWPORT S .CH ' COUNCILMEN MINUTES JALXX � FN��P��p�ygGp22 to 7i NROLL d August 14, 1978 INpEX Allan Beek addressed the Council and urged that \ the funds for push buttons for street crossing Purposes be retained. Ayes x A vote was taken on Mayor Rycko£f's motion, Noes x x which motion failed, Absent x x Motion x Resolution No. 9416, approving the application Ayes x x x x for bicycle and/or pedestrian funds authorized Noes x der S.B. 821, and approving the adoption of Absent x x its Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Plan, was adopted with,the understanding that the matter would be revicwO by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Com ttt��ee. Motion The matter was rePerted to the Transportation Ayes x x x x x Plan Citizens Adviscly Committee. Absent x x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: \�• Motion x 1. Councilman Heather was appointed to'represent Ayes x x K x x Newport Beach as alternate to mhe LongiYe,of' Abeam x Cities Airport Work Program. �\ Motion x 2. The Planning Commission was directed to remove Ayes x x x from the table and reconsider an Ordinance Absent x controlling,development or redevelopment of subdivided blufftop 'lots. in the Zity of Newport Beach. Motion C 3. The staff was directed to an, alyze,the require- mania x x x mania for annexation regarding- g, county x Triangle area and_report back to she City Council. Mayor Ryckoff declared the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Volume 32 - Page 211 C( Y OF NEWPORT BE ;H COUNCILMEN MINUTES Z •LG y P•L C \9T C`c 9� 9G 22 ROLL CALL �d'� 9 N 'INDEX Suzie Ficker addressed the Council in behalf of S.P.O.N asking for information regarding the den- sity and drainage in the triangle area. Motion x Resolution No; 9647, applying to the Local Agency All Ayes Formation Coimnission of Orange County for auth— oorzation to annex to the Cit? of Newport Beach certain inhabited Cerritory surrounded by the Cit of Newport Beach and known as the "County Trian- gle" pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, Annexation No. 87; was adopted. , 2. A report dated August 13, 1979 was presented from the Chairman of the Litter Control Citizens Advi- sory Committee,regarding appointments to that Committee. Motion x Councilman Hummel's appointment of a member to All Ayes fill the unexpired term of Helen Anderson ending December 31, 1979 was postponed to October 23, 1979. 3. A report dated October 1, 1979 was presented from the Marine Department regarding Parbor Permit Applications to construct a wood retaining,wall at 1907, 1909, 1911 and 1913 E. Bay Avenue from the following: 4109-1907, William WareyC109-1909, Henry Buckingham, #109-1911, Martha Batton and 0109-1913, Don Russell. Marine Director David Harshbarger gave a brief staff report regarding vacated Fast Bay Avenue. Sue Picker addressed the Council and opposed bulkheading. Applicants Don Russell and Sid Hutton addressed the Council and urged approval, stating their homes were being endangered. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to deny the applicat- ions. Motion x Councilman Hart made a substitute notion to con- Ayes x x x x x tine the item to November 26,-1979, which motion Nate x carried Motion x 4. The Mayor's appointment of Judy Clark as the al- Ayes x x x x x ternte on the Orange County Housing Authority Abstain Advisory Committee was confined. - G. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Department regarding the vacation and abandonment of a portion of Acacia Street. Volume 33-Page 285 d Y OF NEWPORT BE( ;H COUNCILMEN n�,!f MINUTES y y •�.n,�y s,,�� G ?i�^ 'TOLL CALL INDEX E. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING: 1. Ordinance No. 1818, bring, \ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTIONS 20.11.030, 20.14.070, 20.15.070, 20.16,075, 20.17.075, 20.33.030 (F) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AS THEY PERTAIN TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR RESIDEN- TIAL USES Planning Commission Amendment No, 535, a request initiated by,the City of Newport Beach to consider an amendment to Chapter 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to required parking ar residential uses, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A letter received after the agenda was printed was presented from David A. W. Young opposing the ordias e. ' Notion x Councilman Heather made a motion to postpone Ordinance No. i818 to October 23 so it could be heard with the Corona del Her Developaent Stan- dards. \\ Arvo Heaps and Margot Skilling addressed the Council and asked that th ordinance be postponed. , to October 23. Ayes K x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman`Heather's motion, Noes x which motion carried. ` Assemblywoman Marian Bergeson addressed the Council regarding various legislation concerning th City. 2. Ordinance No. 1823, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEA AMENDING SECTION 14.12.090 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AUTG- MATIC HATER RATE ADJUSTMENT FROM AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1980, was presented for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1823 was adopted. All Ayes F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department regarding annexation of the Count Triangle as permitted Under the Municipal,0'rgan- ization Act of 1977 ,(MORGA-AB 1533). The following people addressed the Council in favor of the annexation: David Shores, Dorothy Parker of the Newport Crest Association, and Bill iHardesty. , Volume 33 - Page 284 � l G�. �Y OF NEWPORT BEr.;Cci COUNCILMEN MINUTES y�y�N�3C F p+9�`,CO9ygG22/ P'Y�JrVi c,QP\, ROLL CALL REhI 7,DO Nor INDEX 3. Ordinance No. 1833,being, Animal Control AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 0-1833 NEWPORT ,BEACH AMENDING SECTION (70) 7.04.100 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH NICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR IM MENT AT A CITY FACILITY OF • ANY DOG CH BITES A PERSON WHILE • UNLEASHED A OSE OWNER CANNOT PROVIDE PROOF O RRENT RABIES VACCINATION, was presented for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1833 was reintroduced and passed to All Ayes second reading on January 21, 1980. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 'J , 1. A report was presented from the Planning AnnexatlorV Department regarding Cltv annexation of the County C,.ounri Triangle as_permitted under the Mun par Triangle • Org4ntzatlon Act of 197T(MORGX-_ABT533). (21) Motion x The staff was directed to file a completed All Ayes a Ipp Ication with the Exec—UMe Officer of the Local Agency Fa ma"It o`rt Commiss-CoF. Z. A,report was presented from the Parks,Beaches and Balbop / Recreation Department regarding Balboa Island Island rk Park. (62) Motion x The City Manager was authorized to execute an• A11,Ayes architectural services agreement with architects• . •., Tom Moon and Associates of Newport Beach prepare plans and specifications for. the a Island Park. ayor Ryckoff asked the Council to con • er meeting on January 21 instead of January 28. th the unanimous nsent of the Council,the Mayor nounced that the next Council meeting would beheld anuary 21, 1980. 3. A report from the City Attorney regarding Balboa Bay revocation oVauthorization for Balboa Bay Club Club T refinanci with the Oppenheimer Group (38) was pr ented. ,,Mayor Ryckoff stated that he had received a telephone call from Tom O'Keefe asking that this be kept open. The Mayor suggested keeping it open to October 1, 1980. Motion x Councilman Hart made a motion to adopt a proposed resolution rescinding Resolution No. 9643 which would revoke the authorization forinternatic.•al Bay Clubs, Inc. to enter into a reflnanacing transaction with Oppenheimer Industries,Inc,,as amended. • 1 Volume 34-Page 4 I , COUNCILMEN 32 d . Y OF NEWPORT BE,-.;,H MINUTES ROLL CALL 3d'� J nuary 2 INDEX (d) Condemnation of vacant lot on Tustin Avenue Condemnation opposite Avon Street to gain access to CIty Tustin Av Parking Lot. (A report from the City lot •� Attorney) (73) 10. SEAL COAT PROGRAM 1979-80, PHASE 1, Seal Coat (C-2120)-Approval of plans and specifications;and Program authorization to the City Clerk to advertise for bids (38) to be opened at 10:30 a.m.on February 12, 1980. (A I report from the Public'Works Department) - 14ARBOR ISLAND WATER AND SEWER MAIN Harbor Island REPACEMENT PROGRAM 1979-80 (C-2112)- Water&Sewer Approve the revision in bid opening date from 10:30 Main M. on January 22, 1980 to 10,30 am. Relacement p 3 29, 1980. (A report from the Public Works on Re4 pepaktment) 12. RESUBDIVISION NO. 331-Acceptance of public Resub"I Improvement In conjunction with (84) Resubdlvislon o. 331, a portion of Lot 288, Newport Heigh t3 !opted at 2309 and 2311-22nd Street, on the so Fhwesterly side of 22nd Street between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue, Westerly of Upper Newport Bal authorization to the City Clerk to release the,F t1iful Performance Surety, (Certificate of Deposit NNo. 1&414936.4); and authorization to the City ClerrXto release the Labor and Materials Surety (Certificate of Deposit No. 1&-014933-6)In six months provided no claims have been filed. (A report from the ~Public Works t Department) 13. MAINTENANCE HARBOR DREDGINGITS_ Permits/ Approval of the following maintenance dr ging Harbor harbor permits,subject to the conditions of appr at (31) listed In the general permit Issued to the CIty by Corps of Engineers: (A report from the Marine - Department) 109-1701 1701 E:Bay Avenue Gingerlee FIeld - 133.331 331 E.Bavfront ' Hargraves Property 161-7 R7 Be;Island Bay Island Club 164-19 019 bay island Say Island Club 110-1114 1114 E.Balboa Blvd. 1.R.Bahen 14. BUDGET AMENDMENTS:-For•approval: BA-O;i7,._$300.00 transfer of Budget goarooriattons for.Shine fees for annexation of County Triangle from._Wapprpprj2t—eao0tjngency_ROsGrve men _to Nondepartmental, Special Departtal Expense, t General Fund. j Volume 34-Page 27 i CI( Y' OF NEW3PORT BE4 ,H -T( COUNCILMEN MINUTES \yG y f Ate`y�u},'ti� �+ RLE copy F � ROLL CALL\< ?'d+ "A February 11, 1980 DO NOT REMOV,EINDEX (e) To staff for attendance. a letter frpgq the Annexations Local Agency Formation.Commission of Orange (21) County regarding the public hearing on proposed Annexation No. 87 — designated the County Triap9le. on February 13, 1980. (Attached) ---_— (f) To staff for reply, a letter from 0. L. Police Dept. Jones, Jr. requesting the return of a .38 (70) caliber gun which was not returned to him / by the Police Department after the charges were dropped. (Attached) j 4. COMMUNICATIONS — For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) A copy of a letter to the Orange County Orange Board of Supervisors From Dennis D. County O'Neil requesting the County to evalua Airport the VTN Terminal L/efforts Analysis. (58) (Attached) (b) A copy of a letterNewpo Beach Finance Departmentanda Kay Evans regarding the helpis ace she received as well ai opinion of the City's budget . (Attached) (c) A letter from Mrs. Spencer expressing appreciation for tefforts of the Newport Heach Pol . (Attached) (d) A letter of a$$ reciation from Don Culver who was Brea ly assisted by Newport Beach {, Pireman Mi 6Miller following afire at the Park ewport Apartments in September, 1978. ttached) (a) A p� tcard from Emily R. Phillips stating t t she is in favor of price marking in arkets. (Attached) ( A letter to the City Clerk from James H. Lyons, attorney for Airport Service, Incorporated-regarding an application before the California Public Utilities Commission for an increase in rates. � (g) A copy of a letter to the Orange County Transportation Commission from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce opposing any widening or additional parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway. (Attached) (h) Two letters received January 23 and 30, I+ 1980 from Al King Alfonso Lizanetz. I volume 34 — Page 40 i � . `ki. . ., .,.4A�:.Yr. •� hl:'_«("v�,t?'nRY��;Nj•=' `:�1.'=i y;; , February 13, 1980 ' l IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF Nunn BEACH COUNTY "TRIANGLE" ANNEXATION NO. 87 The Executive Officer located the annexation territory and presented the staff's report and recommendation. Jim Hewicker, Newport Beach Planning Director, concurred with the staff's report. Mr. Hewicker answered Commissioner MacLain's question that there were a few vacant parcels within the annexation territory. Chairman Dwyer advised a Mrs. Earll had telephoned the LAFC staff office. ' Mrs. Earll stated she and fifteen of her neighbors had planned to attend the meeting, but were unable because of street flooding. They wanted the Commission to know they favored annexation. Ron Dick, area resident, opposed annexation. Mr. Dick argued the Newport Beach City Council favored zero growth for residential uses, and planned to rezone much of the area for industrial uses. Dr. W. J. Cowan informed he had owned two parcels for 20 years. He planned to build an office building on these properties. Mr. Cowan questioned if Newport Beach's zoning would allow such use, He opposed annexation. Mr. Hewicker responded to Commissioner Miller's question that the city had not held a public hearing on the issue of annexation prior to the Council's �. adopting its resolution of application. Mr. Zak Akiva informed he had purchased his property on 15th Street three years ago. He planned to build a condominium for eight families. He had already spent $20,000. for architectural work and was concerned that the city would not allow him to complete his project. Tom Allenson, area resident, mentioned a news article that the Kotl Company was suing'Newport Beach because of "downzoning". George Chi stated he had bought Sea Cliff Mobile Home Park in the area four months ago. He was concerned that the city would downzone his 10 acres which would be financially damaging to him. Mr. Chi Was satisfied with the existing levels-of service, I Roland Peterson, a mobile home park owner, remarked many of his resi- dents were on welfare or social security. If the city condemned the property, these residents would be displaced. Mr. Peterson responded to Commissioner Saltarelli's question that his park was 20 years old. To meet city standards, he would have to in- crease rents which these residents could ill afford. If the city required a Widening of the steel, four spaces would be lost. Commissioner Miller interjected[that the city, not the County had been providing emergency services such as police and fire. Mr. Hewicker responded to Commissioner Saltare111's question that the county's zoning Was more liberal than the city's. If annexed, the city would permit more industrial and commercial uses, and less multi-family. ' Ray Barella, representing the Mesa Consolidated Water.District, advised the district would continue to provide water regardless of the proposed annexation. Dick Hogan, speaking on the 8-unit condominium project mentioned earlier, noted the project was before the county. He was concerned that the city would oppose the proposed densities. Jean Morrison, mother of the owner of the Placentia & Superior Avenue Market, opposed annexation. Bill Wood, partner with Dr. Cowan, opposed annexation. L Ed Paull, resident since 1942, was satisfied with county services. Mr. Paull questioned why Newport Beach coul'dn't accept county zoning. Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller suggested continuing the proposed annexation for 60 days to allow the city to meet with residents to resolve issues. Commissioner MacLain stated the city should provide zoning information to area residents. Commissioner Saltarelli spoke to situations where county zoning has been accepted. Mr. Saltarelli added county islands were inefficient and should be elimi- nated. Mr. Saltarelli hoped the city could resolve the zoning questions with residents. present. Commissioner Wieder voiced disappointment that coUncilmembers weren't . 197. � ' February 13, 1980 31-A On motion of Commissioner Miller, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the proposed County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to-the City of Newport Beach until its meeting of April 23, 1980 and directed the city to meet with residents and landowners to discuss the issues of annexation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEOER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI, ALICE J. Mac LAIN AND ROBERT E. DWYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE I( IN RE: FILING OF STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 1979 PURSUANT I TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES t The Executive Officer reminded that each Commissioner's "Conflict of Interest" statement must be filed by April 1, 1980. The Commission took no formal action on this item. IN RE: PROPOSED LEGISLATION - ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1983 (FELANDO) On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unani- mously carried, the Commission opposed AB 1983 (Felando) and directed the Executive Officer to notify the Assembly Committee on Local Government of its opposition. IN RE: SALARY INCREASE FOR LAFC ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL Chairman Dwyer offered that he and Commissioner McInnis, acting as a Budget Committee, would submit a proposed increase for LAFC Administrative Management personnel at the Commission's next meeting of February 27, 1980. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: ' 1ActiXg Wretary i L, 198. f •, April 23, 1980 35 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unani- mously carried, the Commission adopted the prepared negative declaration and approved, as recommended, the proposed Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 29 to the City of Anaheim. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, PHILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 80-32 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ANNEXATION NO. 2-79 Mr. Turner informed the Commission he had received a letter from the city of Garden Grove's Administrative Services Director requesting a four months continuance. Commissioner Wieder interjected her office had been contacted about the requested continuance and she supported the request. Bob Dunek, representing the City of Garden Grove, explained the city's reasons for requesting the continuance. Mr. Dunek assured the city had no intentions of confiscating the Dalewood Mutual Water Company. Mr. Ounek stated the city wished to prezone the territory before annexation proceedings concluded. Mr. Ounek responded to Chairman Dwyer's ,question that the city would prezone the area R-3, which was similar to the county's existing R-2 designation. Andrew Noland, 12942 Louise, reported he was satisfied with county services and their private water well. Mr. Noland opposed annexation. Barry Lippert, 12862 Lorna, had no objection to the city's request for continuance. William Ashford, 8601 Garden Grove Boulevard, opposed the requested continuance and annexation. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing on proposed Annexation No. 2-79 to the City of Garden Grove until its meeting of August 27, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, EDISON W. MILLER, 4 DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E. DYWER 1111 NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY "TRIANGLE" ANNEXATION NO. 87 (Continued from'meeting of February 13, 1980) The Executive Officer reported the city had met with the property owners and residents per the Commission's direction on March 26, 1980. On April 10, the Newport Beach Planning Commission conducted a study session to discuss land uses within the territory. On April 14, 1980, the city council discussed future zoning for the area. Jackie Heather, mayor, City of Newport Beach, introduced Evelyn Hart, mayor pro tem; James Hewicker, planning director and Craig Bluell, senior planner. Mayor Heather advised they were available to answer any questions. Mayor Heather reported the city understood the residents and landowners concerns and the city was prepared to address these concerns in a general plan amendment in June 1980. Jim Hewicker reported .the city was prepared to resolve the land use concerns by amending its general plan from mostly industrial to residential. However, state law allowed such amendment only three times per year. The next amendment was scheduled for June. Mr. Hewicker responded to Commissioner Salta- L relli's question that the city was prepared to initiate the appropriate planning studies and environmental review, but desired LAFCO approval before it made such a commitment. Mr. Hewicker conceded that certain landowners would probably prefer 'that their property was prezoned before the annexation process continued. Mayor Heather responded to Commissioner Anthony's question"that the city had a new council which she expected to demonstrate a moderate growth philosophy. She felt assured the city would rezone the area residential. 212. 36 ' April 23, 1980 Mayor Heather responded to Commissioner Miller that she personally preferred the area to be prezoned' residential consistent with the county's zoning. - Commissioner Saltarelli questioned why the property couldn't be prezoned residential concurrently with processing the general plan amendment. Jim Hewicker replied their city attorney had advised them to first amend the general plan, then to apply the zoning. Mr. Turner responded to Chairman Dwyer's question that the Commission's action would be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors by early June. The Board, however, could continue its hearing thereafter. Mr. Hewicker replied to Commissioner Miller's question that they would try to preserve the existing mobile home parks. Ron Dick, 843 W. 15th Street, informed the Commission that approxi- mately 50 percent of the area was residential. Mr. Dick wanted the zoning to remain comparable to county zoning and asked if the Commission would condition the annexation so that proceedings would not be completed until after the city has prezoned the area residential. Dick Hogan, representing two unidentified property owners, wanted the same zoning as the county. Mr. Hogan suggested a continuance Until after the city's general plan amendment. Tom Allinson admitted the necessary planning studies would be costly to the city. Mr. Allinson recognized the city wanted some assurance before they spent funds, but the people wanted some assurance that the area would be zoned resi- dential. Mr. Allinson asked if there was some way-to provide such an assurance. Mr. Hewicker responded to Commissioner Anthony's question that the planning hearings would commence before the Newport Beach Planning Commission in June and conclude before the council in July or August. W. J. Cowan, 330 Placentia Avenue, wondered what he would gain from annexation. He was happy with the way things were. Mr. Chi, owner of Seacliffe Mobile Home Park, remarked annexation would benefit Newport Beach but it would be a loss to the county and the property owners. Commissioner Anthony offered the citizens were going to have to realize that it was getting harder for the county to serve county islands. On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from, the California Environmental Quality Act and approved, as recommended, the County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the city of Newport Beach with the additional recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that they not proceed until the city of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP'L. ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON . MILLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT' E..DWYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 80-33 - See file IN RE: PRESENTATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATE PUBLIC MEMBER APPOINTMENT On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission, received the applications submitted for the Alternate Public Member and directed the Executive Officer to aaendize the appointment of the Alternate I Public Member at its meeting of May 14, 1980 without provizo to invite the applicants. L AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD•J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, AND PHILIP L. ANTHONY NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSTAINING: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYER 213. CRY OF NEWPORT BAH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ' A INDEX ROLL CAL July 14, 1980 - Center area should the land exchange with The Irvine Company not be instituted. (Attached) (d) A from Mrs. James P. Aynes regarding a city year o o act she is starting. (At- tached) (a) A letter from BonnieEnsign.ragarding s me o an article from The the tras - problem in the beach area. (Attached) (f) A resolution of LAFCO approving proposed Count "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the City of • e k Newport Beach, designating the Hoard of Super- visors as the conducting authority, authorizin ' d the Board to order annexation of the territory without n C 0 the Boardnot a recommending proceeduntil he City has scon- eluded its general plan amendment. (Attached) — (g) Minutes of the Friends of OASIS Board Meeting of June 16, 1980. (Attached) ,(h) Memorandum from the Orange County Health / Planning Council announcing the first public hearing in 1980 an health systems plan docu- mente. (i) Copy of application before the Public Utilitie Commission of James S. and Diana M;bebwmeen Fraser dba "The L.A. Commuter" for inauthors - to provide home to work for in I ins L - and Los Angeles by bus. ()) Copy of Opinion in the matter appli- cation before the Public Utiliommission of Southern California CommuteService, Inc. for authority to extend 3senger stags commut/any service from a Angeles and Orange Countclude he Century City Area. (k) Notice of fi t application before the Public UCommission of Southern California Gy and Pacific Lighting Service Computhorization to continue to submit nerevised gas exploration and developmects. •(1) A letter to the Chief of Police £ram Brad M. Holst r garding an incident in connection with party at 3714 Park Lane on June 21, 198 (Attached) (m) otice of filing application with the Public /Utilities Commission by Pacific Telephone and j Telegraph Company to provide new criteria for establishing credit and changes in b3111nx and collection rules for residence service. t (Attached) ` VoluNe 34 - Page 168 i 1 � - fS rly.:` "'� i�• y?yYj..l.. '. :.:,' Q .:.." Y " f�a.r�' �- o`:' —,�•'y'd�';•.-" }`-:y�'N.r�,.��'.' ,µ iY�'' �wMl': ''Y�ir � tR��s'�,:.>•.' �m�'. ' ,'uy'�'C'.,"�7�.k'"�.¢'+}i :- .f. ,.,4cj'r,." �=!e, t+�"�xq'- . :�;•`�,re:'%i;fa's'�seis��., y „..;,. - o m m < AGENDA Zaa ` July 22, 1980 Page - 12 ' CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS: (CONTINUED) n 28. PROPOSED HEARING - PROPOSED � a ANNEXATION NO. 87 (COUNTY "TRIANGLE") 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL'8 7980>, _ Proposed annexation, of a 61.12 acre ., 9 c;ry OF a 3 ;- unincorporated island completely sur .,V e�'cd, rounded by'the city limits of Newport • ti• LiF• :. . •, ' Beach-located northwesterly of Superior ' :k'+'•�'z-� '� • Avenue north and south of ISth 'Street. ,.Subject•:annexationwas initiated by ;•::.�; resolution of application of the Newport Beach City Council pursuant to Sections 35013 and 35150 (f) of the Municipal Organization-Act of 1977 (MORGA). MOR provides that LAFCO after notice and hearing may authorize the County Board of Supervisors, as the conducting authority, to order territory annexed, inhabited or not, without- election if: (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres and,such territory constitutes the entire- island; (2) the territory is surrounded by the annexing city; (3) th t, territory is substantially developed or developing; (4) the territory is not prime agricultural land; and (5)' LAFCO finds that such territory will benefit from annexation or is receiving benefit from the annexing city. LAFCO found the annexation proposal met all the statutory criteria. The annexation sit was within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. The City of Newport Beach was willing and able to assume the responsibility of providing urban ser- vices to the annexation area. LAFCO ., approved the subject annexation on , April 23, 1980. RECOMMENDED ACTION: (1) Adopt a resolution initiating proceedings to C471f3SENTiIk annex the territory to the City of ❑m3yol Newpirt Beach. (2) Set for public 21 minager hearng. (3) Order the territory ❑ WWII annexed without an election. ❑rWD rlor • �comor oueuw 0 ethu •• Q Coun<1�nNq J ' „s�sr;• ' iT (Consent Calendar Matters continued) +Li'.a •Y•yw?.uK:b:! .Y Ir. .. ..,. ' .L' 1 `:a� ''ap'r +M'b•rFSTMCC`r.•-.'[++-.,.'.�T•,�., ...�—...+.—YGL�.� .-+a*• . .. .id'i( aO . T-. l 39 Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of June 19th are contained herein by reference. A tape of the meeting is currently available and typed copies of the minutes will be available at a later date. i - T . 1 . � t 40 Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 24th are contained herein by reference. A tape of the meeting is , currently available and typed copies of the minutes will be available at a later date. 1 ' 1 ; qo ►� 1 1 APPENDIX II - STAFF REPORTS r 41 ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 5201 15 N.SYCAMORE STREET J SO Li -Iry ©� � SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 z^ TELEPHONE:934.2239 `J AREA CODE 714 I LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AIR:IAN o NALD J.SALTARELLI L • ._,n! �'3 OUNCILMAN October 7, 1977 CITY OF TUSTIN Gl i977. , 4 :; E•CHAIRMAN City of Newport Beach tLIP L,ANTHONY 3300 W. Newport Boulevard I• SUPERVISOR J5�1•�• tST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92660 S DONALD A.MCINNIS Attn: Mi 1'an M. Dostal , Mayor COUNCILMAN V OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Council Members: STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVEOF' h=RAL PUBLIC 9 I have been informed that Governor Brown has signed into Taw PUBLIC AB 1533, as introduced by Assemblyman Knox. This bill repeals THOMAS F.RILEY certain chapters and renumbers certain chapters of the Government � SUPERVISOR Code relating to cities and enacts a Municipal Organization Act T•-1 DISTRICT (MORGA) that provides the exclusive authority and procedure for ALTERNATE the initiation, conduct and completion of city, incorporations, • ALICE J.613cLAIN municipal reorganizations or municipal changes of organization. C,L o IAN The provisions within MORGA will be effective early next year. TY OF CYPRESS I believe your city will find h1OP.GA. helpful in initiating, con- III ALTERNATE RIDDLE letin _annexations and detachments involving AN K.RIDDLE ducting and. comp _g g your 11P�_SENRATIVE OF city,.;,in_the future. Further, I tH nk certain provisions within ANERAL PUBLIC c' MORGA can be of assastance.;tol Orange ,County cities in reducing TERNA?E theknumber of unincorporated islands. "" "" •• URENCE J.SCHMIT PFRVISOR In the next couple of months, the Local Agency Formation Com- sec° +D DISTRICT mission will have prepared and distributed to Orange County 1HAD T TURNER cities a report on .the specific procedures and provisions within CUTIIVEOFFCER MORGA for each c.ity's information and future use. This Commission and their staff remain available to assist your city in these matters. Please don't hesitate to call our office if you or your staff have any questions. Very truly yours, \ Id J. Sa�tarelli ,.aC ona =� ti Chairman •? t4,t�t`,�' 11 DJS:ff % 42 ORANGE COUNTY c! ` k ADMINISTRATION BUILDING � My n,�-v- t�-� 515 N.SYCAMORE STREET ROOM M, 01 U, ��U , �7 0 � O ti SAN,TAIANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 , rJ 1 TELEPHONE: 4.2239 1 y AREA CODE 714 ' I LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALD J.SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN _. CITY OF TUSTIN MEMORANDUM V ICE•CHAI RI fAN J PHILIP L.ANTHONY SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT DONALD A.MONNIS Dated: November 3, 1977 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: Local Agency Formation Commission STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OFFrom: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer GENERAL PUBLIC THOMAS F.RILEY Subject: Commission Information: Review of the Municipal SUPERVISOR Organization Act ,of 1977 FIFTH DISTRICT At the Commission's meeting of October 26, 1977, staff distributed AL CEJ.MaoLAIN copies of Assembly Bill No. 1533, (the Municipal Organization Act COUNCILWOMAN of 1977), signed by the Governor on ,October 1 , 1977. The Municipal CITY OF CYPRESS Organization Act ,of 1977 (MORGA) 4iil-1 take effect January 1, 1978. ALTERNATE Brieflysummarized MORGA replaces all existing legislation with JOAN K.RIDDLE 1 P 9 9 REPRESENTATIVE OF respect to annexations, detachments,. incorporations or any changes GENERAL PUBLIC of organization affecting cities. MORGA is fashioned after the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (commencing with Government "Code• 'LAURENCE J.SCHM1IIT ALTERNATE Section 56000) and, for the first time, places all necessary govern- SUPERVISOR mental actions and approvals, from initiation to completion, within SECONO DISTRICT one consolidated act. Attached as Exhibit A is an outline of the RICHARD T. history of and salient features of MORGA prepared by the Governor's EXECUTIVE Office of Planningand Research OPR in concert with the California EXEC!JTIVE OFFICER ( ) Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO). Completion of any change in organization or reorganization involves t basically three steps: (1) application to and approval by LAFC; (2) necessary hearings and election by the conducting authority; and (3) filings required with the county recorder, county surveyor, appropriate city clerks and State Board of Equalization. Staff has reviewed MORGA and believes the provisions and procedures enacted will clarify and expedite the governmental actions and approvals necessary for initiating,conducting and completing municipal incorporations, reorganizations and changes of organization. 43 . C C Page 2 Subject: Commission Information: Review of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 The one major policy change within MORGA which may impact your Commission most significantly involves the provision that provides a LAFCO after notice and hearing may authorize the conducting authority to annex territory, inhabited or not, without an election if: (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; (2) the territory is sur- rounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoining ci'ties;by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean; (3) the territory is substantially developed or developing; (4) the terri- tory is not prime agricultural land; and (5) the LAFCO finds that such territory to be annexed will .benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city (Govt. Code Sec. 35150(f). This provision would only apply to "island" territory in existence on January 1 , 1978.and would be in effect only until January 1, 1981 . Notice of the hearing, as required by this provision, shall include published notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the affected territory, and mailed notice to: (1) any affected city, county, or district; (2) the chief petitioner, if any; (3) each person who has filed a written request for special notice with the Executive Officer; and (4) each registered voter and owner of land within the territory propose to be annexe emphasis added). Government Code Section 35031(c) provides the board of supervisors of the county in which the affected territory is located shall be the conducting authority and shall initiate and conduct proceedings for the annexation of territory specified in subdivision (f) of, Section 35150. When approved and authorizea by the Commission pursuant to provisions of subdivision (f) of Section 35150, the Clerk of the Board of Super- visors shall publish a legal notice of any hearing for annexation under this provision and give mailed notice of the hearing to: any person who has requested such mailed notice; (2) chief petitioners; (3) each affected city, county and district; and (4) to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors may adopt a resolution ordering the annexation without election. If, however, the Board of 'Supervisors disapproves the annexation, a resolution shall be adopted terminating the proceedings. There is no statutory pro- visions requiring such proceedings to be terminated if the majority of affected landowners protest. What is necessary, is a finding that the area will benefit from such annexation. 44 Page 3 Subject: Commission information: Review of the Municipal Reorganization Act of 1977 Staff has been contacted by several cities regarding the procedures. t for processing these island annexations. Consequently, if these cities do initiate annexations pursuant to this subdivision, staff would expect certain increases in costs associated with processing • these annexations, for example, staff would be required to'mail notice to each registered voter and land owner, which would include increased postage, printing and verifications with the County Assessor and Registrar of Voters as well as staff time. The Commission may want, to review its fee schedule to offset these costs. t . 1 1 ! t 45 ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING _ 515 N.SYCAMORE STREET ROOM U NTY 0 p SANTAI01 ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 L.•. /\ \/�/\) /\� TELEPHONE:834.2239 AREA CODE 714 STUDY SESSION NO.8 1 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION o�� } MOUNCILMAIA SALTARELLI Z; •!>f� UNCIL\IAN December 19, 1977 � ''�;. ITY OF TUSTIN �.✓\ City of. Newport Beach ICE•C CHAIR MAN' \I /;:�.•... 1 ••i; ILIP L.ANTHONY 3300 W. Newport Blvd. PEAVIS04 Newport Beach, California 92660 FIRST DIsrPICT Attn: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager NALD A.MONNIS ' '' UNJt':=N CITY OFNE'YMORTBEACH Subject: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) EAN NORTHRUP P EPR=SEV PUBLIC EOF Dear Mr. Wynn: -GENERAL PUBLIC •Y s F. RILEY By now your city should be aware that the Governor signed into VISOR law Assembly Bill No. 1533, generally known as the ftnicipai DISTRICT Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). MORGA (commencing with LTtRNATE Government Code Section 35000) will take effect January 1 , 1978. LICE J.M,cLAIN OUM1CF CYPRESS MORGA replaces all existinglegislation with respect to annexations, CITY OF CYPRESS detachments, incorporation or any municipal reorganization affecting LLTERNA7E cities. MORGA is modeled after the District Reorganization Act of AN K.RIDDLE 1965 (commencing with Government Code Section 56000) and, for the - RENVIA-_:7eL.IC F first time, places all necessarygovernmental actions and approvals, GENERAL PJBLIC ' from initiation to completion, within one consolidated act. LAURENCE I.SCHMIT Completion of any change in organization, reorganization or incorpo•- SUPEPVISO= ration involves basically three ste s:• 1 application to and ICOND O15T RICT p approval by the Local Agency pormation Commission; (2) necessary RICHARD T.TURNER hearings and election by the conducting authority; and (3) filings EXECUTIVE OFFICER required with the County Recorder, County Surveyor, affected city clerks and State Board of Equalization. Filing with the Secretary of State has been omitted. There has been some uncertainty regarding the notification of other agencies following the completion of annexa- tion proceedings. Based On our conversations with several cities' clerks, it was concluded each city had their own "notification list" of agencies they wished to contact after annexations were completed. The consensus was each City Clerk should continue to notify these agencies after LAFCO's notification to them. This has been our policy for the past year and has worked very well . It is our intent to continue this way. Oft 46 Page 2 In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) The Local Agency 'Formation Commission has reviewed MORGA and generally 'believes the provisions and procedures enacted will clarify and expedite the governmental actions and approvals F necessary for initiating, conducting and completing municipal incorporations, reorganizations and changes of organization. Attached for your city's information and use is a flow chart of MORGA's basic procedures. The one major policy -change within MORGA that cities surrounding or adjacent to county islands should be aware of is the provision that would allow "Island" annexations of less than 100 acres. As provided by Section 35150(f), LAFCO after notice and hearing may authorize the annexation of territory, inhabited or not, without an election if: (1 ) the territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; (2) the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoining cities, by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean . (3) the territory is substantially developed or developing; (4) the territory is not prime agricultural land; and (5) LAFCO finds that such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. This authorization only applies to "island" territory in existence on January 1 , 1978 and is in effect only until ,January 1 , 1981. Preliminary proceedings for "county island annexations" require LAFCO to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed. It was the concensus of the Commission that the annexing city should be responsible for all increased costs asso- ciated with such notice. By minute order dated November 23, 1977 the Commission amended its fee schedule to levy against the benefitting city all necessary and reasonable charges not to exceed $500.Ob for preliminary proceedings for "island annexation" pursuant to Section 35150(f) of MORGA. The revised Schedule of Fees is attached. Government Code Section 35031 (c) provides the Board of Supervisors shall be the conducting authority and shall initiate and conduct proceedings for the annexation of territory described in subdivision (f) of Section W k. City councils remain the conducting authority on other annexations. The Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, may adopt a resolution ordering the "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such ,proceedings to be terminated / 47 Page 3 In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act . F�wof 1977 (MORGA) if the majority of affected landowners protest. Again, the emphasis is whether the area is benefitting from the annexing city or would benefit from annexation to the affected city. However, the Board has the discretion to terminate proceedings by resolution. There are a number of islands within our County that meet the. statutory requirements for annexation pursuant to Section 35150(f). Each city's sphere of influence would indicate the specific islands, if any, your city could consider for annexation pursuant to this section. We believe your city will find MORGA helpful in initiating, conducting and completing annexations and detachments involving your city in the future. Further, MORGA may be of assistance to Orange County cities in reducing the number of unincorporated islands. This CoMmission staff is menting MORGA's 'procedures.avable Welwouldtbeassist willingour to meet with you ` and your staff, if necessary, to discuss these matters. Please don't t hesitate to call our. office if you or your staff have any questions. Very truly yours, ' 1 Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:ff Attachments cc: Orange County Division, League of California Cities June Alexander, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors i 1 � 48 yI .00AL AGENCY FORMATIM COi MISSION COUNTY OF ORANGE SCHEDULE OF FEES f "'NE '"i0"S 0? DETACHt4ENTS, ALL LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSALS F='=+GE SINGLE OWNERSHIP b;ULTIPLE OWNERSHIP 0.1 - 5.99 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 b - 19.99 $ 50.00 $100.00 20 - 39.99 $100.00 $150'.00 40 - 79.99 $150.00 $200.00 80 - 199.99 $201 00 $300.00 200 - 999.99 $250.00 $360.00 1090+ $300.00 $400.00 ISLAND ANNEXATIONS (Pursuant to Government Code Section 35150(f) Annexing city shall be responsible for ,all reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed . . . . . . . . $500.00 DISSOLUTIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 MERGERS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100..00 CONSOLIDATIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 PEO?.SA.Z ZATIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 FORMATION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . $200.00 (including County Service Areas), all INCORPORATIOPI OF CITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500.00 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ReSuest 'by local agency or county for amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence Reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed . . . . . . . . $500.00 C NOTE. A. The above schedule combines a filing and processing charge and mould include cost of legal notice publication. " I B. Fees in accordance with the schedule above should be paid at the time the application is filed with the Executive Officer. C. Only exceptions to the fee schedule above vo ld be on proposals resulting from LAFC orders or recommendations to avoid double taxation or duplication of services situations, and proposals filed as directed by the -Orange County Board of Supervisors. 49 D. Definitions: Single Ownership: A single ownership is one where an entire area to be annexed, etc. , is assessed to one owner or group of owners, each owning a percent of interest in all parcels' as a single assessment (Assessors Parcels). Acting together, they form a single entity, the same entity, in all parcels. This applies, to mineral rights as well ' as surface. Multiple Ownerhsip: A multiple ownership occurs when more than one owner, or group of owners, is being assessed separately for his separate or undivided interests in portions of, or all of, the area to be annexed, etc. Also, this type of ownership can be defined as any ownerships not quali'fying, as single ownerships. This applies to mineral rights and surface. r 1 _ . MUNICIPAL ORMIZATION ACT OF 1977 BASIC PROCEDURES Applicant Exec. Officer corrects sets for hearing deficiencies --- notices Proceedings (A) Petition Application 4A. filed with Exec. Officer Exec. Officer Initiated (B) Resolution reviews / % Exec. Officer prepares report of Application application b recoomendation �i I. 2. 3. 5. Exec. Officer requests ad- visory reports 4B. , 30-90 days- Proceedings Terminated Proceedings Terminated disarproves disapproves Conducting o agency receives nductitig LAFCO Conducting reports agency !� receives agency sets "'- resolutio `Bl /A reports LAFCO for hearing testimony tom=f t Resolution testimony notices 6. 7 g, Landowner protests r �35-IOS days 35 days�•;5-135 days election Conducting 90. agency corrects deficiency non-compliance Conducting Exec. Officer agency transmits Exec, Officer Exec. Officer files Statement tort. copies of examines reso- files Cart. of 11 of Proceedings .�� reso. b fees to lution and fees Completion fees i Change/with State completed Exec. Officer Board of Equal. 11L 12. 13. 14. tops In Process 3U-60 days ~ ' Y+)llce and h.•u• 4 ' kalvrd If 1000 of the I.. ..ners cons 51 + STEPS Ill PROCESS 1 . Pret.iminary proceedings can be initiated by: (a) petition signed by at least 5 of the landowners or registered voters. Such petition can be a single instrument or separate counterparts. Any petition shall contain the following: (i) identify whether the proposal is for city incorporation, change of organization or municipal reorganization; (ii ) state the reasons for the proposal ; (III ) state whether the petition is signed by registered voters or landowners; and (iv) designate the chief petitioners, not to exceed three (3) names. (b) resolution of a lication of an affected city, county or special str ct. en a city a opts such resolution, the city will submit a plan for providing services to the affected area. 2. Application filed with Executive Officer. Complete application consists of: (i) petition or resolution of application; (ii) reproducible map and legal description; (III) completed "justification of proposal " ques- tionnaire; (iv) completed "initial environmental information" questionnaire; and (v) appropriate filing and processing fee. (Forms available from the Executive Officer. ) 3. Executive Officer reviews application. If application is deficient, the 4 applicant is notified and given .the opportunity to correct deficiencies. If application is adequate, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of " Filing and mails same to applicant. 4A. Executive Officer sets proposal for LAFC hearing, and if necessary, publishes a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation. When application is accompanied by written consent of the affected landowners representing one hundred percent (100%) of the affected territory and the territory is unin- habited, notice and hearing can be waived. , If proceedings involve annexa- tions of county islands less than one hundred (100) acres, the Executive Officer shall notify all registered voters and landowners by mail.. 43. Executive Officer requests advisory reports from the following: (i) Director, EMA, (ii) Assessor; (III) Planning Commission; (iv) Airport .Land Use• Com- mission; (v) County Sheriff and (vi) any other agencies or individuals whose advice the Executive Officer deems appropriate on any specific proposal. 5. Executive Officer prepares a report and recommendation on the specific proposal . 6. LAFC receives reports and testimony at public hearing. The Commission must. approve or disapprove by resolution the proposal within 35 days of the con- clusion of the public hearing. Disapproval of the proposal precludes fur- ther consideration for a period of one year. If the Commission approves the Ili proposal., the LAFC .designates the conducting agency and transmits a certified copy of said resolution to the conducting agency. The Commission may authorize the conducting agency to proceed without notice and hearing or election if one hundred percent (100%) of the affected landowners consent to such in writing. 52 Page, 7. The LAFC adopts resolution. 8. Conducting agency (ci-ty council or board of supervisors) initiates pro- ceedings within 35 days after LAFCO approves a proposal and will be re- quired to conduct a noticed public hearing within 45 days of initiating proceedings. Voters and landowners would be able to present any Written protests at the public hearing. . However, LAFCO may authorize the conduct of proceedings without notice and hearing if the proposal is for anneXa- tion, detachment, or a reorganization consisting solely of annexations or detachments of uninhabited territory and if all affected landowners consent to the proposal. 9. 'Within 30 days of the public hearing, the conducting agency will-be re- quired' to take one of the following actions: In the case of an inhabited annexation detachment or a .reor anization consisting of inhab ted annexations or detachments, the conducting .,agency could: order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization without an election if less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners owning, less than 25% of the assessed value of land � - protest; or - order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization subject to an election if more than 25% of the voters or more than 25% of land- owners owning more. than 25% of the assessed value protest; or - terminate proceedings if more than 50% of the registered voters protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). . In the case of an uninhabited annexation 'detachment or a reor anization consistin of unin abited annexations or detachments, the con ucting agency could: order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization -if landowners who own'less than 50% of the assessed value of land and improve- ments protest; or - terminate proceedings if landowners owning more than 50% of the assessed value of land and improvements protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). t In 'the case of a cite incorporation, the conducting •agency Could: - order the incorporation subject to an election if-less than 50% of registered voters protest: or - terminate proceedings if more than 50% of registered voters protest. 53 A i i Page•'A In the case of a disincorporation or consolidation, the conducting agency will be required to call an election on the proposed disin- corporation or consolidation. In the case of an island annexation, the conducting authority could: - approve the annexation without an election; or - disapprove the annexation. In the case of any other reorganization, the conducting agency could: f - order the reorganization subject to an election if less than 50% of the registered voters protest; -or ' - terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters protest. 9A. Election -Requirements: - If an election is called for an incorporation, disincorporation, consolidation, or reor anization, a majority vote of those re- gistered voters living in the a fected territory is required. - If an election is called for an annexation or detachment of in- habited territory, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area unless (a) the affected area has an assessed value equal to one-half or more of the total assessed value of land within the affected city or (b) the number of registered voters residing within the affected territory equals one-half or more of the number of registered voters residing in the affected city. In either of those cases the election must include voters living in the affected city; a majority vote is required in both the affected territory and the affected city. 10. The conducting agency adopts resolution. 11 . Clerk -of conducting agency transmits a certified copy of conducting agency's resolution with applicable State Board of Equalization fees to Executive Officer. 12. Executive Officer examines resolution and determines whether it is in compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by the LAFC in its resolution. If resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will return same to conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance. If resolution in compliance, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Completion. 54 Page }� 13. The Executive Officer records a certified copy of Certificate of i Completion with the County Recorder and files copies of recorded , documents with the County Surveyor and affected city clerk(s). The effective date is the date of recordation with County Recorder. 14. -Executive Officer files a Statement of Boundar Change and submits -appropriate filing fees wi5 t e tate Board of Equalization. C ' . r i . 1 1 • 55 t 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 10, 1978 •� TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: REPORT The City Council , on January 9th, reviewed the at- tached information concerning MORGA. They have requested that a staff report be prepared analyzing the County Triangle in the hospital area. Please analyze this proposed annexation against the Council Policy concerning annexation. It would be prudent to contact the Public Works Department to determine potential Public Works projects required for the area. I intend to place this item on the study session agenda for January 23rd., and would need this report no later than the 17th or 18th. If you have questions, please contact me. ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment Rsc Ec� r • con"nnanity Ucn4 1— JAN 10 1978,- j 1 \ 56 City Council Meeting January 23, 1978 1 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)l : CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION NO. January 18, 1978 i TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: The annexation of the County Triangle as permitted under the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA - AB1533). Background C At the City Council Study Session of January 9, 1978, the staff was instructed to evaluate the possible annexation of the County, Triangle in light of the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and report, back to the City Council on January 23, 1978. Following is a brief summary of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 as it applies to the County Triangle and a very preliminary evaluation of the County Triangle in terms of the City's annexation guidelines as stated in Council Policy C-1. Municipal Organization Act of 1977 1. Permits "island" annexations of less than 100 acres in exis- tence an January 1, 1978 and is in effect only until Janu- ary 1, 1981. 2. Requires LAFCO to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed of preliminary proceedings. 3 ng authority in the 0case ofO to t the iCounty Triangze the te)N'tocinitiate9 f - and conduct proceedings without election if' a) The territory does not exceed 100 acres.in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; b) the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoin- ing cities, by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean; C) the terrirory is substantially developed or developing; d the territory is not prime agricultural land; and e LAFCO finds that such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing, city. 4. Would permit the Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, to adopt a resolution ordering an "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such pro- ceedings to be terminated if the majority of affected landowners protest. However, the Board would have the discretion to term- inate proceedings depending on whether the area is benefitting from the City 0 r would benefit from the annexation. 57 �_. ... I ly n TO: City Council - 2. County Triangle Setting \ The County Triangle is an unincorporated island of approximately sixty-two acres, lying southerly of Production Place; northwesterly of Superior Avenue and northeasterly of Newport Crest. The area is characterized by mixed land uses and mixed zoning. Existing uses include industrial, institutional, commercial and residential developments. In addition, there are numerous vacant parcels. The County has zoned the area for R-2 and R-3 multi-family residen- tial uses and M-1 light industrial uses. The Land Use Element of the County's General Plan was recently amended to permit a mixture of Community Commercial, Light Industrial and Heavy Density Resi- dential uses. The County's Heavy Density Residential designation would permit a maximum of twenty-three dwelling units per acre. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the area for a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial, General Industry and Multi- Family Residential uses with a density not to exceed fifteen dwell- ing units per acre. Annexation Guidelines 1. Public Reaction. Reaction from public agencies, private organ zat ons, property owners and residents who would be affected by the City's annexation of this area has not been solicited. However, it is anticipated that those owners of property who stand to benefit financially under County control would not favor annexation. 1 2. Overlapping Taxation. The area is currently served by the Costa Mesa County Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Overlapping taxation in terms of funds normally collected by the City for services associated with water, sewer and trash pick-up would have to be resolved. E• 3. Duplication. As near as can be determined at this time, there wgu d be no duplication of services caused by the annexation. 4. City Standards. The Public Works Department has indicated that there are several substantial Public Works' related problems associated with this area. A copy of their pre- liminary report is attached. 5. Tax Base. The staff has not had sufficient time to evaluate the impact of a County Triangle annexation on the City's tax base. 6. Planning. From the standpoint of planning, it would be very desirable for the City to annex this area and bring current zoning and land development policies into consis- tency with the City's General Plan. 7. Transportation. The County Triangle is completely surrounded by t e City of Newport Beach, and any development in this area has an immediate impact on the City's street system. Annex- ation of the area would permit the City to play a direct role in correcting inter-area street circulation deficiencies and correct any imbalance between proposed land uses and the circulation system. 8. Boundaries. The annexation of this area is a logical exten- ' Sion of the City's boundaries. 9. Safety. This annexation would permit the City to provide safety and emergency services to this area and thus elimin- ate the need for mutual aid agreements and the necessity for other agencies to respond unless requested. i i 58 TO: City Council. - 3. 10, Service. The area can be best served by the City of k Newport Beach since it is adjacent to this City's boundary and no others. , 11. Homogeneity. Annexation of the County Triangle would permit residents who in terms of their social , cultural, economic and political interests and habits are related to the City to become an active part of the City. 12. Control. Development of this area would be controlled by the City's building and zoning regulations. 13. Public Facilities. There are no public uses proposed or this area. 14. Elimination. Annexation of the area would permit the City to take irect control over problems which have arisen in the Triangle, i .e., noise from air-conditioning equipment, extension of streets, etc. , and eliminate any other existing or potential problems which might have a blighting or deter- iorating influence on existing development in the City. 15. Preclusion. Annexation of the County Triangle would pre- clude the need for coordination with another governmental agency which to date has not demonstrated a great deal of 'support for the City's concerns related to traffic and intensity of development in the area. 16. Image. With the exception of a very few improvements, the image and stature of the City would not increase with the annexation of 'this area. 11. Cost -Benefit Ana1y_sis. The staff has not had sufficient t me to eva uato t e ability of the area to generate revenues nor compare the cost of providing City services ` to the area, Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director J D. KER By Ass stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments: Vicinity Map Preliminary Public Works Report 1 i 59 � f . u ' I L •� ii� / l M•1-A � M l A M+A M.I-d P•C ORANGC %� ' couN�r ?s9 t e` et N 4,. .p , ••� • AC }f L r A-P•H i I I 60 , ANNUXATION FEES 3.13.020-3,13.030 r meet the need for public improvements and facilities consisting of fire stations and fire fighting equipment, public City libraries and public City parks, which could not be met by the ordinary revenues of the City, Asia ./ matter of equity, the City Council finds that any territory which shall In the 9y future be annexed to the City on which buildings have been constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings should pay its fair share r of the cost of providing the above mentioned public Improvements and facilities.(Ord.1342§ 1 (part),1970). 3.13.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the words defined in this section shall have the meanings assigned to them unless from ' the context It appears that a different meaning Is intended. SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The term "single family or duplex-residential unit"shall mean a single family dwelling ' or a dwelling unit in a duplex. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The term "multiple residential , unit"shall mean a dwelling unit within a bu➢ding designed as a residence for three or more families living independently of each otherwhich is equipped with cooking facilities,including triplexes and apartment houses. COMMERCIAL UNIT. The term "commercial unit" shalt mean any space in a building or structure designed or intended to be occupied or used for business or commercial purposes,Including sleeping rooms in hotels and motels without kitchens,or kitchen fac➢ities. - INDUSTRIAL UNIT.The tern "Industrial unit"shall mean any apace in a bidding or structure designed or Intended for manufacturing, processing,research,warehousing or similar uses, MOBILEHOME PARK.The term"mob➢ehome park"shall mean any area where one or more lots or spaces are rented or held out for rent to be occupied by a house tra➢er, mobilehome, camper or similar vehicle.(Ord. 1342§ I (part),1970). 3.13.030 Imposition of Annexation Fees. A. Fees Imposed. An annexation fee it hereby imposed upon the owner or owners of any real property upon which any commercial unit and/or industrial unit has been r_ constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings In the amount or 5.21 per square foot of gross floor area for all classes of construction, including any area in a building designed for the parking of vehicles, and upon any real property upon which any residential unit has been constructed in the amount of$420.00. B. Due Date. The amount of the fees due hereunder shall be determined on or before the date on which the City Council takes final action to approve the annexation and shelf include any buildings for which permits are issued by the Building Official of the County of Orange or _ another city prior to the completion of the annexation proceedings to the City of Newport Beach, and the full amount of the feu shall be due and 1� payable on or berate the final action of the City Council in approving the 54-1 M.nron a.rn vu•n) r • r r. r r G 61 3.13.040-3.13.050 REVENUES AND FINANCE ' annexation; PROVIDED,however,that the City Council may,by resolution, approve the payment of said annexation fees in not to exceed ten (10) annual installments, with interest of six percent (6%)on the outstanding _ balance, which shall be assessed as(tens against the parcels of real property upon which the buildings are located, as said parcels are shown upon the latest available County assessment roll. A certified copy of said resolution shall be flied with the Orange County Auditor on or before August 10 of each year, and the Auditor shall be requested to enter the amount of the respective assessments on the County tax roll opposite each parcel of land. The amount of said assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of City property taxes.If delinquent,the amount of said assessment shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure for foreclosure and sale as in the case of City property taxes. (Ord. 1735 § 1, 1977,;Ord. 1675§ 1, 1976: Ord. 1617 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1598 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1342 § 1 (part), 1970). 3.13.040 Refunds. The City Council may order refunded all or part of an annex:t tion fee paid pursuant to this Chapter,if it finds that all or part of the assessmcnt has been erroneously levied. An assessment or any part thereof shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before December 1 of the year in which the assessment became due and payable.The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the assessment, or his guardian,executor or administrator.(Ord. 1342 § I (part),1970). 3.13.050 Exemptions. There are exempted from the annexation fees imposed by this Chapter improved parcels of land owned by the following: A. Buildings or units owned and occupied by any bank including national banking associations. B. Buildings or units owned and occupied by an"insurer'as that term ' is defined in Article XIII,Sections 14-4/5 of the Constitution of the State of California. C. Buildings or units owned and occupied by a non•profrt corporation exclusively for religious,educational,hospital,or charitable purposes. D. Buildings or units owned and occupied by the United States,or any department or agency thereof, or by the State of California, or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof.(Ord. 1342 § 1 (part), 1970). (N." un 9ach 7.1347) 54-2 r t( 62 if ' January 13, 1978 Fk- TO., COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 11 ATTENTION: JIM HEWICKER FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION ' WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE There are several substantial Public Works related problems associated with the proposed annexation of the subject area. Because of the limited time available, detailed analysis and cost estimates for correcting the problems , cannot be provided at present. However, a preliminary report is provided below. A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue - This street it classified as a primary street. The City has just completed a street improvement project on the City's portion adjacent to the proposed annexation. ConsiderableE length of Superior Avenue in 'the County triangle still requires improvement for conformance with the primary , classification. Substantial construction and right of way costs Would be involved in,completing,the Superior Avenue improvements. However, it is probable that much of the work can be required of adjacent property owners as a condition of development. ' 2. Placentia Avenue - This street Is 'classified as a secondary street. The street has been substantially improved in confor- mance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion, 3. 15th Street - This street is currently classified as a secon- dary street. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the primary classification. The County has adopted a precise , _ alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street easterly of Monrovia Avenue. There 1s no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street will have to be completely reconstructed to provide,an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right of way for widening along the north side will be expen- sive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of several trailers in the park at the northwest corner of 15th and Monrovia Avenue. Construction costs will be sub- ' stantial, in addition to the right of way costs. (� B. Local Streets At the present time, we are not aware of any major problems with the total street system. 63 / January 13, 1978 Subject: Preliminary Public Works Report on proposed County Triangle Annexation Westerly of Superior Avenue Page 2 C. Water Service Water Service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service pro- vided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur. D. Sewer Service Sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. (See attached copy of letter from LAFCO regarding the proposed CBS Publications annexa- tion.) This problem will probably be difficult to resolve. E. Storm Drainage ' The area southerly of 15th Street appears to require some study to quantify a potential significant drainage problem associated with development and/or redevelopment of the area. F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsi- bility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment district proceeding would {, ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Anamin B'Not // City Engineer ' WBD:do Att. 64 ORANGE COUIiTr• ADMINISTRATION BUILDING _ 515 N.SVCAMORE STREET r�-•� ROOM 101 O 0LJN �r SPNTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 •� TELEPHONE:8]0.22]9 7 U AREACODE714 o O An1GiE L LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION NAI ROAN ' ONALD J.SALTARELLI ' OUNCILMAN MEMORANDUM ITY OF TUSTIN I�pp ICE•CHAI RMAN HILT►L.ANTHONY 1? UPERVISOR ACC'k� IRST DISTRICT pate: May 20, 1977 �$�\•, ONALDA.McINNIS To: Local Agency Formation Commission Tc• 'JA,CS 0 4 N • , OUCi1.MAN IRV OF NEwPO11T REACH 4 From: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer ,/C(ry� STAN NORTHRUP , III P$ir i•N'rATIVE OF GFNF RM.PUBLIC Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation T110?.MS F.RILEY No. 83 (C.B,S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach •ua�/IVISOR • ��DIS r RICT The subject annexation' aras originally scheduled for Commission action on nLTrRNATL May 11 , 1977. At the May 11 meeting the 'Commission was informed the , RFE BURNAP proponent, F,icker and Ruffing Architects, was requesting .a continuance nt PRCSf.N I ATI V C OF DIWI.11AL PU"LIC of this proposal to the Commissiob's next .bearing date of May 25, 1977. The Commission approved the proponent's request. ALTC ALICE J.J•1•+ac,ILA1N Communications with the proponent and the City of Newport Beach reveal COUNCILWOMAN CITY Or cYPRESs the additional time was requested because of the staff recommended con- dition that "prior to completion of the annexation, the City of Newport , ALTFIINATE Beach initiate proceedings to detach the property from the Costa Mesa LAURENCF.J.SCHMIT Sanitary District" to avoid a duplication of services and subsequent Sul'[R V ISOR SECOND DIST RICT costs. Apparently, to satisfy this condition the proponent s client, CBS Properties, arould.have to construct a now sewer line or bond for .the RICHARD T.TURNER construction of a new sewer line to hook-up to the City of Newport CXf CUTIVC Of F ICI•R Beach's Seater system. As the Commission may recall from our staff report of May 5, 1977, the subject property is currently developed with an existing C.B.S. Public- ations building, owned by United California Bank as trustee. U.C.B. .is purchasing an adjoining undeveloped parcel which is within the City or Newport Beach to accommodateplanned construction of two additional office buildings for C.C.S. The proposed annexation would create one large lot that lies totally within Plewport Beach's City limits rather than two lots that are partially in unincorporated territVy and •65T�Pally within City limits. r \ 65 ' Page 2 Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach ' It was staff's understanding that the existing C.B.S. building and the two additional buildings proposed would be attached to the City of Newport Beach's sewer system, which is maintained through the City's general tax rate of $1.11. Since the property was also in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which assesses an additional tax for sewer maintenance, staff believed there would exist a duplication of service and subsequent duplication of taxes charged. Accordingly, staff recommended the condition -that the subject property should be detached from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Recent conversations with Ficker and Ruffing Architects and the City of Newport Beach reveal the City plans to extend setter lines into the area westerly of the subject property within the next two to three years. Staff understands the C.B.S. properties are intended to be attached to these sewer lines. For the present, then, the existing C.B.S. building would remain on the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's sewer line in Monrovia Avenue. If the property was detached from the District at this time, C.B.S. would have to construct a separate sewer line to hook-up to the City's system. Since they already have a sewer line to the C.M.S.D., C.B.S. is reluctant to construct a new sewer line. Consequently, the proponent is requesting that the Commission not approve this proposal subject to the condition that the property detach from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. ' It was staff's intent in recommending the noted condition to avoid any duplication of services and subsequent charges. New information suggests for the present there would not be a duplication -of sewer services, how- ever, there would be a duplication of charges since the District assesses a tax rate and the City maintains its sewer system through its general tax. The proponent states C.B.S. understands this and is milling to pay the double charge rather than constructing a new setter line. The City supports the proponent's request that the mentioned condition not be imposed. This Commission has been working with the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District over the years in an effort to make the boundaries of the District and the City, of CosLir Mesa coterminus. This means detaching certain areas from the District. Newport (leach has reported their intentions to provide service to all areas within their city 1•imit.s and within their adopted Sphere of In- �. fluencc Which include, the subject property. however, at this time, the City's sewer system is not: complete, certain linkages are planned, but are several years from construction. Consequently, certain detach- , ments from Lhe Costa Mesa Sanitary District are net practical for the present. 66 ' ;r •f � Page 3 Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beac* Staff believes the subject property is a logical extension of tho City of Newport Beach and still recommends approval of this anne\,a_ tion. However,. staff.is moved by the particular circumstances of thi3 proposal- as expressed by the proponent ,and supported by the City of ,Newport Beach-to withdraw our recommended condition that the subject property be detached from the Costa tlesa Sanitary , District. Staff is still of the mind that if this parcel, as t•,ely as the larger county island area of which it is a part; is annex,s'i to the City of Newport Beach that these areas should be detached ultimately from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. We believe it might be helpful in avoiding this type of misunder• standing in the future for the City of Newport Beach to submit to the Commission a plan or report on how the City proposes to assumn overall sewerage responsiblities in this area, and when the City expects to assume same. SUMMARY: The proponent on behalf of the property owners is requesting the Commission not approve this proposal subject to the staff recommended condition per 1-lay 5th report that the property be detached from the Costa Mesa 'Sanitary District. if the property was detached from the District at this: ' time, the property owner would have to construct a now sewer line. Since they already have a sewer line to the C.M.S.D., the property owner does not wish to incur the added expense.The City of Newport Beach supports the proponents regw+;t. RECOMMENDATION: (1) Staff withdraws its recommendation to condition approval of this annexation on detachment tram the Costa Mesa Sanitary District per staff report dated May 5, 1977. (2) Staff recommends the Commission request t.iv+ City of Newport Beach to submit a plan ON how the City intends to pssumn overall sewers y. t rosponsibilities within this area and wh+•^ the City expects to assume same. It'f T:K41S:i ti cc: ticker and Rufring ' Attn: E. Marjoram City of Newport Beach ALtn: Bill Dye, Subdivision Cngiouor Costa Mr-sa SaniLary N•isLrict ' Attn: Janmss 1:1dr•idgr 67 ORANGECOUNTY ADMINISTRATION DUEL /JFf 515 N.SYCAMORE STREET " ROOM 101 v , U NTY O P SANTA ANA•CALIFORNIA 9270 TELEPHONE:834.2239 AREA CODE 714 i• ( ( ) ) AN G E STUDY SESSION N0.8 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION DONALD J.SALTARELLI COUNCiL%IAN December 19, 1977 , CITY OF TUSTIN City of Newport Beach ' VICE•C H:.I a•.tAN 3300 W. Newport,Blvd. � ��•;;Fj_I _• '�.-' PHILIP L.ANTHONY SUPERVISOV Newport Beach, California 92660 w - FIRST DiSf PICT Attn: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager DONALD A.MCINNIS ' ' COUNCIL••'=N CITY OF `SWPORTBEACH Subject: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) ' STAN NORTHRUP NEPRESE`ITATIVEOF Dear Mr. Wynn: GENE RAL PUBLIC •y AS F.RILEY By now your city should be aware that the Governor signed into VISOR law AssemblyBill No. 1533, generally known as the, Munici al I. .� DISTRICT P ` Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). MORGA (commencing with ' I ALTERNATE s Government Code Section 35000) will take effect January 1 1978. ALICE J.I.IncLAIN CITY FCYPRES MORGA replaces all existing legislation with respect to annexations, CITY OF CYPRESS P 9 4� P detachments, incorporations or any municipal reorganization affecting ' ALTE9ti=TE cities. MORGA is modeled after the District Reorganization Act of JOAN K.RIDDLE 1965 (commencing with Government Code Section 56000) and, for the GENERAL :TINE OF first time, laces all necessary governmental actions and approvals, GENE�IAL PJPLIC P Y 9 PP from initiation to completion, within one consolidated act. ALTFRN/TF. LAURENCE I.SCHMIT -Completion of any change in organization, reorganization or incorpo- SECON '0-5 ration involves basically three steps: 1 ) application to and sceDr.D D�STa�cT •Y P P approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission; (2) necessary RICHARD T.TURNER hearings and election by the conducting authority; and (3) filings ExECJTI JC OFFICER required with the County Recorder, County Surveyor, affected ci clerks and State Board of Equalization. Filing with the Secretary ' of State has been omitted. There has been some uncertainty regarding the notification of other agencies following the completion of annexa- ti= proceedings. Based on our conversations with several cities' ' clerks, it was concluded each city had their own "notification list" of agencies they wished to contact after annexations were completed. The concensus was each City Clerk should continue to notify these agencies after LAFCO's notification to them. This has been our policy for the past year and has worked very well . It is our intent to continue this way. ( 68 , I f Page 2 In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act k of 1977 (MORGA) The Local Agency Formation Commission, has reviewed MORGA and generally believes the provisions and procedures enacted will clarify and expedite the governmental actions and approvals necessary for initiating, conducting and completing municipal incorporations, reorganizations and changes of organization. Attached for your city's information and use is a flaw chart of MORGA's basic procedures. The one major policy change within MORGA that cities surrounding or adjacent to county islands shoul'd' be aware of is the provision that would allow island annexations •of less than 100 acres. As provided by Section 35150(f), LAFCO after notice and hearing may authorize the annexation of territory, inhabited or not, without an election if: (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; (2) the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing �-_ city, by the annexing city and adjoining cities,lam/ 9 by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing -city and the Pacific Ocean; (3) the territory is substantially developed or developing; (4) the, territory is not prime agricultural land; and (5) UFO finds that k such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. This authorization only applies to "island" territory in existence on January 1 , 1978 and is. in effect only until January 1 , 1981. Preliminary proceedings for "county island annexations" require LAFCO ' to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory protheposed to annexing city bnshould be responsibleexed. It was the c u f Commission the forallincreas increased costs asso- ciated with such notice. By minute order dated November 23, 1977, the Commission amended its fee schedule to levy against the benefitti city al'1 necessary and reasonable charges not to exceed preliminary proceedings for "island annexation" pursuant 5to Secting on 35150(f) of MORGA. The revised Schedule of Fees is attached. Government Code Section 35031 c shall be the conducting authoritypand ishall hinitiate ande Board of uconductrs proceedings for the annexation of territory described in subdivision ,(f) of Section 35150. City councils remain the conducting authority {� on other annexations. The Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, may adopt a resolution ordering the "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such proceedings to be terminated 69 Page 3 ' In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act . of 1977 (MORGA) if the majority of affected landowners protest. Again, the emphasis is whether the area is benefitting from the annexing ' city or would benefit from annexation to the affected city. However, the Board has the discretion to terminate proceedings by resolution. 1 There are a number of islands within our County that meet the statutory requirements for annexation pursuant to Section 35150(f). Each city's sphere of influence would indicate the specific islands, if any, your city could consider for annexation pursuant to this section. ' We believe your city will find MORGA helpful in initiating, conducting and, completing annexations and detachments involving your city in the future. Further, MORGA may be of assistance to Orange County cities in reducing the number of unincorporated islands. 1 This Commission's staff is available to assist your city in imple- menting MORGA's procedures. We would be •willing to. meet with you and your staff, if necessary, to discuss these matters. Please don't hesitate to call our office if you or your staff have, any questions. ' Very truly yours, 444d.-N ' Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:ff Attachments cc: Orange County Division, League of California Cities June Alexander, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70 ..JCAL AGENCY FORMATION COi•u'4ISsIUiv COUNTY OF ORANGE SCHEDULE OF FEES OR DETACHMENTS, ALL LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSALS SINGLE OWNERSHIP MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP 0.1 - 5.99 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 6 - 19.99 $ 50.00 $100.00 20 - 39.99 $100.06 $150:00 40 - 79.99 $150.00 $200.00 80 - 199.99 $200.00 ' $300.00 200 - 999.99 $250.00 $350.00 1000+ $300.00 $400.00 ISLAND A.'iNEXATIONS % (Pursuant to Government Code Section 35150(f) Annexing city shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed $500.00 pISSOLUTIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 , MERGERS, all . . . . . . . . . $100.00 CONSOLIDATIONS, al.1 . . . . . . . . $100.00 . . . . . . . . . . . P.EORSA11ZATIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 , FOR .ATION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS • . . • • .. . . (including County Service Areas),. $200.00 I11C0?POP,A.TION OF CITY . . $500.00 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Request by local agency or county for amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence Reasonable and necessary costs not -to exceed . $500.00 A. The above schedule combines a filing and processing charge and would include cost of legal notice publication. B. Fees in accordance with the schedule above should be paid at the time the application is filed with the Executive Officer. C. Only exceptions to the fee schedule above world be on proposals resulting from LAFC orders or recommendations to avoid double taxation or duplication of services situa.t-ions, and proposals filed as directed by the Orange County Board , of Supervisors. ( 71 (. 1 D. Definitions: Single Ownership: A single ownership is one where an entire area to be 1 annexed, etc. , is assessed to one owner or group of owners, each owning a percent of interest in all parcels as a single assessment (Assessors Parcels). Acting together, they form a single entity, the same entity, 1 in all parcels. This applies to mineral rights as well ' as surface. . 1 Multiple Ownerhsip: A multiple ownership occurs when more than one owner, or group of owners, is being assessed separately for his separate or undivided interests in portions of, or all of, the area to be annexed, etc. Also, this type of ownership 1 can be defined as any ownerships not qualifying as single ownerships. This applies to mineral rights and surface. i 1 1 ` 1 1 - 1 1 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 BASIC PROCEDURES Applicant Exec. Officer corrects sets for hearing deficiencies "' notices + ncceedinys (A) Petition fic.ati 4A' Exec. Officer Exec. Officer �nitiated (B) Resolution reviews prepares report A 1 of Application application A recommendation Q I. 2. 3. Exec. Officer 5• requests ad- visory reports L , 30-90 days 4B._ - Proceedings Terminated Proceedings Terminated Tdfsa proves disapproves Conducting agency receives LAFCO Conducting reports agency ttng receives agency sets --' `Bi A` reports g Y testimony resolutio - I --- LAFCO for hearing Y Resolution notices 9 10 testimony notices 6. 7 8. Landowner protests 35-105 days ( 35 days 45-iJ5-days erection Conducting 9a agency corrects deficiency non-compliance Conducting Exec. Officer Exec. Officer Exec. Officer agency transmits files Statement tort. copies of examines reso- files Cart. of of Odry Change/ Proceedings reso. a fees to tattoo and tees Completion fees with state completed Exec. Officer Board of Equal. 11. 12. 13. 14. UPS ht process 30-60 days � � • tsri ice and hwar t.c va turd If 1001 of tho �o .tiers consent \ 73 Q , STEPS III PROCESS e ' 1 . Preliminary proceedings can be initiated by: (a) petition signed by at least 5% of the landowners or registered voters. Such petition can be a single instrument or separate counterparts. Any petition shall contain the following: (i) identify whether the proposal is for city incorporation, change of organization or municipal reorganization; (ii) state the 1 reasons for the proposal; (iii) state whether the etition is signed by registered voters or landowners; and (ivg designate the chief petitioners, not to exceed three (3) names. ' (b) resolution of application of an affected city, county or special Strict. When a i ty adopts such resolution, the city will submit a plan for providing services to the affected area. 2. Application filed with Executive Officer. Complete a plication consists of: (i) petition or resolution of application; (ii� reproducible map and legal description; (iii) completed "justification of proposal" ques- tionnaire; (iv) completed "initial environmental information" questionnaire;. and (v) appropriate filing and processing fee. (Forms available from the Executive Officer. ) 3. Executive Officer reviews application. If application is deficient, the applicant is notified and given .the opportunity to correct deficiencies. ` If application is adequate, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Filing and mails same to applicant. 4A. Executive Officer sets proposal' for LAFC hearing, and if necessary, publishes a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation. When application is ' accompanied by written consent of the affected landowners representing one hundred percent (100%) of the affected territory and the territory is unin- habited, notice and hearing can be waived. If proceedings involve annexa- tions of county islands less than one hundred (100) acres, the Executive Officer shall notify all registered voters and landowners by mail . 48. Executive Officer requests advisory reports from the following: (i) Director, ' E14A (ii) Assessor; (iii) Planning Commission; (iv) Airport Land Use Com- mission; (v) County Sheriff and (vi) any other agencies or individuals whose advice the Executive Officer deems appropriate on any specific proposal. 5. Executive Officer prepares a report and recommendation on ,the specific proposal. 6. LAFC receives reports and testimony at public hearing. The Commission must. approve or disapprove by resolution the proposal within 35 days of the con- clusion of the public hearing. Disapproval of the proposal precludes fur- ther consideration for a period of one year. If the Commission approves the proposal , the LAFC designates the conducting agency and transmits a certified copy of said resolution to the conducting agency. The Commission may authorize the conducting agency to proceed without notice and hearing or election if one hundred percent (160%) of the affected landowners consent to such in writing. i t Of 74 ' Page ' 7. The LAFC adopts resolution. ' 8. Conducting agency (city council, or board of supervisors) initiates pro- ceedings within 35 days after LAFCO approves a proposal and will be re- quired to conduct a noticed public hearing within 45 days of initiating proceedings. Voters and landowners would -be able to present any written ' protests at the public hearing. . 'However, LAFCO may authorize the conduct of proceedings without notice and hearing if the proposal is for annexa- tion, detachment, or a reorganization consisting solely of annexations or detachments of uninhabited territory and if all affected landowners consent to the proposal. 9. Within 30 days of the public hearing, the conducting agency will be re- ' quired to take one of the following actions: In the case of an inhabited annexation detachment or a reorganization consisting of inhab L an ,agency cou a. . nexations or detachments, the conducting ; - order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization without an ' ' election if less than 8% of the voters and less than 26% of the landowners owning less than 25% of ,the assessed value of land protest; or - order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization subject to an election if more than 25% of the voters or more than 25% of land- ' owners owning more than 25% of the assessed value protest; or terminate proceedings if more than 50% of the registered voters protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). In the case of an uninhabited annexation detachment or a reor anization consistina of uninhabited annexations or detac ments, the conducting agency could. - order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization if landowners , who own•less than 50% of the assessed value of land and improve- ments protest; or - terminate proceedings if landowners owning more than 50% of the , assessed value of land and improvements protest (or. terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). In 'the case of a city incorporation, the conducting ,agency could: , order the incorporation subject to an election if-less than 50% of registered voters protest: or terminate proceedings if more than 50% of registered voters protest. ' , S 75 ` Pagei,A ' In the case of a disincororation or consolidation, the conducting agency will be required to call an election on the proposed disin- corporation or consolidation. In the case of an island annexation, the conducting authority could: ' - approve the annexation without an election; or ' i disapprove the annexation. In the case of any other reorganization, the conducting agency could: - order the reorganization subject to an election if less than 50% of the registered voters protest; or - terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters protest. 9A. Election -Requirements: - If an election is called for an incorporation, di sincorporation, I consolidation, or reor anization, a majority vote of those re- g stered voters living in the a fected territory is required. - If an election is called for an annexation or detachment of in- habited- territory, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area unless (a) the affected area has an assessed value 'equal to one-half or more of the total assessed value of land within the affected city or (b) the number of registered voters residing within the affected territory equals one-half or more of ' the number of registered voters residing in the affected city. In either of those cases the election must include voters living in the affected city; a majority vote is required in both the affected territory and the affected city. 10. The conducting agency adopts resolution. 11. Clerk of conducting agency transmits a certified copy of conducting agency's resolution with applicable State Board of Equalization fees .to Executive Officer. ' 12. Executive Officer examines resolution and determines whether it is in compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by- the LAFC in its resolution. If resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will return same to conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance. If resolution in compliance, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Completion. 1 76 i 1 r ' Page 4 13. The Executive Officer records a certified copy of Certificate ,of Completion with the County Recorder and files copies of recorded 1 documents with the County Surveyor and affected city clerk(s). The effective date is the date of recordation with County Recorder. 14. Executive Officer files a Statement of Boundar Chan a and submits appropriate filing fees with the State oar qua zation. 1 . 1 - 1 . i 1 1. - 1 1 1 r t � 77 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ' August 13, 1979 STUDY SESSION NO. _ ' TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ' FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF THE COUNTY TRIANGLE ' As far back as 1977, the City consciously considered annexing of the County Triangle north of Newport Crest. Recycled with this memo are reports and letters that adequately give the background to this ' subject. 1. Attachment "A" is a letter dated December 19, 1977 from LAFCO explaining the Municipal Organization Act (MORGA) of 1977. 2. Attachment "B" contains a staff report from Department of Community Development dated January 18, 1978, applying the City's annexation guidelines to the County Triangle. Attached to this report is a section of this City's Munici- pal Code Section 3.13.036 imposing annexation fees, and a ' report from the Public Works Department concerning re- quired Public Works improvements within the triangle area. The final attachment is an updated Public Works Department ' report concerning street improvements, water and sewer service, street lighting, etc. During the study session of July 23rd it was suggested that this ' project either be removed from the "Council instructions or projects for staff" sheet, or the project be activated and positive action taken. The City Council requested the subject to be placed on the study session agenda of August 13th. ' One other item of history probably should be pointed out. In. 1977 the County zoned portions of the subject area. -During the hearings that occurred with the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the City of Newport Beach representatives attended and requested a less dense residential zone. The owners of the property objected strenuously to this City's request and successfully lobbied the Board of Supervisors to permit a more dense residential development. During these hearings emotions ran high on both sides of the density question. t 78 1 Page -2- � 1 As a bottom line, I believe the following summarizes the 1 subject matter. 1. Because of MORGA the City can legally annex the sub- 1 ject area. 2. The application fee, to be paid by the City of Newport Beach, is not to exceed $500.00. 1 3. There are some public works facilities, i.e. streets, lights, sewer and water that will necessitate City ex- 1 penditure. 4. Annexation will probably be opposed by property owners within the County Triangle. 1 5. The County, because of financial constraints, will not bring to standard specifications all of the public • facilities within the Triangle. 6. The staff has not expended the time and effort to evaluate the annexation from a cost/benefit to the City 1 of Newport Beach. The new AB 8, recently signed by the L Governor, will increase revenues from property taxes to this City from the Triangle if annexed, but •it is be- lieved that the area would stil•1 be a cost or, at the 1 best, a "break even" operation. 7. It will probably be impossible for the City to impose an 1 annexation fee against the owners of the subject property consistent with Section 3.13.030 of the Municipal Code. I know of no way this fee could be imposed against the will of the property owners being annexed. 1 •Exhibit ROBERT L. WYNN"A" (shown on yellow paper) 1 • Exhibit "B" (shown on blue paper) 1. . 1; 79 ORANGE•COUNTY ' ROOM 1 ADMINISTRATION OUILOING 515 N.SYCAMORE STREET u r-i-ry O E= SANTAI01 ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE:$34-2239 AREA CODE 714 STUDY SESSION NO.8 v LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAT -•i rl,'p„ •{�:l I ., ' DONALD J.SALTARELLI counclLVAN December 19, 1977 Z� � '•,, '��,� '.',1 CITY OP TUSTIN City of Newport Beach VICE-CHAIRMAN 3300 W. Newport Blvd. �1'•' PHILIP•L.ANTHONY P SUPERVISOR Newport Beach, California 92660 - - FIRST OISrPICT Attn: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager DONALD A.MOINNIS , COUNCIL':CN CITY OF NET/PORTEEACH Subject: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) 'STAN NORTHRUP ' R[PRESENT ATIVE OF pear Mr. GENE RA'_PUGLIC., . Wynn: AS F. RILEY' By now your city should be aware that the Governor signed •into VISOR STRICT law Assembly Bill No. 1533, generally known as the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). MORGA (commencing with ALTERNATE Government Code Section 35000) will take effect January 1 , 1978. ALICE J.Mu LAIN CCI Y OF". REsSS MORGA' replaces all existing legislation with respect to annexations, detachments, incorporations or any municipal reorganization affecting �ALTERNATE cities. MORGA is modeled after the District Reorganization Act of JOAN K.RIDDLE 1965 (commencing with Government Code Section 56000) and, for the EPRESE•I:J OF G , p a necessary pp ENCRAL PJ rWC lLIC first time laces all r y governmental actions and approvals, from initiation to completion, within one consolidated act. ALTERNATE. LAURENCE I.SCHMIT Completion of any change in organization, reorganization or incorpo- SUPE.PVIDIS ration involves basically three steps: (1) application to and SECOND DISTRICT Y P approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission; (2) necessary �RICHARD T.TURNER hearings and election by the conducting authority; and (3) filings LE%ECJTI/C OFFICER required with the County Recorder, County Surveyor, affected ci •clerks and State Board of Equalization. Filing with the'Secretary o7-State has been omitted. There has been some uncertainty regarding the notification of other agencies following the completion of annexa- tion proceedings. Based on our conversations with several cities' clerks, it was concluded each city had their own "notification list" of agencies they wished to contact after annexations were completed. The concensus was each City Clerk should continue to notify these agencies after LAFCO's notification to them. This has been our 1 policy for the past year and has worked very well. It is our intent to continue this way. 80 Page 2 • In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) ' J The ,Local Agency Formation Commission has reviewed MORGA and generally believes the provisions and procedures enacted will clarify and expedite the governmental actions and approvals necessary for initiating, conducting and completing municipal incorporations, reorganizations and changes of organization. Attached for your city's information and use is a flow chart of MORGA's basic procedures. The one major policy change within MORGA that cities surrounding ' or adjacent to county islands should be aware of is the provision that would allow "island" annexations of less than 100 acres. As provided by Section 35150(f), LAFCO after notice and hearing may authorize the annexation of territory, inhabited or not, without an election if: (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres in -area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; (2) the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing • city, by the annexing city and adjoining cities, by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing -city and the Pacific Ocean; (3) the territory is substantially developed or developing; (4) the territory is not prime agricultural land; and (5) LAFCO finds that such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. This authorization only applies to "island" territory in existence on January 1 , 1978 and is in effect only until January 1 , 1981. Preliminary proceedings for "county island annexations" require LAFCO , to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed. It was the concensus of the Commission that the annexing city should be responsible for all increased costs asso- ciated with such notice. By minute order dated November 23, 1977, the Commission amended its fee schedule to levy against the benefitting city .all necessary and reasonable charges not to exceed $500.00 for - preliminary proceedings for "island annexation" pursuant to Section 35150(f) of MORGA. The revised Schedule of Fees is attached. Government Code Section 35031 (c) provides the Board of Supervisors shall be the conducting authority and shall initiate and conduct proceedings for the annexation of territory described in subdivision- (f) of Section 35150. city councils remain the conducting authority / on other annexations. The Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, may adopt a resolution ordering the "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such proceedings to be terminated 81 • lr i Page 3 In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act . of 1977 (MORGA) if the majority of affected landowners protest. Again, the emphasis is whether the area is benefitting from the annexing ' city or would benefit from annexation to the affected city. However, the Board has the discretion to terminate proceedings by resolution. There are a number of islands within our County that meet the " statutory requirements for annexation pursuant to Section 35150(f). Each city's sphere of influence would' indicate the specific islands, if any, your city could consider for annexation pursuant to this section. We believe your city will find MORGA helpful in initiating, conducting and completing annexations and detachments involving your city in the future. Further, MORGA may be of assistance to Orange County cities in reducing the number of unincorporated islands. . . .-This Commission's staff is available to assist your city in imple- menting MORGA's procedures. We would be willing to meet with you and your staff, if necessary, to discuss these matters. Please don't hesitate to call our office if you or your staff have any questions. t Very truly yours. i Richard T. Turner Executive Officer ; RTT:KWS:ff " -Attachments "'• "' ' S' cc: ' Orange County Division, League of California Cities June Alexander, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1 • Y+•. 82 *CAL AGENCY FORMATIM COMMISSIA4 1 COUNTY OF OP,AI;GE , SCHEDULE OF FEES • :;:;= IONS 02 DETACIUtENTS, ALL LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSALS ' f^ F= SINGLE OWNERSHIP MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP 0.1 - 5.99 $ 25.00� $ 50.00 , 6 - 19.99 $ 50.00 $100.00 20 - 39.99 $100.00 $150-.00 dp 40 - 79.99 $150.00gq,p8 zVQ. 80 199.99• • $200.00 $300.00 20. - 999.99 $250.00 $3514 0.00 $300.00 $400.00 �eAAND AGNEXATIONSPursuant to Government Code Section 35150(f) nnexing city shall be responsible for,ail . reasonable and necessary costs. not to exceed . . . . . . . . $500.00 Lie DISSOLUTIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00 MERGERS, all . . . .. $100.00 ' CO:4OCIOATIOtiS, a11. .' . . . $100.100 PcORGANIZATIONS, all . . . . . . . . .. . . . $100.00 - FOR�'STI03 OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS . . . . '$200.00 (including County Service Areas), all IfI�OPPORATI01 OF CITY P. . '. . . .. . $500.00 - SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Request by local agency or county for amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence Reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed . . . . . . . . $500.00 NOTE: A. The above schedule combines 'a filing and processing charge and would include cost of legal notice publication. B. Fees in accordance with the schedule above should be paid at the time the application is filed with the Executive Officer. C. Only exceptions to the fee schedule above would be on proposals resulting from , LAFC orders or recommendations to avoid double taxation or duplication of services situations, and proposals filed as directed by the-Orange County Board . of Supervisors. (over) r 83 D. Definitions: Single Ownership: A single ownership is one where an entire area to be annexed, etc., is assessed to one owner or group of ' �.. owners, each owning a percent of interest in all parcels • as a single assessment (Assessors Parcels). Acting . together, they form a single entity, the same entity, in all parcels. This applies to mineral rights as well as surface. Multiple Ownerhsip: A multiple ownership occurs when more than one owner, or group of owners, is being assessed separately for his separate or undivided interests in portions of, or all of, the area to be annexed, etc. Also, this type of ownership can be defined as any ownerships not qualifying as single ownerships. This applies to mineral rights and surface. r • . Z: MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATIAN.ACT OF 1977 BASIC PROCEDURES Applicant Exec. Officer corrects sets for hearing deficiencies -- notices + Proceedings (A),Petition Application Initiated filed with Exec. Dffieer 4A. Exec. Officer (B)•Resolution reviews prepares 're ort / of Application Exec. Officer application 6 recoxnendation �, ♦_i , I. .2. 3c Exec. Officer S requests ad- LO visory reports ' • So- 4B.so nays - Proceedings Terminated Proceedings Terminated Tdisapproves ca disapproves Conducting p agency receives LAFCO Conducting reports nducttn9 ;B; A` receives agency sets agency / reports LAFCO for hearing testimony resolution ,�=f testimony Resolution --- + notices 10. 6. . Landowner �35-lOs days � 35 days 45-195 days protests'-' election Conducting agency corrects deficiency non-eorpliance �^ Conducting Exec. Officer agency transmits Exec. Officer Exec. Officer files Statement ' 11�i cart copies of examines rese- files Cert. of Proceedings l�� reso_ t fees to lotion and fees Coapictioe [cesd IthSWtc completed Exec. Officer board of Equal. Ii. 12. 13. 14. snyK In Process 30.60 days ...-.�( •xatics ant h� • _` If IW of t ners cm%ont r� �■il �. �11 r � r +mi rr �r r r �• Ifr r ril r r r 85 • . STEPS 1:1 PROCESS 1. Preliminary proceedings can be initiated by: (a) petition signed by at least 5% of the landowners or registered voters. Such petition can be a single instrument or separate counterparts. Any petition shall contain the following: (i) identify whether the proposal is for city incorporation, change of organization or municipal reorganization; (ii) state the reasons for the proposal; (iii) state whether the petition is signed by registered voters or landowners; and (iv) designate the chief petitioners, not to exceed three (3) names. (b) resolution of a lication of an affected city, county or special str ct. hen a c ty adopts such resolution, the city will submit a plan for providing services to the affected area. 2. Application filed with Executive Officer. ' Complete a plication consists of: (i) petition or resolution of application; (ii g reproducible map and legal description; (iii) completed "justification of proposal " ques- tionnaire; '(iv)• completed "initial environmental information" questionnaire; and (v) appropriate filing and processing fee. (Forms available from the Executive Officer. ) 3. Executive 'Officer reviews application. If application is deficient, the applicant is notified and given .the opportunity to correct deficiencies. If application is adequate, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Filing and mails same -to applicant. 4A. Executive Officer sets proposal for LAFC hearing, and if necessary, publishes a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation. When application is accompanied by written consent of the affected landowners representing one . hundred percent (100%) of the affected territory and the territory is unin- habited, notice and hearing can be waived. If proceedings involve annexa- tions of county islands less than one hundred (100) acres, the Executi.de Officer shall notify all registered voters and landowners by mail . .43. Executive Officer re guests advisory reports from the fol.low;ing: (i) Director, (ii) Assessor; (iii) Planning Commission; (iv) Airport Land Use Com- 1a; ' miss4on; (v) County Sheriff and (vi) any other agencies or individuals 1 whose advice the Executive Officer deems appropriate on any specific proposal. S. Executive Officer prepares a report and recommendation on the specific proposal. 6. LAFC receives reports and testimony at public hearing. The Commission must• approve or disapprove by resolution the proposal within 35 days of the con- clusion of the public Baring. Disapproval of the proposal precludes fur- ther consideration for a period of one year. If the Commission approves the proposal, the LAFC designates the conducting agency and, transmits a certified copy of said resolution to the conducting agency. The Commission may authorize the conducting agency to roceed' without notice and hearing or election if one- hundred percent (100%) of the affected landowners consent to such in writing, 86 * - • 7. The LAFC adopts resolution. 8. Conducting agency (city council or board of supervisors) initiates pro- ceedings within 35 days after LAFCO approves a proposal and will be re- quired to conduct a noticed public hearing within 45 days of initiating proceedings. Voters and landowners would be able to present any written protests at the public hearing. . However, LAFCO may authorize the conduct of proceedings without notice and hearing if the proposal is for annexa- tion, detachment, or a reorganization consisting solely of annexations or detachments•of uninhabited territory and if all affected landowners consent to the proposal. 9. . Within 30 days of the public hearing, the conducting agency will be re- quired to take one of the following actions: In the case of an inhabited annexation detachment or a reorganization consisti'nq of inhabited annexations or detachments, the conducting . ..agency could: • - order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization without an election if less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners owning less than 25% of the assessed value of land / protest; or order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization subject to an , election if more than 25% of the voters or more than 25% of land- owners owning more than 25% of the assessed value protest; or terminate proceedings if more than 50% of the registered voters protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). In the case of an uninhabited annexation, detachment or a reorganization consisting of uninhabited annexations or detachments, the conducting agency could: _ -`' order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization if landowners who own less than 50% of the assessed value of land and improve- ments protest; or terminate proceedings if landowners owning more than 50% of the i• assessed value of land and improvements protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resoluti'on). In 'the case of a city incorporation, the conducting ,agency could: - order the incorporation subject to an election If-less than 50% of registered voters protest: or - terminate proceedings if more than 50% of registered voters protest. • � 87 • In the case of a disincor oration olec r consolidation, the conducting agency will be required to call an etion on the proposed disin- corporation or consolidation. In the case of an island annexation, the conducting authority could: 1 - approve the annexation without an election; or disapprove the annexation. In the case of any other reorganization, the conducting agency could: 1 order the reorganization subject to an election if less than 50%' i of the registered voters protest; or terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters protest. 9A. 'Election -Requirements: If an election is called for an incorporation, disincorporation, consolidation, or reorganization, a majority v ote of those re- ��, gistered voters living in the affected territory is required. If an election is called for an annexation or detachment of in- habited territory, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area unless (a) the affected area has an assessed value equal to one-half or more of the total assessed value of land within the affected city or (b) the number of registered voters residing within the affected territory equals one-half or more of the number of registered voters residing in the affected city. In either of those cases the election must include voters living in the affected city; a majority vote is required in both the 1 affected territory and the affected city. 10. The conducting agency adopts resolution. ;; ; • _= 't; '• a- 11. • Clerk of conducting agency transmits a certified copy of conducting agency's resolution with applicable State Board of Equalization fees to Executive Officer. 12. Executive Officer examines resolution and determines whether it is in compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by the LAFC in its resolution. If resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will return same to conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance. If resolution in compliance, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Completion. BB • Page 13. The Executive Officer records ,a certified copy of Certificate of ' Completion with the County Recorder and files copies of recorded documents with the County Surveyor and affected city clerk(s). The effective date is the date of .recordation with County Recorder. 14. Executive Officer files a Statement of Boundar Chan a and submits . -appropriate filing fees with the State Boa o qua Cation. .� r • 1 ' 89 l� 3 /T City Council Meeting January 23, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION NO. 10 January 18, 1978 TO: city Council FROM: Department of Community Development ; SUBJECT: .The annexation of the County Triangle as permitted .-- under the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 r,: ••;; ,: 1 '' (MORGA - A61533). z-,'. O:^y • . .e (SdCk9rOUD d, i At the City Council Study Session of January 9, 1978, the staff was instructed to evaluate the possible annexation of the County Triangle in light of the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and report back to the City Council on January 23, 1978. Following is a brief summary of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 as it applies to the County Triangle and a very preliminary evaluation of the County Triangle in terms of the City-Is annexation guidelines as stated in Council Policy C-1 . Municipal Organization Act of 1977 - 1 . Permits "island" annexations of less than 100 acres in exis- tence on January 1 , 1978 and is in effect only until Janu- ary 1 , 1981 . ' 2. Requires LAFCO to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed of preliminary .'ti'F''•".procee dings:�t;N'8:r+ , ..:lr:f..�'':i' .; ". .. r}•j,>•..+trnvr"F ;f +,�v1Ya F'A",.i+j'�i • ;. . , 7 -.� ..- -•- . a. , ,.. to :��. r �..^R'ew:: ' 3. Would permit LAFCO to authorize the County (the conducting authority in the case of the County Triangle) to initiate and conduct proceedings without election if: 1 a) The territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; b)' the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoin- ing cities, by the annexing city and a county boundary, or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean; c) the terrirory is substantially developed or developing; d) the territory is not prime agricultural land; and e) LAFCO finds -that such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. 4. Would permit the Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, to adopt a resolution ordering an "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such pro- ceedings to be terminated if the majority of affected landowners Protest. However, the Board would have the discretion to term- .. Ci .ouncil - 2. 90 County Triangle Setting The County Triangle is an unincorporated island of approximately, sixty-two acres, lying sou-therly of Production Place, northwesterly • of Superior Avenue and northeasterly of Newport Crest. The area is, characterized by mixed land uses and mixed zoning. 'Existing uses include industrial , institutional', commercial and residential developments . In addition, there are numerous vacant parcels. The County has zoned the 'area for R-2 and R-3 multi-family residen- tial uses and M-1 light industrial uses. The Land Use Element of, the County's General Plan was recently amended to permit a mixture of Community Commercial , Light Industrial and Heavy Density Resi- dential uses. The County's Heavy Density Residential designation would permit a •maximum of twenty-three dwelling units per acre. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the area for, a mixture- of Retail and Service Commercial , General Industry and Multi- - Family Residential uses with a density not to exceed fifteen dwell- ing units per acre. Annexation Guidelines 1 . Public Reaction. Reaction from public agencies, private organ zat ons. property owners and residents who would be affected by the City's annexation of this area has not been solicited. However, it is anticipated that those owners �.4,;,. .a:�;,• , ., of property who stand to benefit financially under County "" "• ' control would not favor annexation. 2. Overlay inTaxation. The area is currently served by the K • Costa es a County meter District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Overlapping taxation in terms of funds normally collected by the City for services associated with water, t sewer and trash pick-up would have to be resolved. 3. Duplication. As near as can be determined at this time, there would be no duplication of service's caused by the annexation. 4. City Standards. The Public Works Department has indicated that there are several substantial Public Works' related problems associated with this area,. -A copy of their pre- liminary report is attached. .5. Tax Base. The staff has' not, had, sufficient time to evaluate the impact 'of a County Triangle annexation on the City's tax base. l a**s: 6.• Planning. From the standpoint of plann,ing, it would"be very desirable for the City to annex this area and bring current zoning and land development policies into consis- tency with the City's General P1.an. ' 7. Trans_ ort�. The County Triangle is completely surrounded • by the City of Newport Beach, and any development in this area has an immediate impact on the City's street system. Annex- ation of the area would permit the City to play a direct role , in correcting inter-area street circulation deficiencies and correct any imbalance between proposed land uses and the circulation system. 8. Boundaries. The annexation of this area is a logical exten- , s own of the City's boundaries. 9. Safety. This annexation would permit the City to provide safety and emergency services to this area, and thus elimin- ate the need for mutual aid agreements and the necessity for other agencies to respond unless requested. I l 91. rp City Council - 3. lu. . Service. The area can be best served by the City of Newport Beach since it is adjacent to this City's ' boundary and no others. H . Homogeneity. Annexation of the County Triangle would permit residents who in terms of their social , cultural , economic and political interests and habits are related to the City to become an active part of the City. . 12. Contro 1. Development of this area would be controlled by the City's building and zoning regulations. tr.:. . -13.. Public-'Facilities. There are no public uses proposed .1c. • for th s area. 14.. Elimination.. Annexation of the area would permit the City' to. toe rect, control over problems which have arisen in the Triangle, i .e. , noise from air-conditioning equipment, extension of streets, etc. , and eliminate any other existing Moratingtinfluence problems- on'"existing might developmentlte the or deter- Cit •"? 15: Preclusion.'"`- Annexation of- the County .Triangle would pre- ,,'f ;j, ,:;'. +,..,r3•; Elude the need for coordination with another governmental agency which to date has not demonstrated a great deal of support for the City's concerns related to traffic and •r,' -'• .: intensity of development in the area. :.__. ••` r , 16 - linage.'_ With' the exception of a very few improvements, the image and stature. of the City would not increase with the annexation of this area. ; ,'V ;`•.+' 17. Cost Benefit Anal sis. The staff has not had sufficient , t Fine to eva uate the ability of, the area to 'generate revenues-nor compare the cost of providing City services i '2, .• to' the area. . p Respectfully submitted, pDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 :'"�yy 'E "� s bltW•.W3g< ' HOGAN k.Director ;.„ , . '{ u� ,a, '� �.,-..' • •tk� , ., i ^.+{? l• t , •aS'hi:3�es.y.,• t�•�?�'7, :`.,;�rlt-,":: i�'�;: '�.'�'i`,�+�•'a."� '�''� �f=!': ,,.�`� ';Tjrt,'?s �'�.'•f•j�'�+„�'.[iY.wi�t7N"�'� .o`Y;)R.: ,)�f, .. .;I 1 ," ' ..' •'� '•� •, a�ri�,j•... 4p{. ';4P.. 1 'i.,.�,�.;. 2. Ass stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments : Vicinity Map Preliminary Public Works Report 92 ANNEXATION FEES 3.13.020-3.13.030 • meet the need for public improvements and facilities consisting of file stations and fire fighting equipment, public City libraries and public City ' parks, which could not be met by the ordinary revenues of the City. As a matter of equity, the City Council rinds that any territory which shall in the future be annexed to the City on which buildings have been constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings should pay its fair share of the cost of providing the above mentioned public improvements and facilities.(Ord. 1342¢ 1 (put),1970). _ 3.13.020 Definitions, For the purpose of this Chapter, the words defined in this•section shall have the meanings assigned to them unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The term "single family or duplex residential unit"shall mean,a single family.dwelling ' or a dwelling unit in a duplex. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The term "multiple residential unit"shall mean a dwelling unit within a�building designed as a residence for three or more families flying,Independently of each other which is equipped ;+ with cooking facilities,including triplexes and apartment houses. COMMERCIAL UNIT. The term "commercial unit' shall mean any' "` 'r•,•' ' space in a building or structure designed or,intended to be occupied or used ' for business or commercial purposes, including sleeping rooms in hotels and. x; , ,• motels without-kitchens,or kitchen facilities. • INDUSTRIAL UNIT.The term "Industrial unit" shall mean any space In a building or structure designed or intended for manufacturing, processing,research,warehousing or similar uses. MOBILEHOME PARK. The term "mobilehome park" shall mean any area where one or mom lots or spaces are rented or held out for rent to be' occupied by a house trailer, mobilehome, camper or similar vehicle. (Ord. . 1342 11 (part), 1970). 3.13.030 Imposition of Annexation Fees. A. Fen Imposed. An . annexation fee b hereby imposed upon the owner or owners of any real property upon which any commercial unit and/or Industrial unit has been , constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings In the amount of 5.21 per square foot of gross floor area for all classes of construction, including any area in a building designed for the parking of vehicles, and upon any teat property upon which any residential unit has , been constructed in the amount of$420.00. B. Due Date. The amount of the fen due hereunder shall be determined on or before the date on which the CIty Council takes final }r{h tl vNP.,xr;q action to approve the annexation and shall include any buildings for which 4. permits are issued by the Building Official of the County of Orange or another city prior,to the completion of the annexation proceedings to the City of Newport Beach, and the full amount of the fees shall be due and payable on or before the final action of the City Council in approving the . 54-t (Newport aeu47Ja•77)' 1 93 A .1.11040 3.13.050 REVENUES AND FINANCE, annexation: PROVIDED,however,that the City Council may,by resolution, approve the payment of said annexation fees in not to exceed ten (10) •' annual installments, with interest of six percent (6%) on the outstanding balance, which shall be assessed as liens against the parcels of real property upon which the buildings are located, as said parcels are shown upon the latest available County assessment roll. A certified copy of said resolution shall be riled with the Orange County Auditor on or before August 10 of ' each year, and the Auditor shall be requested to enter the amount of the ; respective assessments on the County tax roll opposite each parcel of land. The amount of said assessment shall be collected at the time and in the munner of City property taxes.If delinquent,the amount of said assessment , shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure for foreclosure and sale as in the case of City property taxes. (Ord. 1735 ¢ 1,1977;Ord. 1675 ¢ 1, 1976: Ord. 1617 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1598 $ 1, 1975: Ord. 1342 ¢ 1 (part), 1970). _ 3.13.040 Refunds. The City Council may order refunded all or part of an annexation fee paid pursuant to this Chapter,if it finds that au or put of the assessment has been erroneously levied. An aswoment or any part thereof shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or : before December I of the year in which the assessment became due and,',. :,•, payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the assessment, or his guardian,executor or administrator.(Ord. 1342 ¢ I (part),1970). 3.13.050 Exemptions. There are exempted from the annexation fees imposed by this Chapter improved parcels of land owned by the following: A. Buildings or units owned and occupied by any bank including national banking associations. G' B. Buildings or units owned and occupied by an"insurer"as that term is defined in Article XIII, Sections 14-4/5 of the Constitution of the State of C'alifnmia. C. Buildings or units owned and occupied by a non-profit corporation p exclusively for religious,educational,hospital,or charitable purposes. D. Buildings or units owned and occupied by the United States,or any ;; .• L . department or agency thereof, or by the State of California, or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. (Ord. 1342 § 1 (part), 1 • 1970). nv V.3 . ... �•j r F;�. .. J ...1•i,..{�!:r:.a,: •f a �•Fiu'1 r.�r!��...•.;-:'n:.J:f:4' i.oi>'N.1'lir tJ+y,^N t'i���'�5�•M Yy'n n" ((4rwPun 0940 7•I5•77) 54-2 1 ,a1 ® 94 ® ' January 13, 197& • T0: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTENTION: JIM HEWICKER FROM: Public Works Department , SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE There are several substantial Public Works related problems associated with the proposed annexation of the subject area. Because of the limited time available, detailed analysis and cost estimates for correcting the problems cannot be provided at present. However, a preliminary report is provided below. A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue - This street is classified as a primary street. The City has just completed a street impro"vewent project on the City's portion adjacent to the proposed annexation. Considerable length of Superior Avenue in the County triangle still requires improvement for conformance with the primary classification. Substantial construction and right of way costs would be involved in completing the Superior Avenue r ' improvements. However, it is probable that auch.of the work can be required of adjacent property owners as a condition of • development. ' 2. 'Placentia Avenue - This street is classified as a secondary street, The street has been substantlilty improved in confor- mance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion. 3. 15th Street - This street is currently classified as a secon- dary street. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the primary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street easterly of Monrovia Avenue. There is no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street will have to be completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of �.,- , • , , ;,,. .•: right of way for widening along the north side will be expen-sive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of several trailers in the park at the northwest corner of 15th and Monrovia Avenue. Construction costs will be sub- stantial, in addition to the right of way-costs. B. Local Streets • At the present time, we are not aware of any major problems with the local street system. 95 � V January 13, 1978 Subject: Preliminary Public Works Report on proposed County Triangle Annexation Westerly of Superior Avenue Page 2 C. Water Service Water Service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County- Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time it is possible that this , ; area would be de-annexed from the District and water service pro- vided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur. ' D. Sewer Service ; Sewer service is presently provided 6y the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer. „ ,, ,=.:,•b; service in the area if it is annexed. (See attached copy of letter from LAFCO regarding the proposed CBS Publications annexa- tion.) This problem will probably be difficult to resolve.. E.• Storm Drainage The area southerly of 15th Street appears to require some study �• to quantify a potential significant drainage problem associated ' with development and/or redevelopment of the area. 1 F. Street Li9htina There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsi-' bility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the ; area is semi-developed, an assessment district proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they.-are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming - increasingly difficult to achieve. `:F�;• �'IG� )%�� J lr• •"r ';?r'y , 3:•i;"%� .I}�'Str'ba�el�.F<lY J7( �kJ � ,.�,�' .�''i14� 08:en amin B. Nolan ' City Engineer WBD:do Att. 96 40 1 H r ORANGE ADMINISTRATION OUIL OING So$M.SYCAMORE STREET ROOM IOI A42)UN ■ i/ V� SANTAANA,CALIFO"N1A92)01 el 1 El FNat71 AREA COD l� AREA GOOF 714 =•,Lire(.-�%�7 —•—•%'/ LOCALAGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION DONAL J. OONAID J.SAITARELII GOµ•KIl LIAN , CITY OFITUS*w NWRANBUM V ILIPL. NTMO omAN IHILIIL•ANTNONY Rees FIRST OISrnICT Date:' May ZO, 1977 . MINALDA.WINNIS ���S O . COUIICILLIAN To: Local Agency Formation Commission Tel J 1p� G: CITY OF NI wpO11T nEAtll Chit From: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer �:/c STAN HUNTNNUF f 7� 01W"f.PUUIVC OF C Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the, staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation TiiomAsI.mLEv No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach S11p6N VISOR •, . � -• ' •• �nmumsl'NGT The subject annexation was originally scheduled for Commission action one• ALII NNAIL May 11, 1977. At the May 11 meeting the Commission was informed the A(L DUIINAP proponent, Fieker and Ruffing Architects, was requesting a Continuance HI AI1, 11t c GF of this proposal to the Camission's next hearing date of My 25, 1977. The Commission approved the proponent's request. _ At It11NAII ALICF J.MnLAIN Communications with the proponent and the City of Newport Beach reveal L111R101L1•ICIMAN CI TV(IF CYpnLS4 the additional time was requested because of the staff recommended con- , dition that "prior to completion of the annexation, the City of Newport Al Ft 14NAIL Beach initiate proceedings to detach the property from the Costa Mesa ,LAUIICNr.F l:SCIIMIT Sanitary District" to avoid a duplication of services and subsequent ; fCOND 015.1111CI costs. Apparently, to satisfy this condition the proponent's client, CBS Properties, would have to construct a new sewer line or bond for the MICHAUD T.TURNER Construction of a new sewer line -to hook-up to the City of Newport ' CRTrI,NVI of,IGIA Beach's Sewer System. As the Commission may recall from our staff report of May 5, 1977, the subject property is currently developed with an existing C.B.S. Public- ations building, awned by United California Dank as trustee. U.C.B. is •• putchasing an •adjoirdhg undeveloped parcel which is within the City of Newport Beach to accommodate planned construction of two additiona office buildings for C.B.S. The proposed annexation would create one large lot that lies totally within Mewport Beach's city limits rather. than two lots that are partially in Unincorporated territotky a5d 'p,ir�ially within city limits. I �LI II• � ,1Jr'•r •1' , bat pii•fI dp ''•' g:C:i0i:1 � , i 1 ® 97 .� 1 ' Page 2 Subject: Request by proponent -and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation ' No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach 1 It was staff's understanding that the existing C.B.S. building and the two additional buildings proposed would be attached to the City of Newport Beach's sewer system, which is•maintained through the City's general tax rate of $1.11. Since the property was also in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which assesses an additional 'tax for sewer maintenance, staff believed there would exist a duplication of ;+;• -service and subsequent duplication of taxes charged. Accordingly. ; 4 " staff recommended the condition'that the subject property should be 1 detached from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Recent conversations with Ficker and Ruffing Architects and the City of Newport Beach reveal the City-plans to extend sewer .lines into the . area westerly of;the subject property within the next two to three .. ^'~years:. Staff. 'understands the C.B.S. properties are intended to be ;.M,:.i s:rfi �:• .=:. • ;: s, attached to these sewer tines. For the present, then, the existing r" ' .: . J.B.S.C.B.S. building would remain on the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's ..; "•' `' .:sewer line in'Monrovia Avenue. If the property was detached, from they District at this time, C.B.S. would have to construct a separate sewer: - ` line to hook-up to the City's system. Since they already have a sewer line to the C.M.S.D., C.B.S. is reluctant to construct a new sewer line. ' Consequently, the proponent is requesting that the Commission not approve i this proposal subject to the condition that the property detach from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. ;; ^. It was staff's intent in recoinnending the noted condition to avoid any"'. duplication of services and subsequent charges. New information suggests for the present there would not be a duplication of sewer services, how- ever; there would be a duplication of charges since the District assesses • a. tax rate and the City maintains its sewer system through its general tax;;' 'The proponent states C.B.S. understands this and is willing to, pay, ; :• •••• the double charge rather, than constructing a new sewer line. The.City upports the proponents request that the mentioned condition not beY, ;' •s :'7.. imposed. .';.,;,• q_; •,"s, ;r„g •,,,.;,,,x yThis,,Comnission has been working with the cities of Costa Mesa`and '`•��'>:,�:v�l ,:..,�,,, � .tr Neijport" Beach and',the'Costa Mesa Sanitary"District over the:yaSrs iR r " an effort to make the boundaries of the District and the City'bf'Costa f . Mesa coterminus. This means detaching certain areas from the District Newport Beach has reported their intentions to provide service to till "''•, ':` areas within their city limits and within their adopted Sphere or In-, fluency wlricii includes the subject property. Nowover, at this time, ' the City's sewer system is not: complete, certain linkages are planned, but are several years from construction. Consequently, certain detach- ments frow the Costa Mesa- Sanitary District are not. practical 'for the Present. fir' `,h • • 98 i 'Page 3 • Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach Staff believes the subject property is a logical extension of the City of Newport Beach and still recommends approval of this annexa- tion. However, staff.is moved by the particular.circumstances of this proposal as expressed by the proponent and supported by the - City of Newport Beach.to withdraw our recommegded condition that the subject property be detached from-the Costa Nesa Sanitary jl District. Staff is still of the mind that if this parcel, •as well•. as the• largor county island area of which it .is a part, is annexed to the City of Newport Beach that these areas should be'detached ultimately from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, We believe it might be helpful in avoiding this type of misuader- standing in the future for the City of Newport Beach to submit to the Commission a plan or report on how the City proposes to assume overall sewerage responsiblities in this area, and when the City expects to assume Sallie. i -SMARY:'.The proponent on behalf of the property.owners is • requesting the ,Commission not approve this proposal subject to the staff recommended condition per Flay Sth report that the property be detached from-the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. If the property was detached from the District at this time, the property owner would have to•construct a new sewer line. Since they already have a Seaver line to the C.H.S.D., the property owner does not wish to incur the added expense, The City of Newport Beach supports the proponents request. ' RECOMMENDATION: (1) Staff withdraws its recommendation -to condition', f`:-• approval.of this annexation on detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District per staff ,. report dated i43y i. .6.1977., ,':.:#•'nd:w^:��•e.;•.1 �u�1+�.. :':!.ri`:i ..1. e'*, . ' ' .f - "'.•(:...'!1�T {�f�.-!,'.1r`+" .•r,}{ .. • ' (2) Staff recommends the Commission'requu'est tho' ,��•`,'.,,.••:'"!r City of Newport Beach to submit a plan on•ho+i , the City intends to assume overall sewerage - responsibilities within this area and when the ' City expects to assume same. kTT:KHS:ih cc: Fickor and Purring , Attn:, E. Marjoram City or Newport Beach Attn: ilill Dye, Subdivision I:nginvi!r Costa M,-:,tc Sanitary District , Att.n: dfumus Eldridge e 99 City •CounciTMeeting October 9, 1979 Agenda Item No. F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' ' October 3, 197.9 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Annexation of t Tite as permitted au an o .under the un c iza ct 1911 Suggested Action 1 If the City Council wishes to proceed with the County Triangle An- nexation, adopt Resolution of Application No. ,(attached) and direct staff to complete the necessary items and file a.p,plica- tion with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, Background At the Study Session of August 13, 1979, the City Council received a memorandum from the City Manager summarizing several considera- tions relating to the annexation of the County Triangle. In addi- ti.on, two exhibits were provided as information. Exhibit "'A" consisted of information from the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding implementation of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 ' (MORGA -AB1533) . Exhibit "B" was a memorandum from the Department of Community Development discussing the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, the County Triangle , and annexation guidelines . Attached to Exhibit "B" were vicinity maps and the preliminary Public Works Department report. It is clear that the City can legally annex the County Triangle ' under the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. Annexation of the subject area would require the City to follow a specific annexation procedure. The initial steps in the annexation procedures are called the preliminary proceedings . The preliminary proceedings are initiated by acceptance of an application for an- nexation by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. I yw 100 T A complete application consists of: 1 ) A Resolution of Application adopted by the City contain- ing specific elements. Attached is a copy of a suggested resolution. 2) A plan for providing services to the subject area, addressing the items in the "Plan for Services" as specified by the Act and LAFCO. See attached guide- lines titled "Plan for Services. " 3) A reproduci'ble map and legal description. 4) A completed "Justification of Proposal . " 5) An initial study consisting of a check list provided by the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Local Agency Formation Commission will then determine whether the annexation is categorically exempt, requires a negative declaration, or an environmental impact report. 6) A list of each affected registered voter and .each affected landowner with envelopes addressed and posted (First Class) to same. 7) Appropriate filing and processing fees ($500.00 in this case) . Preliminary proceedings are deemed initiated on the date a •Resol'ution of Application is accepted for filing by the Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer. If the application for annexation con- tains all the required items , it is considered complete and the Executive Officer issues a "Certificate of Filing. " The Executive Officer then schedules a public hearing, publishes a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation , and gives mailed notice to: 1 ) The affected City and County; 2) The chief petitioners , if any; r 3) Any person filing a written request; 4) Each registered voter and each land- owner within the affected area. The Local Agency Formation Commission must approve or disapprove by ' resol'ut.ion the proposal within thirty-five days after the concl'usion of the public hearing. The entire process can take between 100 and 230 days . Within thirty-five days after the adoption of the Local Agency Forma- 1 tiom Commission resolution, the Board of Supervisors adopts a reso- lution indicating commencement of annexation proceedings . A public hearing is set and legal notice of the hearing is also provided. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors may order by resolution the annexation without election , if authorized by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 1 l 101 itIf all items required for annexation are in compliance, the Execu- tive Officer issues a " Certificate of Completion. " The second stage of the annexation may take between 75 and 195 days . The total annexation process may require between 175 and 425 days. ' Respectfully submitted, rDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by CR___ IG - Tj BLUELL Associ te • Planner 1 . r CTB/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Resolution of Application No. (suggested application) 2) Memorandum dated •8/13/79 from City Manager - with attachments 3) Plan for Services 1 r r • 102 RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLYING TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF - NEWPORT BEACH CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND KNOWN AS THE "COUNTY TRIANGLE," PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 (Annexation No. 87) WHEREAS, the logical formation and determination of the boundaries of the City Of Newport Beach is an important factor in the orderly development of the City; and WHEREAS, orderly growth and development of the City of Newport Beach is essential to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City; and WHEREAS, the extension of the logical boundaries of the City to include islands of County territory is appropriate; '�- and WHEREAS, the area ]mown as the "County Triangle" is totally surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and can best be served by the City Of Newport Beach and development within said area best managed and controlled by the City of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED by the City Council of , the City of Newport Beach as, follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby applies to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for authorization to order the annexation of the County , Triangle without an election, pursuant to the Municipal Organiza- tion Act of 1977. 2. The area to be annexed, known as the County Triangle, is generally described as follows: ' • 103 . ' That area located between Superior Avenue on the southeast, the city limits of the City of Newport Beach on the north, and the city limits of the City of New- ' , port Beach on the southwest, and, said area is shown on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. This proposed change of City boundaries is by form of annexation of an unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. ' 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby requests that the proceedings to be taken for annexation of said area be authorized pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and that the proceedings may be taken without election pursuant to Section 35150(f) of the California Govern- ment Code, and that the Local Agency Formation Commission per- form all acts necessary to implement said change of organization of the City of Newport Beach. S. The nature of these proceedings are a jurisdictional boundary change for the logical inclusion of a County island within the corporate limits of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 9th day of October . 1979. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk BRC/kV 10/4/79 ' -2 1 Isisuoivx Iw�ct • • _ !`�I*Y MYNiAiY�. . � S � � 15 vl yillEtt y� A m __——— x top"J� W r" • ADVANCt `r""'?J PLANNING D O HEM 1 OIVIYIGN 1 f ' ' 105 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 13, 1979 e STUDY SESSION'NO. D TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager ' SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF THE COUNTY TRIANGLE As far back as 1977, the City cdnsciously considered annexing ' of the County Triangle north of Newport Crest. Recycled with this memo are reports and letters that adequately give the background to this subject. 1. Attachment "A" is a letter dated December 19, 1977 from LAFCO explaining the Municipal Organization Act (MORGA) of 1977. 2. Attachment "B" contains a staff report from Department.of Community Development dated January 18, 1978, applying the City's annexation guidelines to the County Triangle. Attached to this report is a section of this City's Munici- pal Code Section 3.13.030 imposing annexation fees, and a report from the Public Works Department concerning re- quired Public Works improvements within the triangle area. The final attachment is an updated Public Works Department report concerning street improvements, water and sewer .. service, street lighting, etc. During the study session of July 23rd it was suggested that this project either be removed from the "Council instructions or projects for staff" sheet, or the project be activated and positive action taken. The ' City Council requested the subject to be placed on the study session agenda of August 13th. One other item of history probably should be pointed out. In 1977 the County zoned portions of the subject area. During the 'hearings that occurred with the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the City of Newport Beach representatives attended and requested a less dense residential zone. The,owners of the property objected strenuously to this City's request and successfully lobbied the Board of Supervisors to, permit a more dense residential development. During these hearings emotions ran high on both sides of the density question. 106 Page -2- , As a bottom line, I believe the following summarizes the subject matter. 1. Because of MORGA the City can legally annex the sub- ject area. 2. The application fee, to be paid by the City of Newport , Beach, is not to exceed $500.00. 3. There are some public works facilities, i.-e. streets, ' lights, sewer and water that will necessitate City ex- penditure. 4. Annexation will probably be opposed by property owners within the County Triangle. 5. The County, because of financial constraints, will not bring to standard specifications all of the public facilities within the Triangle. �.r 6. The staff has not expended the time and effort to evaluate the annexation from a cost/benefit to the City of Newport Beach. The new AB 8, recently signed by the Governor, will increase revenues from property taxes to this City from the Triangle if annexed, but -it is be- lieved that the area would still be a cost or, at the best, a "break even" operation. ' 7. It will probably be impossible for the City to impose an ' annexation fee against the owners of the subject property consistent with Section 3.13.030 of the Municipal Code. ' I know of noway this fee could be imposed against the will of the property owners ,being annexed. Exhibit "A" (shown on yel-low paper)' R08�N ' Exhibit "B" (shown on blue paper) t i i l i ' . 107 . � N ORANCECOUNTY ' 1 ` '• -- ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 N.C ROOM 10l NY SYCAMORE STREET p-LIT 400 SANTAANA•CALIF'ORNIA92701 TELEPHONE:834.2239 AREA CODE 714 t. a ANCE `.. STUDY SESSION NO.8 ' LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION DONALD J.SALTARELLI Z 1,��; •i�_\ •I COU14CILv_N December 191 1977 a CITY OP TUSTIN i-•' , �'r\ '►HILI►L.ANTHONY City of Newport Beach -' VICE•CMAIRMAN 3300 W. Newport Blvd. ��. i�_; •Ir:-' SUPRAWSDR Newport Beach, 'California 92660 ' FIRST DISTPICT •• Attn: Robert L. Wynn. City Manager DONALD A.McINN13 CITY opt NE'WPORTBEACH Subject: Implementation of the.Municipal Organisation Act STAN NORTMRU► • • 1 •41. OCNE RAL PUBLIC RC/RESEV C COP -Dear Mr. Wynn: r�d:.:•w • . 4F.RILEv By now your. city 'should. be aware that the Governor signed into ^. VISOR law Assembly Bill No. 1533, generally known as the Municipal DISTRICT Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). MORGA (commencing with ,, ALTERNATE Government Code Section 35000) will take effect• January 1, 1978. • ALICE J.I.I.cLAIN ' e°v -.ILA nAN MORGA replaces all existing legislation with respect to annexations, •" detachments, incorporations or any municipal reorganization affecting ALTERNATE cities. MORGA is modeled after the District Reorganization Act of JOAN K.RIDDLE 1965 (commencing with Government Code Section 56600) and, for the REPRESE•,:ATIVEOF . ,first time, governmental actions and approvals, OENEEALPJFLIC places all necessary 9 ;; from initiation to completion, within one consolidated act. AI.TFCNaTE .' - ; LAURINCE J.SCNMIT Completion of any change in organization, reorganization or 'ihcorpo- SUPEPVIDISTRICT SECONDDIS :. ration involves basically three steps: (1) applieation to and ' :. + approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission; (2) necessary r RICHARD T.TURNER 1 hearings and election by the conducting authority; and (3) filings ,•, ExceUTIVC D►PICER „ required with the County Recorder, County Surveyor, affected c� clerks and State Board of Equalization. Filing with tthe'Secretary 57-State has been omitted. There has been some uncertainty regarding the notification of other agencies following the completion of annexa- tion proceedings. Based on our conversations with several cities' clerks. it was concluded each city had their own "notification list" of agencies they wished to contact after annexations were completed. The concensus was each City Clerk should continue to notify these agencies after LAFCO's notification to them. This has been our . policy for the past year and has worked very well. It is our intent to continue this way. Page 2 In Pe: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act ' of 1917 (MORGA) i ..i � The local Agency Formation Commission has reviewed MORGA and generally believes the provisions and 'procedures enacted will clarify and expedite the governmental actions and approvals necessary for initiating, conducting and completing municipal . � incorporations, reorganizations and changes of organization. Attached for your city's information and use is.a flow chart of •` : 4' MORGA's basic procedures. The one major policy change within MORGA that cities surrounding Or adjacent to county islands should be aware of is the provision that would allow "island" annexations of less than 100 acres. As,i ° provided by Section• 35150(f), LAFCO after notice and hearing may ' authorize the annexation of territory, inhabited.or not, without.. .. ,r an election if: (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres in - area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; (2) the , territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoining cities, �by the annexing city And a county boundary, or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean; ... territory territory prime substantially agricultural land;oand' (5)or dLAFCOpfinds(thathe such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is .. receiving benefits from the annexing city. This*authorization only •applies to "island" territory in existence ort January 1, 1978 and Is in effect only until January 1, 1981. " Preliminary proceedings for "county island annexations" require LAFCO =to notify each registered voter and landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the-annexing city should be responsible for all increased'costs asso-•• . ciated with such notice. By. minute order dated November 23, 1977, the Commission'amended its fee•'schedule to levy against the benefitting :s t city .all necessary and reasonable charges not to exceed $500:00 for preliminary proceedings for "island annexation" pursuant to Section 35150(f) of MORGA. The revised Schedule of Fees -is attached. Government Code Section 35031(c) provides the Board of Supervisors shall be the conducting'authority and shall initiate and conduct proceedings for the annexation of territory described in subdivision (f) of Section 35150. City councils remain the conducting authority /• , on other annexations. `..J The Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, may adopt a resolution ordering the "island" annexation without election. There . is no statutory provision requiring such proceedings to be terminated ' 'i — -- 109 • pa(If! 3 In Re: Implementation of the Municipal Organization Act . of 1977 (MORGA) L - if the majority of affected landowners protest. Again, the emphasis is whether the area is benefitting from the annexing city or would benefit from annexation to the affected city. However, the Board has the discretion to terminate proceedings by resolution. There are a number of islands within our County that meet the ' statutory requirements for annexation pursuant to Section 35150(f). Each city's sphere of influence would indicate the specific islands, • :if any, your city could consider for annexation pursuant to this section. We believe your city will find MIORGA helpful in initiating, conducting and completing annexations and detachments involving your city in the future. Further, MORGA may be of assistance to, Orange County cities in reducing the number of unincorporated islands. , This Commission's staff is available to assist your city in imple- Menting MORGA's•procedures. We would be willing to meet with you and your staff, if necessary, to discuss these matters. Please don't hesitate to call our. office if you or your staff have any questions. Very truly yours, r Richard T. Turner :. Executive Officer RTT:KWS:ff Attachments " -cc: Orange County Division, League of California Cities June Alexander, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1 110 tJCAL AGENCY FORNATIM COMMISSiury COUNTY OF ORMGE SCHEDULE OF FEES :TM,%S C2 DETACIC,ENTS, ALL LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSALS SINGLE OWNERSHIP MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP ... 0.1 - 5.99• $ 25.00 „$ 50.00 r•r. ti. 6 - 19.99 $ 50.00 .$100.00 20 - 39.99 $100.00 S150•600 :r. 40 - 79.99 : . :5150.00 $200.00 8o - 199.99 $200.00 $300.06 —2a r '999.'99 ':.:: r,., ;' • At ` $250 :.:1 '�'►•�?.. aJQCS•"Ir: 4;J :ry;cla'raaa :4 r• :4 i'- i'' .'" :•,('? �:.. .. f :$aoo:Qo $400.00 ISLA.�tl A...tEXATIOINS' •• > (Pursuant to Government Code Section 351'50(f) Arnexing city•shall be responsible' for all: reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed . . $500:00 . ti . DISSOLUTIONS, all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; , ` $100.00 f:ERG:RS, all $)00.00 CONSOLIDATIONS, all , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $100.00 PZORSMIlATIONS, all . ' • • . . . . . . . $100.00 _ FOR:.ATIM OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS . . . . . .. . . . $200.00 (including County Service Areas), all INCOPPOR;TIO?d;OF•CI-TY..• . .. . : ,. •. .., . .• , . „ . . . . . $500.00 ;a SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Request by local agency or county for amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence Reasonable and necessary costs not to exceed . . . . . . . . $500.00 MT--: :. The abuve schedule combines a filing and processing charge and would include cost of legal notice publication. B. Fees in accordance with the schedule above should be paid at the time the ' application is filed with the Executive Officer. C. Only exceptions to the fee schedule above would be on proposals resulting from LAFC services orders recommendations avoid icessituations, and proposalsfi d b ledasdi taxation rectedby the dOrange tCounty Board , , of Supervisors. (over) MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 BASIC PROCEDURES Applicant Exec. Ufficer corrects sets for hearin; deficiencies -- notices (A) Petition roceedings Application 4A. Exec. Officer : Exec. Officer • nitiated filed with — (B) Resolution Exec. Officer reviews prepares res report of Applicatton +DDiicailon i r¢co:m:endation ' I• 2' 3' Exec. Officer 5. requests ad- visory reports ' 30-90 days 48. Proceedings Terminated Proceedings Terminated disa proves disapproves Conducting J LAFCO agency receives nducting Conducting reports agent A` receives agency sets '-' r¢solutio r reports LAFCO for hearing testimony —� testimony Resolution --- * g f0.notices Landowner 1 protests L•� 35-105 days 35 days 45-175 days election Conducting gp, agency corrects deficiency non-caapliance Conducting Exec. Officer Exec, Officer Exec. Officer "% agency transmits files Statement ' cert. topics of examinei Peso- files Cort. of Proceedings =r reso. s fees to lutton and fees Cocplattan of Odry Change/ completed Exec. Officer fees with State Board of Equal, 1L ``IA. ` ....�J - SYyt In Process �( 30.60 days �..�.�( . - •10tice And h( t,- vAivrJ 112 • ' U. Uc:finitions: Single Ownership: A single ownership is one a•:here an entire arcs to be annexed, etc., is assessed to one owner or group of ' owners, each owning a percent of interest in all parcels as a single assessment (Assessors Parcels). Acting together, they form a single entity, the same entity, , in all parcels. This applies to mineral rights as well - as surface. Multiple Ownerhsip: A multiple ownership occurs when more than one owner, or group of owners, is being assessed' separately for his separate or undivided interests in portions of, or all of, the area to be annexed, etc. Also, this type of ownership , can be defined as any ownerships not qualifying as single ownerships. This appl.ies to. minergl rights and surface. L- O 113 ',i_EP_S iN PROCESS ' 1. Preliminary proceedings can be initiated by: ' (a) petition signed by at least 5% of the landowners or registered voters. Such petition can be a single instrument or separate counterparts. Any petition shall contain the following: (i) identify whether the proposal is for city incorpoi`ation, change of organization or municipal reorganization; (ii) state the reasons for the proposal; (iii) state whether the petition is signed by registered voters or landowners; and (iv) designate the . chief petitioners, not to exceed three (3) names. ,•(b). " resolution of n 1Ecation of an affected city,,'county *or special s r ct. len a cry adopts such resolution, the city will submit r ' a plan for providing services to the affected area. =' 2. Application filed with Executive Officer. Complete application consists of: (1) petition or resolution of application; (ii) reproducible map and legal description; (iii) completed "Justification of proposal" ques- tionnaire; (iv) completed "initial environmental information" questionnaire% and (v) appropriate filing and processing fee. (Forms available from the Executive Officer.) . 3. Executive Officer reviews application. 'If application is deficient, the applicant is notified and glven .the opportunity to correct deficiencies. If application is adequate, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Filing and mails same -to applicant. ' 4A. Executive Officer sets proposal for LAFC hearing, and if necessary, publishes a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation. When application is accompanied by written consent of the affected landowners representing one • hundred percent (100%) of the affected territory and the territory is unin- habited, notice and hearing can be waived. If proceedings involve annexa- tions of county islands less than one hundred (100) acres, the Executive Officer shall notify all registered voters and landowners by mail. 4V Executive Officer requests advisory reports from the following: (i) Directors u EMA, (1i) Assessor; (111) Planning Commission; (iv) Airport Land Use Com- =' mission.; (v) County Sheriff and (vi) any other agencies or individuals whose advice the Executive Officer deems appropriate on any specific proposal. 6. Executive Officer prepares a report and recommendation'on the specific proposal. 1 " '• '61 LAFC receives reports and testimony at public hearing. The Commission must. approve or disapprove by resolution the proposal within 35 days of the eon- �-•- clusion of the public ear ng. Disapproval of the proposal precludes fur- ther consideration for a period of one year. If the Commission approves the proposal, the LAFC designates the conducting agency and transmits a certified copy of ,said resolution to the conducting agency. The Commission, may authorize the conducting agency to pproceed without notice and hearing or election if one hundred percent (100%) of the affected landowners consent to such in writing. • • 114 • ' I. The LAFC adopts resolution. ' 3. Conducting agency (city council or board of supervisors) initiates pro- ceedings within 35 days after LAFCO approves a proposal and will be re- , quired to conduct a noticed public hearing within 45 days of initiating proceedings, voters and landowners would be able to present any written protests at the public hearing. . However, LAFCO may authorize the conduct of proceedings without notice and hearing, if the proposal is for annexa- tion, detachment., or a reorganization consisting solely of annexations or detachments of uninhabited territory and if all affected landowners consent to the proposal. 9. Within 30 days of the .public hearing, the conducting agency will be re- quired to take one of the following actions: In,the case of an- inhabited'• annexation 'detachments' or 5 'reorganization consisting of inhabited annexations or detachments, the conducting -agency could: order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization- without an election if less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of .the landowners owning less than 25%' of the assessed value of land protest; or order the annexation, detachment, or reorganization subject to an , election if more ,than 25% of the voters or more than,25% of land- owners o►vning 'more than 25% of the assessed value protest; or 7,1 ..terminate proceedings proceedings if more than 50% of the registered voters protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). In thv case of an 'uriinhabited annexation detachment or a reorganization, consisLing�of unin abate annexat ons or-detachments, the con uct ng agency cou1a: -"order'.the annexation, detachment, or reorganization, if. landowners who own'less than 50% of the assessed value of land and improve- ments .protest; or I terminate proceedings if landowners owning more then 50% of the assessed value of land and improvements protest (or terminate detachment proceedings by resolution). In'the case of' a city incorporation, the conducting agency could: order the incorporation subject to an election if less than 50% of registered voters protest: or terminate proceedings if more than 50% of registered voters protest. ' ® 115 i In the case of a disincor oration or consolidation, the conducting agency will be required to ca 1 an election on the proposed disin- corporation or consolidation. In the case of an island annexation, the conducting authority could: ' - approve the annexation without an election; or disapprove the annexation. ' ' In the case of any other reorganization, the conducting agency could: order the reorganization subject to an election if less than 50% ' of the registered voters protest; or terminate proceedings if 50% or more of the registered voters ' protest. 9A. Election •Reguirements: - If an election is called for an incoraoration, disincogration. consolidation or reorganization, a majority vote of those re- �✓ gTs, ered votersliving in the affected territory is required. If an election is called for an annexation or detachment of in- habited territory, it would be determined by voters living in the affected area unless (a) the affected area has an assessed value ' equal to one-half or more of the total assessed value of land within the affected city or (b) the number of registered voters residing within the affected territory equals one-half or more of ' the number of registered voters residing in the affected city. In either of those cases the election must include voters living in the affected city; a majority vote is required in both the affected territory and the affected city. t 10. The conducting agency adopts resolution. 11. Clerk of conducting agency transmits a certified copy of conducting - agency's resolution with applicable State Board of Equalization fees to Executive Officer. 12. Executive Officer examines resolution and determines whether it is in �., compliance with boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by the LAFC in its resolution.. If resolution is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will return same to conducting agency, specifying points of non-compliance. If resolution in compliance, the Executive Officer issues a Certificate of Completion. • 116 • ' ~ 13. The Executive Officer records a certified copy of Certificate of Completion with the County Recorder and files copies of recorded documents with the County Surveyor and affected city clerk(s). The effective date is the date of recordation with County Recorder. ' 14. Executive Officer files a Statement of Boundar Change and submits appropriate filing fees with a StaleUoard of Equalization. ;•: x •Y . ;, �;r '•... �.. .ire 117 4) 0.._ ,�X��a •T ®1 City Council Meeting January 23, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. Vell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' STUDY SESSION NO. 10_,^^ January 18; 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: The annexation of the County Triangle as permitted under the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 ' (MORGA A81533). .. <•:..`1f1,•v. • Background At the City Council Study Session of January 9'. 1978, the staff was ' instructed to evaluate the possible annexation of the County Triangle `.i in light of the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 C� and report back to the City Council on January 23. 1978. Following is a brief summary of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 as it applies to the County Triangle and a very preliminary evaluation of the County Triangle in terms of the City's annexation guidelines as ' stated in Council Policy C-1 . Municipal Organization Act of 1977 ' 1 . Permits "island" annexations of less than 100 acres 'in exis- tence on January 1 . 1978 and is in effect only until Janu- ary 1 , 1981 . 2. Requires LAFCO to notify -each registered voter and Landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed of preliminary ` proceedings. ' 3. Would permit LAFCO to authorize the County (the conducting authority in the case of the County Triangle) to, initiate and conduct proceedings without election if: ' a) The territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and these 100 acres constitute the entire island; b) the territory is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, by the annexing city and adjoin- ing cities, by the annexing city and a county boundary. or by the annexing city and the Pacific Ocean; c) the terrirory is substantially developed or developing; ' 8the territory is not prime agricultural land; and LAFCO finds -that such territory to be annexed will benefit from the annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. 4. Would permit the Board of Supervisors, after notice and hearing, .• to adopt a resolution ordering an "island" annexation without election. There is no statutory provision requiring such pro- ceedings to be terminated if the majority of affectedlandowners protest. However, the Board would have the discretion to term- . , • lla- . 1 tU: Council 2. county Triangle Setting , The County Triangle is an unincorporated island of approximately , sixty-two acres, lying southerly of Production Place, northwesterly of Superior Avenue and northeasterly of Newport Crest. The area is characterized by mixed land uses and mixed zoning. Existing uses include industrial , institutional, commercial and residential developments. In addition, there are numerous vacant parcels. The County has zoned the area for R-2 and R-3 multi-family residen- tial uses and M-1 light industrial uses. The Land Use Element of. the County's General Plan was recently amended to permit a mixture ' of Community Commercial , Light Industrial and Heavy Density Resi- dential uses. The County's Heavy Density Residential designation would permit a maximum of twenty-three dwelling units per acre. The Newport Beach General Plan. designates the area for a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial, General Industry and Multi , t. Family Residential uses with a density not to exceed fifteen dwell= ing units per acre. Annexation Guidelines 1. Public Reaction. Reaction from public agencies, private organizations, property owners and residents who would be affected by the City's annexation of this area has not been solicited. However, it is anticipated that those owner's of property who stand to benefit financially under County ;r control would not favor annexation. 2. Overlaooine Taxation. The area is currently served by th'e osZ La Ffesa o�TaFter District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Overlapping taxation in terms of funds normally collected by the City for services associated with water, G - sewer -and trash pick-up would have to be resolved. 3. DuDu i'iaation. As near as can be determined at .this• time. there would be no duptitation of services caused by the annexation. 1. CityS andards. The Public Works Department has. indicated t at t ere - several. substantial Public Works' related - problems associated With this area. A copy of their pre- liminary report is attached. :f b. T�ax B��ase. The staff has not had sufficient time to evaluate t-heImpact of a County Triangle annexation on the, City's tax base. 6. Planning. From the standpoint of plenn4ng, it would be very desirable for the City to annex this area and bring current zoning and land development policies into consis- tency with the City's General Plan. 7. Trans o_ rrtation. The County Triangle is completely surrounded ' by the City of Newport Beach, and any development in this area ... has an immediate impact on the City's street system. Annex- ation of the area would permit the City to play a direct role in correcting inter-area street circulat-ion deficiencies and , li correct any imbalance between proposed land uses and the circulation system. 8. Boundaries. The annexation of this area is a logical exten- sion o the City's boundaries. 9. Safety.- This annexation would permit the City to provide ' sa ety and emergency services to this area and thus elimin- ate the need for mutual aid agreements and the necessity for other agencies to respond unless requested. ' ® 119 • ' T11• City Council - 3. It). ,erv_ice_- the dred can be best served by the City of Newport Beach since it is adjacent to this City's boundary and no others. 11 . Homogeneity. Annexation of the County Triangle would permit residents who in terms of their social , cultural , economic and political interests and habits are related to the City to become an active part of the City. ' 12. Control. Development of this area would be controlled by the City's building and zoning regulations. ' 13., Public Facilities: There are no public uses proposed - or th s area. 14. ElimI nation. Annexation of the area would permit the City ' to take diFect control over problems which have arisen in the Triangle, i .e., noise from air-conditioning equipment, :- extension of streets, etc. , and eliminate any other existing or potential problems which might have a blighting or deter- ' iorating influence on existing development in the City.. 15. Preclusion. Annexation of the County Triangle would pre - c ude the need. for coordination with another governmental agency which to date has not demonstrated a great deal of �►/ support for the City's concerns related to traffic and l• ■ intensity of development in the area. 16. Image. With the exception of a very few improvements. the image and stature, of the City would not increase with the annexation of this area. `: • 17: Cost aenefit Anal ysi�s. The staff has not had sufficient ' t me to eva uate the ability of the area to generate w revenues nor compare the cost of providing City services { to the area. - •Y ' Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' R. V. HOGAN, Director By Ass stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments : Vicinity Map " Preliminary Public Works Report • 120 • , N FA M/•A M-FA '�� +1 IR • .. • •I. VCaONP . WN S`�� • . _ r�� couvrr �. y,:•• •'r, -.iin,-e, � ' a.• •h', ... � ;• '.t: f..N•±:..if .i r•j�Y 1tNr�t6a'��'!. r r��n iilapa 121 i ANNEXATION FLFS 3.13.020-3.13.030 imeet the need for public improvements and facilities consisting of fire stations and fire fighting equipment, public City libraries and public City parks, which could not be met by the ordinary revenues of the City. As a matter of equity, the City Council finds that any territory which shall in the future be annexed to the, City on which buildings have been constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings should pay Its fair share of the cost of providing the above mentioned public dmprovements and facilities.(Ord. 13421 1 (put),1970). " 3.13.020 Definitions. For the purpose Of this Chapter, the words ' defined in this section shall have the meanings assigrmed to them unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The torn. : i "single family or duplex residential unit"stall mean a single family.dwelllnt Y or a dwelling unit in a duplex. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The term "multiple tesidentiai unit" shall mean a dwelling unit within a building designed as a residence for three or more families living independently of each other which Is equipper ,y„<•"w i with cooking facilities,including triplexes and apartment houses. COMMERCIAL UNIT. The term "commercial unit" shall mean any space in a building or structure designed or intended to be occupied or used for business or commercial purposes, including sleeping rooms in hotels and' i motels without kitchens,or kitchen facilities. INDUSTRIAL UNIT. The term "industrial unit"shall main any space in a building or structure designed or intended for manufacturing, i processing,research,warehousing or similar toes. MOBILEHOME PARK. The term "mobilehome park"shall mean any •area where one or more lots or spaces are tented or held out for rent to be y occupied by a house trailer, mobilehome, cam* or similar vehicle. (Ord. . ; 1342 4 1 (pat), 1970). 3.13.030 Imposition of Annexation Fees. A. Few impowd. An r- annexation fee is hereby imposed upon the owner or owners of arty real ' properly upon which any commercial unit and/or industrial trait has been constructed prior to the completion of annexation proceedings in the amount of $.21 per square foot of grow floor area for all classy of construction, including any area in a building designed for th .parking of j vehicles, and upon any real property upon.which any residential unit has 1 been constructed in the amount of$420.00. B. Due Date. The amount of the fees due hereunder shall be ;+ determined on or before the date on which the City Council takes final ; i` action to approve the annexation and shall include any building! for which permits•ae issued by the Building Official of the County of Orano or the another city prior to the completion of the annexation proceedings i City of Newport Beach, and the full amount of the fees shall be due and payable on or before the final action of the City Council in approving the 54.1 (Wrwpod Sunk 7-11.77)• • 122 .1.13.040 3.13.050 REVENUES AND FINANCE annexation; PROVIDED,however..thal the Cily Council may,by resolution, ' approve the payment of said annexation, fees im not to exceed ten (10) .�• ;wnual installments, with interest of six percent (6%) on the outstanding balance, which shall be assessed as lions against the parcels of real property upon which the buildings are located, as said parcels are shown upon the latest available County assessment toll. A certified copy of said resolution shall be I)led with the Orange County Auditor on or before August 10 of ; each your, and the Auditor shall be requested to enter the amount of the respective ascssments on the County tax roll opposite each pawl of land. The amount of said.assessment shall bp collected at the titre and in the manna of City property taxes.if delinquent,the amount of said assessment , shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure for foreclostm and sale as in the cow of City property taxes.(Ord. 1735 1 1, 1977;OnL 16751 1, 1976: Ord. 1617 1 i, '1975: Ord. 1598 1 1, 1975: Ord. 1342 11 (part). 1970). ' 3.13.040' Refunds. The (7ty Council may order refunded all or part of ' an annexation fee paid pursuant to this Chapter,if it finds that all or part of Use assessment has been erroneously levied. An aretament or any pat thereof shall not be refunded unless a claim L filed with the City Ckrk on or ' Mom December r of the year in which the ameas sent became due and r payable. The claim shah be verified by the person who paid the assessment, -or his guardian,executor or administrator.(Ord.13421 1 (I*t)s 1970). 3.13.050 Exemptions. There are exempted from the annexation fag impowd by this Chapter improved parcels of land owned by the following: A. Buildings or units owned and occupied by any bank including national banking associations. B: "Buildings,or units owned and occupied by an"humm sa that term is defined in Article X11f,Sections 14r4/5 of the Constitution of the State of California. ' C. Buildings or units owned and occupied by a non-profit corporation exclusively for religious,educational,hospital,or charitable purposes. D. Buildings or units owned and occupied by the,Utdtad States,or any department or gcncy thereof, or by the State of California, or any , department, agency or political subdivision thereof. (Ord. 1342 11 (pat), 1970). '• 1 123 y ' January 13. 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' ATTENTION: JIM HEWICKER FROM: Public Works Department ' SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE There are several substantial Public.Works related, problems associated with the proposed annexation of the subject area. Because of the limited time ; ' available, detailed analysis and cost estimates for correcting the problems ,+ cannot be provided at present. However, a preliminary report is provided below. , N t A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue - This street is classified as a primary street. . The City has just completed a street improvement project'on ' ^. " ' the City's portion adjacent to the proposed annexation. Considerable length of Superior Avenue in the County triangle stilt requites improvement for conformance with the primary ,. classification. Substantial construction and right of way costs would be involved in completing the Superior Avenue • improvements.. However, it is probable that soch.of the work can be required of adjacent property owners as a condition of . development. ' 2. Placentia Avenue - This street is classified as a secondary { ' street. The street has been substantially improved in confor- mance with the arterial classification. Then are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion. ' 3. 15th Street - This street is currently classified as a secon- ; dary street. It was recently added to the arterial street •. system, and has not been improved in conformance with the primary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street easterly of Monrovia Avenue. There is no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street will have to be ' completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right of way for widening along the north side will be.expen- ' sive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation• of several trailers in the park at the northwest corner of 15th and Monrovia Avenue. Construction costs will be sub- stantial, in addition to the right of way costs. ' B. Local Streets ; At the present time, we are not aware of any major problems with the local street system. .;• ti. �(y 124 January 13, 1978 ' �.. Subject: Preliminary Public Works Report on proposed County Triangle Annexation Page 2 Westerly of Superior Avenue ' C. Water Service Water Service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County. ' Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time it 1s possible that this ' area would be de-annexed from the -District and water service pro- vided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur. D. Sewer Service Sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agancy Formation Comwission'his previously i taken the position that the City should ultimately provide ew•ser service in the area if it is annexed. (Sae attached copy of letter from LAFCD regarding the ppropposed CBS Publications annexa- Lion.) This problem will •probably be difficult to resolve. E.• Storm Drainage The area southerly of 15th Street appears to require sea study to quantify a potential significant drainage problem associated L with development and/or redevelopment of the area. F. Street Lighting ' � I There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street fights would be the responsi- bility of the,property, owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed. an assessment district proceeding HouTd ordinarily be used to install street lights 1f they. are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming _ increasiinnglyy difficult to achieve. AIMamin B. Holan City Enginear WBD:do Att. 125 ORANGE COUoi,! r•) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LS:: SISN.SVCAMOFIESTPE[T Room 109 CD U ry SIINTA ANA•CALIFC"NIA 12701 nI I T[L[rIgNEI OIS•aal! . 714 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ' DONAL AN + SALTAPFLLI coumrn eouNf`n flaN .Cory Or TUSTIN "' MEMORANDUM V 'LIP L.ANTHONY nRSTa�TRItt Date: May 20, 1977 bps - 1 ,r ODNALO A.M,INNIS •1 ". Co1RIC11 LIAN To: Local Agency Formation Conmission ra JC 4 0 4. ' Cory Or N,wPOl1T 1111^01 QUM From: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer WsTANNNaAT Iv Kt7� 'yy'1 W 1rs1 N I M Iva Q(IF '••.1 hYl a on Ni NA•.wu1.Ic Subject: •:. Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach t0 amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation nlaWns/.nlLer No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties). to the City of Newport Beach SUOTpVfSoll •, yr✓J /1i•111 1113 1/11cT The subject annexation teas originally scheduled for Commission action on ALfrpNA,L May 11, 1977. At the May 11 meeting the Commission was informed the - ArLeUNNAr proponent, Ficker and Ruffing Architects, was requesting it continuance ;•„ WMAiSI'1N lAli�lc DR 'of this proposal to the Commission's next hearing date of May, 25, 1977. --• The Commission approved the proponent's request. c 'M If,INAII nuca+.r+.r1,A'" Communications with the proponent and the City of Newport Beach. reveal `4 NNINOILVIf11lAN nd staff d /I,vcf cvLs the additional al ationthCity ofNewportdition that "prior to completion the AL TI IINAIL • Beach initiate proceedings to detach the property from the Costa Mesa • " ' LAunr.Har.+.sC1IMIT Sanitary District" to avoid a duplication of services and subsequent Sul•c"V$%f1N LreonnDlslnlQl costs. Apparently, to satisfy this condition the proponent's client, , CBS Properties, would have to construct a new serer line or bond for the 01ICNA11nT TURNER construction of a new sewer tine -to hook-up to the City of Newport ' uur mvl r,,110a Beach's sewer system. r°S As the Commission may recall from our staff report of May 5, 1977, the subject property is currently developed with an existing C.B.S. Public- :,. :;•. c,2 atiuns building, a.•rned by United California Bank as trustee. U.C.B. 'is ; purchasing an adjoining undeveloped parcel which is within the City of flumport Beach to accommodate planned construction of two additional office buildinge. for C.B.S. The proposed annexation would create one large lot that lies totally Within Uewport Beach's city limits rather than two lots that are partially in unincorporated, terH4 ,Rry and 'pArj5ally within city limits. Lai R L1r 'y %.' "'•'tell ei ' ' �•, t::st,Dxti a .:� ' % • � 126 ® t �r r Page 2 Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to �. amend the staff recommendation on ,Proposed Annexation No. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach It was staff's understanding that the existing C.O.S. building and , the two additional buildings proposed would be attached to the City of Newport Beach's sewer system, which is maintained through the City's general tax rate of $1.11. Since the property was also in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which assesses an additional tax for sewer wintenance, staff believed there would exist a duplication of service and subsequent duplication of taxes charged. Accordingly, staff recommended the condition that the subject property should be ' detached fro. the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Recent'conversations with Ficker and Ruffing Architects and the City of Newport Beach reveal the City plans to extend sewer.lines into the area westerly of the subject property within the next two to three ,. years. Staff understands the C.B.S. properties are intended to be attached to these sewer lines. For the present, then, the existing C.B.S. building would remain on the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's sewer line in Monrovia Avenue. If the property was detached from the District at this time, ,C.B.S. would have to construct a separate sewer*.* * u line to hook-up to the City's system. Since thby already have a sewer • line to the C.M S.D:, C.B.S. is reluctant to construct a new sewer line.' Consequently, the proponent is requesting that the Commission not approve f. this proposal subject to the condition that the property detach from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. It was staff's intent in recommending the noted condition to avoid any duplication of services and subsequent charges. New information suggests for the present there would not be a duplication of sewer services, how- ever, there would be a duplication of charges since the District assesses ; a tax rate and the City maintains its sewer system through its general - tan. The proponent states C.B.S. understands this and is willing to pay the double charge rather than constructing a new sewer line. The Cfty supports the proponent's request that the mentioned condition not be , imposed. _. ...__ This Commission has been Corking with the cities of Costa Nesa and Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District over the years in an effort to,make the boundaries of the District and the City of Costa Mesa coterminus. This means detaching certain areas from the District. Newport Reach has reportecl their intentions to provide service to all areas within their city limits and within their adopted Sphere of In- fluence Which includes the subject property. However, at this time, the City's sewu• system is not complete, certain 1•inkiges are plannod, but are several years from construction. Consequently, certain detach- ments from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District are nut practical for the presiun t. ' 127 July 28, 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTENTION: Jim Hewicker *� FROM: Public Works Department - SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF ' SUPERIOR AVENUE This report has been updated since the report of January 13. 1978, to reflect recent street improvements in the area. A. Arterial' Streets 1. Superior Avenue (Primary Street) - The City and County have ,lust completed street improvement projects on Superior.Avenue in and adjacent to the County triangle. The remaining, construction and right of way required in completing the Superior Avenue widening would-nor- mally be required of adjacent property owners as a candi- 4 Lion of development. -� ' i.;:w,;.... :2. Placentia Avenue (Secondary Street) - The street hasbeen 'sub ;'+,:• {`arterials classification withithe exception offside- 1.'S I•,•lt:i• ..l.n, t, .1 :" .., .. • • - walks. Under present Council policy, the adjacent .'f:' -��• property owner is responsible for sidewalk construe- ` Lion:i+ •8�•+'�I < � 3. 15th Street (Secondary Street) It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance•with the primary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street easterly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street will have to be completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Widening will require re- location of several trailers in the park at the northwest corner of 15th and Monrovia Avenue. Because of the.high costs involved,any major widening should be delayed until the property is developed. B. Local Streets At the present time, we are not aware of any major problems `- with the local street system. G •? • �i :�'gl. ..,:" .4,r '"icy;:F'N;fn, xtv��,SS{Y�''j�tr{[ .\^711t.a'r7s.:+.l:r': I'lii.• . ,^)-;'v'•• �'::iG�:.. Ivrpi.•ttats[2C<e.::i'�:Vri"�i�t�'7jaa/��r ..$.^J�'1)'i.��F. .� •'t - srf..� .. :1 a'i ['�" � }',". '!G. .C'n'�'PI"'�j•r.••� .+ .Y.i ,y S 128 ' •. July 28, 1978 ' Subject: Preliminary Public Works Report on Proposed County Triangle Page 2 Annexation Westerly of Superior Avenue C. Water Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time it is possible that this area would be de-annexed the serviceprovided bythe City. Ifafdeem District de-annexation should occur, there would be some new construction required. 0. Sewer Service Sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position .that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. (See attached copy of letter from LAFCO regarding the proposed CBS Publications ' annexation.) This problem will probably be difficult to resolve. E. Storm Drainage The area southerly of 15th Street could have a drainage problem, ' depending on how the area is developed or redeveloped. F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Under City policy, the installation of street lights is the responsibility of the property owners. In the developed �{ areas, an assessment district proceedings would be used to install street lights if they are desired.. In the undeveloped areas, the street lighting could be installed as a condition of development. Joseph,Ti Devlin Public -Irks Director JTD:jd , Att. I '. � •C 129 .� Page 3 Subject: Request by proponent and the City of Newport Beach to amend the staff recommendation on Proposed Annexation INo. 83 (C.B.S. Properties) to the City of Newport Beach Staff believes the subject property is a logical extension of the City of Newport Beach and still recommends approval of this annexa- tion. However. staff.is moved by the particular-circumstances of this proposal as expressed by the proponent and supported by the ' .to withdraw our recommended condition that .the subject property be detached trom'th thaa Costat if this ps p Sanitary District. Staff is still of the mind arcel, as well..- as the larger county island area of which it is a rt, is annexed to the City of Newport• Beach that these areas should be detached Ultimately from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. We believe it might be helpful in avoiding this type of wisitader- ';, standing in the future for the City of Newport Beach to sibmit 'to the Commission a plan or report on how the City proposes to assume overall sewerage responsiblities in this area. and wbtn the City expects to assume same. SUMMARY: .The proponent on behalf of the property owners is ;.„ requesting the Commission not approve this proposal, subject to the staff recommended condition per May 5th 'l report that the property be detached from'the Costa ' Mesa Sanitary District. if the property was detached from the District at this time, the property owner would have to-esewerr line to a new sewer line. Since they already have a sewer the C.M.S.V., the property owner does pot wish-to incur Y; 2 the added expense. s; The City of Newport Beach supports the proponents request. RECOMMENDATION:' (1) Staff withdrdws its recommendation -to condition approval of this annexation on detachment from ; the Costa Floss Sanitary District per staff report dated May 5.•1977. �: „sad,• , (2) Staff recommends the Commission request the. or tile Cityto sui a plan how city ofkew intends too assume overall, seweragee responsibilities within thi's area and whan the 1 City expects to assume Sawa. ,i •� cc: • Picker and Purring Atln: E. tlarjoram City or Newport Beath " A1.tn: still Dyc, Suhdivi:ion Engineer Costa Sanitary District ' Atln: deum:s Eldridge ..M1 • 1 . 1 •h 130 • ' "PLAN FO R SERVICES Land Us e: t' the e of the count Island 1. Submit a map illustrating h existing zoning yand surrounding land uses. Size of map shall be 8h" x 11" or ft x 14". When e reproducible ,map s he use oft larger size map is necessary are i requited t 9 Y P P 9 such as a sepia, vellum, etc. It is preferable that standard sheet size be used such as 13" x 18" or 18" x 260. Uses permitted under existing zoning should.be explained. , 2. Submit a map illustrating the existing land uses. The map size requirements are the same as Item No. 1. Discuss the existing land use. 3. Describe any changes in the proposed .zonin'g or land use. Emphasis should, be on the economical and social impacts associated with the proposed municipal -annexation. Indicate.the ptesent .population within the county island., Discuss the projected population for the site for the next five years. , {` 5. Describe any conditions which would be imposed or required within the . affected territory such as, ,but not limited to, improvement or upgrading ?*` W of structures,, ti ctures,, roadsaupgrading.serwater facilities. Estimate the costs of i improvements 5., '�•��' 6. Discuss what contacts have been made with the annexation territory's t:•,• landowners and residents. Do they support or.oppose annexation? Explain the reasons for their position. Urban Services: 1. Describe the type of service to be provided the annexation territory (i.e., police and fire protection, health services, rubbish collection, libraries, ' parks and recreation programs, water, sewer, street maintenance, street lighting, etc.). . 1. Describe the location from which each service is to be provided (e.g., nearest existing or proposed fire station, utility line, etc.). _ -3. Describe the service level capacity from that location. Emphasis should be on service level standards, such as the frequency of street sweeping, r `._ average response times for emergency vehicles, water service pressure zones, sewage treatment capacities, etc.). 4. Describe the service level to be provided. If the service level to be _ provided exceeds the existing service level capacity; explain what actions will be taken to increase the existing capacity and estimate the cost of increasing such capacity. 5. Indicate when such services will be available and provided to the annexation territory. Financing Methods: , 1. Explain how the provision of urban services to the annexation territory is . to be financed. Discuss expected revenues. 2. Summarize the costs associated with providing urban services to the , annexation territory. 3. Provide a cost/revenue analysis of the annexation ro osal. P P T"• /VOYLTI/N fLAis uTY. MuNvna \ Is,lA Ott • son •••; :••' tar MUIII=FANu1.Y 4RKgi, fNAILy AAVANcx M Vll PLANNING p O O D C DIVISION r .... _ v I i ii€ s 't € _ € .....................::::.::.::.::..:::........... ........ . ! : . J city of NEWPOO RT BEACH iiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiiiiiiiiii�?7Cje:•.; i :: ADVANCO city of PLANNING DIVIRION NEWPORT BEACH 134 ' ATTACHIMENT 10 I ' i `po NoTCoP RESOLUTION NO. 9 ro 4-C u I ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C;TX OF NEWPORT nrAC1I APPLYING TO TUE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CONNIus1ON (LA1'CO) OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ANNEX TO THD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTAIN INHABITED, TERRITORY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND KNOWN AS THE "COUNTY TRIANGLE," PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 (Annexation No. 87) WHEREAS, the logical formation and determination of the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach is an important factor in the orderly development of the City; and WHEREAS, the proper management of islands of County i r territory by the City is essential to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City; and I WHEREAS, the extension of the logical boundaries of ` the City to include islands of County territory is ap propriate; and I � WHEREAS, the area known as the "County Triangle" is totally surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and can best be served by the City of Newport Beach, 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach ' hereby applies to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for authorization to order the annexation of the County Triangle without an election, pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. 2. The area to be annexed, known as the County , Triangle, •is generally described as follows: 10/5/79 �, 135 r I That area located between superior I Avenue on the southeast, the city limits of the City of Newport Beach on the north, i and the city limits of the City of New- , port Beach on the southwest, and, said area is shown on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1 3: This proposed change of City boundaries is by ' form of annexation of an unincorporated island completely ; surrounded by the city of Newport Beach. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby requests that the proceedings to be taken for annexation • of said, area be authorized pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and that the proceedings may be taken without election pursuant to Section 35150(f) of the California Govern- ment Code" and that the Local Agency Formation Commission Per- form all acts necessary to implement said change of organization of the City of Newport Beach. i S. The nature of these proceedings are a jurisdictional i boundary change for the logical inclusion of a County island within the corporate limits of Newport Beach. 1 " ADOPTED this 9th day of October , 1979. ' Mayor ATTEST: City Qlerk HRC/kv 10/4/79 ' CERT:4RD P.5 ry�^r.•�cu cnYasao nmcrrr orM.n,1 u...st crYe OCT 11 1979 —2_ .r a YZ�Dt7LT{/µ (fa1L3 • uYY yruwons z ` _ r 1 r i t } MaWvy+ 1 r dc rm cr t ApV/WCH � i ' PLANNING i 0 O.If I J-�� _ r OM9tON `wti. r r .■ r .•� �.r got so No r we r, on +r so r m �. �.. ' � 137 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19 , 1979' TO: Jim Reed Fire Chief `lade Beyeler General Services Director 4/'�gonald Whitley PB&R Director ' harles Gross Chief of Police l-Benjamin Nolan Public Works Director FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Providing City Services to the Proposed County Triangle Annexation Area ' At the City Council meeting of October 9, 1979, the City_ Council adopted a Resolution of Application for annexation of the County Triangle . At that time Council directed staff to complete the necessary forms and studies and file application with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission within six weeks. Attached are maps of the area to be annexed. Please assess what special expenditures your department would be required to make in ' order to provide normal City services to the area. (For example , costs of connecting the area to the City' s sewage and water lines , road and storm drain improvements , expansion of current service facilities , purchase of additional vehicles , etc. ) The current characteristics of the area are described below: Population : 967 Number of dwelling units : 596 Existing land uses : Vacant 11 .00 acres Industrial 7.86 acres Commercial 3.00 acres Residential 39.66 acres Office . 75 acres Please return your estimations to Craig Bluell in the Advance Planning Division of Community Development by Wednesday , October 31 . If you ' have any questions , please do not hesitate to call - Extension 261 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Acting Director by ' CRAIG T. BLUELL, Associate Planner CTB/kk . 138 ATTACHMENT 4 , C Novem�eq^2;�t979-,1\ •� nr l :Js� V 0, TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ! FROM: Public Works Department -- SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue: This street is classified as a primary road , (4 lanes divided) in the City's circulation element. Approximately 300 feet at the easterly end of the triangle remains to be widened to meet primary standards. The construction of the improvements for the widening is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-way acquisi- tion is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have to be relocated for the ,widening. The relocation assistance for the mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the mobile home park changes use or redevelops, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. 2. Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in conformance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion. 3. 15th Street: This street is currently classified at a secondary road. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the secondary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which re- quires that the widening be done along the north side of the street, There is no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is antici- pated that the street may have to be completely reconstructed to pro- vide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will 'be expensive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of 15 to 20 trailers in the parks on the northerly side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary standards are estimated to be $288,900 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000. - Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000. The construction estimate also includes a storm drain along 15th Street. The right-of-way and construction of improvements westerly of Monrovia Were included in the estimate ($200,000--construction and right-of-way). These improvements and right-of-way may partially be funded through prior commitments related to the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. II� 139 ..Subject: Public Workaport on Proposed County Trian*Annexation Westerly of Superior nue Page 2 i B. Local Streets r+ Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street in the annexa- tion area. The street is improved except for 640± feet northerly of 15th Street on the easterly side. The completion of improvements in this area includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, and six feet of paving; estimated to cost $28,000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the southerly portion of the triangle. Medical Lane is little more than an aisle through a parking lot and does not meet the City's private street guidelines. Development in the southerly portion of the triangle should be required to upgrade the ' street.. C. Water Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the 'City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time, it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service provided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur; this amount is esti- mated to be $15,000. D. Sewer Service Sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is 1 annexed. This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. All of the sewer lines in the triangle serve only that area or areas in Newport Beach. They drain by way of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway where they empty into a Sanitation District line. Since• no areas in Costa Mesa are served, it would be logical to ask for a de- annexation from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. E. Storm Drainage A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the 'northerly side of 15th Street. The cost of this facility has been included in the road widen- ing estimate. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have potential drainage problems associated with development and/or redevelop- ment of the area. A drainage study will need to be prepared to determine the effect of development on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsizing or that a portion of the drainage from the area needs to be diverted to the west. " • 140 Subject: Public Works Report on Proposed County Triangle Annexation Westerly ' of Superior Avenue Page 3 F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsibility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment district proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district - proceedings are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. ; G. Summary Much of the improvement work which is enumerated above would be the respon= , sibility of the adjacent property as it develops or redevelops. Of the remaining items, none has a suff.ici,ently ,high priority to merit funding in the near future. The largest item, 15th Street widening, has a very low priority of need at the present time. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director DW:jd •i 1 t i 1 • t �Q 141 ' RED • Bly O P COmmun � OevelopmeiEty Dept nt E NOV5 1979s g November 2, 1979 ..POFF RT BEACH Z CALIF. �O ' TO: COMMUNITY DEV * TMENT, FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE ' A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue: This street is classified as a primary road (4 lanes divided) in the City's circulation element. Approximately 300 feet at the easterly end of the triangle remains to be widened to meet primary standards. The construction of the improvements for. the widening -is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-way acquisi- tion is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have to be relocated for the widening. The relocation assistance for the ' mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the mobile home park changes-use or redevelops, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. 2. Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in conformance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion. l5th Street: This street is currently classified at a secondary. road. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the secondary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which re- quires that the widening be done along the north side of the street. There is no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is antici- pated that the street may have to- be completely reconstructed to pro- vide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will be expensive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of 15 to 20 trailers in the parks on the northerly side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary, standards are 1 estimated to be $288,000 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000. 1 Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000. The construction estimate also includes a storm drain along 15th Street. The right-of-way and construction of improvements westerly of Monrovia were included in the estimate ($200,000--construction and right-of-way). These improvements and right-of-way may partially be funded through prior commitments related to the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. 142 Subject: Public Wor*eport on Proposed County Tria Annexation Westerly of Superior—Avenue 'Page 2 B. Local Streets Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street in the annexa- tion area. The street is improved except for 640t feet northerly of 15th Street on the easterly' side. The completion of improvements in this area includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, and six feet of paving; estimated to cost $28,0000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the 'southerly portion of the , triangle. Medical Lane•is little more than an aisle through a parking 'lot and does not meet the City's private street guidelines. Development in , the southerly portion of the triangle should be required to upgrade the street: , C. Water Service ; Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would -continue to provide water service. However, at some future , time, it is possible that this area .would be de-annexed from the District and.water service provided by the City. Some construction" costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur; this amount is esti- mated to be $15,000. D. Sewer Service t Sewer service is presently provided The Local Agency Formation Commission has e a Sanitary haspreviouslytakenthe position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. All of the sewer lines in the triangle serve only that area or areas in Newport Beach. They drain by way of Superior Avenue to-Coast Highway where they empty into a sanitation District line. Since no areas in Costa Mesa are served, it would be logical to ask for a de- annexation from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. E. Storm Drainage I A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the northerly side of 15th Street. The cost of this facility has been included in the road widen- ing estimate. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have potential drainage problems associated. with, development and/or redevelop- ment of the area. A drainage study will need to be• prepared to determine the effect of development on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsizing or that a portion of the drainage from the area needs to be diverted to the west. s , 143 Subject: Public Works Report on Proposed County Triangle Annexation Westerly I of Superior Avenue Page 3 F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsibility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi—developed, an assessment district proceeding-would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are-becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. G. Summary Much of the improvement work which is enumerated above would be the respon.� sibility of the adjacent property -as it develops or redevelops. Of the remaining items, none has a sufficiently high priority to merit funding in the near future.. The largest item, 15th Street widening, has a very low priority of need at the present time. k, Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director i DW:jd i 144 • • ATTACHMENT 5 October 31, 1979 TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - ATTN: CRAIG BLUELL r FROM: General Services Department SUBJECT: PROVIDING CITY SERVICES TO THE PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION AREA In accordance with your memo dated October 19, 1979, the following special expenditures that would be required by the General Services Department in order to provide normal City services to the County triangle are submitted: Manufacture & install 15 street name signs $ 300;00 Manufacture & install 5 speed limit signs 165.00 Miscellaneous street striping 100.00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with .asphalttc concrete 250.00 Put in approximately 20,200 sq. ft. of sidewalk 30,300.00 ■ Put in approximately 1,940 linear ft. of curb & gutter 21,340.00 t Overlay Monrovia Ave. with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete to re-establish street crown & restore proper drainage 5,250:00 TOTAL $579705.00 Since there are very few residential units and most of the area is dev- eloped for light industry that now uses bins, there are no additional refuse collection costs anticipated at this time. It is recommended that a professional study be made to determine what ' the storm drain requirements for the County triangle should be. .00� 00po 2 EI ti RECEIVED. Wade S. Beyeler DavIOPMnt WSB/i b OP, COT 3119790 GTf OF , � NEVIP�IF.E� S M co ATTACHMENT 7 tip ea 145- •. u �`31oF P��' NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT f C OG Q `p�JJ DATE October 30. 1979 Craig T. Bluell, Associate Planner v ' FROM: James M. Reed, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire protection to county triangle annexation. It is my feeling that the area under consideration for annexation would affect the Fire Department in the following manner. ' COST 3' ' No increase in manning or equipment would be needed. 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE Services to this area would remain at the same level as presently provided there ". ' now by 'the Newport Beach Fire Department under mutual aid agreements with the ' " Orange County Fire Department. This level of service is common to all, areas served by this department. AREA FIRE PROTECTION PROBLEMS As a result of annexation of this area, the City would gain control of fire protection standards for residential, commercial and industrial development that affects not only the area to be annexed, but adjacent exposed areas of the City of Newport Beach. Business and-industry within the area have no serious fire protection deficiencies. Existing flaws can remain non-conforming until a change of occupancy or construction; 1 necessitates a change. Water supply for fire protection appears to be adequate excepting a single dead end' leg of 6" main which runs eastward from Monrovia south of 15th Street. There t are no significant structures in this area at this time. Accessibility to existing structures does not appear to be a problem. The amount of weed abatement work to be done in the annexation area can be handled' without increasing staff. FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCIES At the present time,considerable confusion exists among residents of this area as to who provides their fire protection/emergency medical services. This annexation would resolve the confusion. JAMES M. REED JMR:rw Form No. 36 146 r 1 NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT NO: DATE October 30, 1979 ' TO: Craig T. B1uell, Associate Planner FROM: James M. Reed, Fire Chief r SUBJECT: Cost of fire service to county triangle annexation. , I would anticipate that the fire department can provide fire protection, paramedic r and fire prevention inspection services to this area without additional manpower or equipment. Under an existing agreement with the Orange County Fire Department, we presently , provide fire protection and paramedic services to the area. The only additional workload would relate to fire prevention inspection services. JAM ES M.- REED JMR:rw l ' r r - r s RECEIVED Cor,... .nhy Dovepawnt 9 ept OCT 311979-t- , CITY OF J� NEWPORT 6EACN, .h CALIF. ,t rl i Form No. 36 _ ATTACHMENT 6 147 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH g POLICE DEPARTMENT + Qnt ,VpV5•�'• a�, 5 • November 2, 1979 CA<,F icy TO: Department of Community Development FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: PROVIDING POLICE SERVICES FOR PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ' AREA ANNEXATION RECOMMENDATION: ' From a police perspective it is recommended that the "County Triangle," located within the Newport Beach city limits, be annexed. Although the Police Department would be to some degree impacted by annexation, consideration of economy, efficiency, and effectivness makes annexation a logical choice. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are, and have been, responsible for law enforcement in the Triangle. However, Newport Beach police units respond to the Triangle on a regular basis to �.� assist with emergency calls. This occurs primarily because those agencies having responsibility have insufficient units in the area, or because their estimated time of arrival is not a satisfactory "response time." These 1 emergency calls include burglary alarms, armed robberies, thefts, locating walkaway mentally ill patients, and traffic accidents for purposes of medical aid and traffic control . ' WORKLOAD: Statistical information was not available on short notice from the CHP. The ' Sheriff's Department was not able to provide total "called for services," but did provide crime data for fiscal year 1978-79: Part I Offenses (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Burglary, Grand Theft, Aggravated Assault, Auto Theft) : 39 Part II Offenses (Lesser Offenses) : 32 During the same period, Newport Beach experienced 3,163 Part I crimes and 2,564 Part II crimes for a total of 5,727. Therefore, the Triangle crime .re- presents about 1 .25% of what Newport Beach experienced. Based on the above figures, we would anticipate an increase in workload of 416 manhours in the Patrol Division and 158 manhours *in the 'Detective Division for a departmental total of 574 manhours. , _ s • 148 . 3� Providing Police Services for Proposed County Triangle Area Annexation, Page 2 COST: No immediate financial impact relative to the Police Department's budget is anticipated. The County Triangle is located within Area Two of the Police Department's Area-Policing organization. Commander of Area Two is Lt. Jim Gardiner, who is of the opinion that the P police services t b P to, be provided to the Triangle area could be provided with present resources. As indicated in the "Workload" section, we anticipate, a departmental increase of 574 manhours. The Department's current budgetary cost per field hour is $25.19. Thus, the cost of policing the Triangle computes to approximately $14,500. However, as previously noted, it is believed that present manpower can absorb this increased workload. As described previously,, we are now responding to, calls in the Triangle area. However, at present, neither the Police Department nor the City is receiving any revenues for these services. To be cost effective from the Police Department's standpoint, the City should annex the County Triangle in order to obtain the revenues to pay for these currently supplied emergency services. LEVEL OF SERVICE: Another consideration is a comparison of services that would be available from this Police Department versus the services provided by the existing agencies for residents of the Triangle Area. Response time would be dramatically lower, primarily because our units are constantly on patrol within the current city, boundaries that totally surround this area, whereas county units may have to respond from another county area miles away. Additionally, patrol characteristics would be enhanced' as, again, city units are constantly patrolling surrounding areas and would be able to extend their patrol- ling-with a minimum of effort. County units• must come from a distance away, thus losing patrol time due to much higher driving time to and from the area. Further, centralizing both patrol and traffic functions for this area in one central , more closely accessible location would be much more convenient for the County Triangle residents. FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Captain Rich Hamilton at 644-3650. Charles R. Gross !+ Chief of Police ATTACHMENT 8 149 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 31 , 1979 TO: CRAIG BLUELL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: SERVICES TO COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION AREA As requested, the figure below represents current costs for tree trim- ming that would become the responsibility of this Department if the proposed annexation were to occur. 'Assumptions have been made that significant public park or beautification development would not occur on the vacant parcels. And, as recreational services are now based on a self-supporting basis, the impact of additional residents is mute. Estimate of cost for trimming: 5 days for two-man crew: $ 704.00 Equipment, materials & supplies: 836.50 Administrative Overhead: 308.00 TOTAL $ 1 ,848.50 L PRODUCTION PLACE has 7 Ficus Nitida. They are behind the sidewalk but wouldse a on eament. There is no damage to sidewalk or curb at this time, 'but as the trees grow they will cause damage. MONROVIA STREET has 2 large Ficus Nitida, one large Date Palm, 3 Oleander standards,rs, 6 Myoporum latum and 4 Eucalyptus. The 2 Ficus are very large_ and have done damage to the sidewalk and curb. The estimate for repair should come from General Services. None of the other existing trees are doing damage at this time. 15th STREET has two Eucalyptus. No damage at this time. _ Y R E C E I mtyu Ronald A. Whitley r4 RW:h p; OCT '� •Fi ' 1 E0ty Council Meeting January 7,• 1979 Agenda Item No. F-1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 26, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: County Triangle Annexation No. 87 Suggested Action If desired, direct staff to file completed application with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Background At the City Council meeting of October 9,, 1979, the 'City Council adopted Resolution t- No. 9647 supporting application for annexation of the "County Triangle". Staff was them directed to prepare the required "Plan for Services" and other elements of the annexation application package. Attached is a copy of the "Plan for Services" and other supporting, documents. Tho acceptance of the application by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission will initiate preliminary proceed- ings on the proposed annexation. City Council Annexation Guidelines Council Policy C-1 suggests guidelines that should be, utilized, to assist in a deter- mination of whethee'an• annexation, is in the best interests of the City of Newport Beach. Following is a discussion of the topics addressed in the guidelines: 1 . Public Reaction. Reaction from public agencies, private organizations, property owners and residents who would be affected by the City's annex- ation of this area has not been solicited. However, 'it is anticipated that those owners of property who stand to benefit financially under County control would not favor annexation. 2. Overlapping Taxation. The area is currently served by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Overlapping taxation in terms of funds normally collected by the City for services associated with water, sewer and trash pick-up would have to be resolved. 3. Dili-cation. As near as can be determined at this time, there would be no duplication of services caused by the annexation. 4. City Standards. The Public Works Department has indicated that there are several 'substantial Public Works' related problems associated with this area. A copy of their report is attached. 151 T0: City Council - 2. 5. Tax Base. The combined impact of an increased tax base and increased demands for public services is discussed in the section on "Cost Benefit Analysis" . 6. Plannin . From the standpoint of planning, it would be very desirable for The City to annex this area and bring current zoning and land development policies into consistency with the City's General Plan. 7, Transportation. The County Triangle is completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach, and any development in this area has an immediate impact on the City's street system. Annexation of the area would permit the. .City to play a direct role in correcting inter-area street circulation deficiencies and correct any imbalance between proposed land uses and the circulation system. 8. Boundaries. The annexation of this area is a logical extension of the City's boundaries. 9. Safety. This annexation would permit the City to provide .safety and emer- gency services to this area and thus eliminate the need for mutual aid agreements and the necessity for other agencies to respond unless. requested. 10. Service. The area can be best served by the City of Newport Beach since it is a acent to this City's boundary and no others. Homogeneity.. Annexation of the County Triangle would permit residents who in terms of their social , cultural , economic and political interests and habits are related to the City to become an active part of the City. 12. Control . Development of this area would be controlled by the City's building and zoning regulations. N13. Public Facilities. There are no public uses proposed for this area. 14. Elimination. Annexation of the area would permit the City to take direct control over problems which have arisen in the Triangle, i .e., noise from air-conditioning equipment, extension of streets, etc., and eliminate any other existing or potential problems which might have a blighting or deter- iorating influence on existing development in the City. 15. Preclusion. Annexation of the County Triangle would preclude the need for coordination with another governmental agency which to date has not demonstrated a great deal of support for the City's concerns related to . traffic and intensity of development in the area. • 16. Image. With the exception of a very few improvements, the image and stature of the, City would not increase with the annexation of this area. 17. Cost Benefii�llnaly_sis. A detailed discussion of the Cost/Revenue impacts is contained in the attached "Plan for Services". The immediate fiscal impact from annexation of the "County Triangle" would be a surplus of' approximately $4,700 per year, however, over a 5-year pdriod, this figure should increase to $13,500. These estimates do not include costs of any extraordinary capital improvements. The attached memo from the Public Works Department discusses these potential costs. It should be pointed out that if this area 152 TO: City Council - 3. is annexed, and the property owners are not required to make these improve- ments, they would become part of the City's ongoing Capital Projects Program and their actual construction would probably be phased over a substantial period of time. Environmental Significance Staff is of the opinion that the proposed annexation is categorically exempt under sections, 15107,. 15108, and 15119 of the "State EIR Guidelines", as stated in the attached letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Since the Local Agency , Formation Commission is the "Lead Agency", they will make the final determination. Respectfully submitted, , PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Hewicker, .Director by cl(��y//���� Robert Advance Planning Administrator l • RPL/nm Attachments for City Council Only: 41/7/80 letter on Environmental Documentation , Plan for Services 3 Justification for Proposal _ 4; 11/2/79 letter from Public Works Department 5) 10/31/79 letter from General Services Department , 6 11/2/79 letter from Police Department 7 10/30/79 letters from Fire Department 8 10/31/79 letter from Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department ' 9 Legal Description 10 Resolution 9647 and Location Map �r1 153 Al IMLIMIc141 I I PLANNING DEPARTMMENT (714) 640-2261 .;•. . ' January 7, 1980 Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 515 North Sycamore Street, Room 101 ' Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Environmental Documentation - County Triangle Annexation No. 87 Dear Mr. Turner: In accordance with your request we have reviewed the need for environmental documentation on our proposed annexation designated "County Triangle Annexation No. 87." It is the opinion of the City of Newport Beach that the proposal is categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 1.5101, 15108, and/or 15119 or the "State EIR Guidelines." 1 Therefore no initial study has been prepared. Very truly yours, ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by R��' (!LENARD ' Advance Planning Administrator RPL/nm City 11a11 3300 I\cwport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92668 ' 154 ATTACHMENT 2 ' "PLAN FOR SERVICES" Introduction ' Pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) Chapter 2, Article 1, Sections 35100 - 35104, a City is empowered to initiate preliminary annexation pro- ' ceedings by adoption of a resolution. If the City initiates proceedings for annex- ation, it must also submit a plan for providing service to the affected area. In accordance with the requirements of MORGA and the requirements of LAFCO, the follow- ing "Plan for Services" has been prepared for the County Island in West Newport Beach , commonly known as the "County Triangle". This plan represents the City's best esti- mate of what improvements and services are required for the "County Triangle" and how much they will cost. In addition, planning matters of a general nature are discussed dnd a cost/revenue analysis is provided. Existing County Zoning and Surrounding Land Uses , The County of Orange has established the zoning designations for the County Triangle , area. These designations are briefly described as follows: That area westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 (dndustrial) uses. The area easterly of Pla- centia Avenue is designated CC (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses. The remainder of the County between Triangle Monrovia and 9 ( n Placentia Avenues) is R-2/1800 and Res R-3 1800/ (Residential) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia A CC Commercial P venue shown Community). Y) The land uses surrounding the County Triangle area include town homes and condomin- iums to the south and east, a hospital' and medical professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the north. Existing Land Use The County Triangle is a mixed use area and can be generally described as follows: , Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate. There are also Single Family residential and office uses in the area. Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for Multi-family and mobile home residential uses. The area also contains some commercial., office industrial and single-family residen- tial uses. Easterly of Placentia Avenue, commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrial and multi-family residential uses also in the area. LAND USE INVENTORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 .77 A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 30.855 A DUPLEX 2.133 A MOBILE HOME 15.081 A , • COMMERCIAL 9.141 A OFFICE 5.571 INDUSTRIAL 7.397 A INSTITUTIONAL 1 .320 A TOTAL DEVELOPED ACREAGE 50.483 A VACANT 4.644 A , TOTAL ACREAGE (EXCLUDES STREETS) 55.127 A ' '. l4 155 -2- Zoning and Land Use Plan Consistency The City of Newport Beach General Plan shows land use designations for the County Triangle area. That portion of the Triangle southerly of Medical Lane extended is • shown for "Multi-Family Residential" uses. Northerly of Medical Lane, the Land Use Plan shows an "Industrial" designation. Most of the area easterly of Placentia Avenue is "Retail and Service Commercial" with the small northerly strip designated ' "Industrial".. When compared-to Orange County zoning designations, there are two areas of incon- sistency with the Newport Beach General Plan. The first is the strip of "Industrial'" ' General Plan designation east of Placential Avenue. The County zoning shows .this area for "Commercial Community" uses. The second and largest area of inconsistency occurs in the area northerly of Medical Lane extended and between Monrovia and Pla- centia Avenues. County zoning allows R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Residential) uses while the Newport Beach General Plan designates the area "Industrial". Upon annexation, these inconsistencies will have to be resolved to bring General Plan and Zoning Designations into conformance as required by State Law. ' EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION BLOCK EXISTING POP. POP/H.H. PROJECTED POP.(NeBr Existing) 103 476 1.65 476 104 52 1.33 50 959 422 1 .41 418 90101 6 2.0 0 TOTAL. 956 944 Community Facilities And Services The County Triangle is surrounded by well-established urban development which- has all ' the public facilities and services normally provided to a modern city. Several juris- dictions are presently responsible for providing community facilities and services to the County Triangle resulting in duplication of effort, overlapping responsibility, and in some cases, inadequate or totally absent facilities and services. Annexation of the County Triangle would be the first step in consolidation of jurisdictional respon- sibilities, elimination of wasteful duplication of effort and enhancement of community facilities. ' Schools The Newport-Mesa School District has experienced a decline in enrollment since the 1969- 1970 school year. On a district-wide basis, the enrollment figures have dropped from 26,264 students in 1967-1970 to 20,034 students in 1979-1980. This 'decrease in enroll- ment has necessitated the.closure of three elementary schools; Monte Vista, Mesa Verde and Victoria. School age children residing in the area attend Whittier Elementary School. Communication with the Newport-Mesa School District student predictions staff disclosed that there would be sufficient capacity for both Elementary and High School age students that might reside in the area. No significant impact resulting from annexation. 156 -3- Police Services The Orange County Sherriff's Department and the California � ighway Patrol are respon- sible for providing law enforcement to the "County Triangle'. However, Newport Beach police units respond to the area on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. This occurs primarily because those agencies having responsibility have insufficient patrol units, in the area, or because the estimated response time is not satisfactory. Emergency calls include burglary alarms, armed robberies, thefts, locating walk-away mentally-ill patients, and traffic accidents for purposes of medical aid and traffic control. Based on crime statistics provided by the Sherriff's Department for the period 1978- 1979 and Newport Beach crime statistics for the same period, crime in the County Tri- angle represented about 1 .25% of what Newport Beach experienced. Based on the crime data provided by the Sherriff's Department, the City law enforcement "workload" would increase by approximately 574 manhours. However, the City 'Police Department believes that present manpower can absorb the increased workload since some of the projected manhours are currently being provided as assistance with emergency calls. Annexation •would define responsibility for police services, eliminate duplication of effort and provide better service to the area. Increased manhours for service could be absorbed by present staffing and the City would begin to receive revenues from the area for service now being provided but not paid for through City taxation. Fire Services The Orange County Fire Department is responsible for fire protection service to the . County Triangle. However, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department is first to be dispatched by the Orange County Fire Department to an emergency fire call under the provisions of a mutual aid agreement. When emergency fire calls require backup assis- tance, this assistance is provided by the Orange County Fire Department. All emer- gency paramedic services are provided by Newport Beach's Fire Department. The only additional workload would relate to fire fighting backup which would be . provided by existing fire companies and fire prevention inspection services. The Newport Beach Fire Department anticipates that all fire protection, paramedic and fire prevention inspection services can be provided by existing manpower 'and equip- ment. At the present time, considerable confusion exists among residents of the area as to who provides their fire protection/emergency medical services. Annexation of the County ' Triangle would resolve the confusion. In addition, fire prevention inspection and weed abatement would become the responsibility of the City Fire Department. As in the case of police services, annexation would eliminate overlapping responsibility and provide the City with revenue for services now being, provided. Public Works Improvements and Repairs This section represents the most significant problems that the City will have to resolve , . if annexation takes place. Much of the improvement work which is enumbrated on the following page would be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner as it devel- ops or redevelops. Of the remaining items, none has a sufficiently high priority to merit funding in the near future. The largest item, l5th Street widening, has a very low priority of need at the present time. 1 A. Arterial Streets 1 . Superior Avenue: This street is classified as a primary road (4 lanes divided) in the City's circulation element. Approxiamtely 300 feet at the easterly end of the triangle remains to be widened to meet primary standards. The construction of the improvements for the widening is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have to be relocated -for the widen- ing. The relocation assistance for the mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the mobile home park changes use or redevelops, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. 2. Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in con- formance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches os, sidewalk which will require completion. 3. 15th Street: This street is currently classified as a secondary road. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the secondary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street. There is no exist- ing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street may have to be completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will be expensive and time consuming'. Widening will require relocation of 15 to 20 trailers in the parks on the northerly side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary standards are estimated to be $288,000 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000. ' Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000. ' The construction estimate also includes a storm drain along 15th Street. The right-of-way and construction of improvements westerly. of Monrovia were included in the estimate ($200,000--cons truction and right-of-way). These improvements and right-of-way may partially be funded through prior commitments related to the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. B. Local Streets Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street in the annexation area. The street is improved except for 6401' feet northerly of 15th Street on the easterly side. The completion of improvements in this area includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, and six feet of paving, estimated to cost $28,000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the southerly portion of the triangle. Medical Lane is little more than an aisle through a parking lot and does not meet the City's private street guidelines. Development in the southerly protion of the triangle should be required to upgrade the street. C. Water Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa £etinty Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time, it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service provided by the City. Some construction costs would be• associated with de-annexation should i 1 h such a de-an n t occur; this amount is estimated to be $15,000. D. Sewer Service Local sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary 'District, while main transmission lines are provided by Orange County Sanitation District #6. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. All of the sewer lines in the triangle serve only that area or areas in Newport Beach. They drain by way of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway where they empty into a Sanitation District line. Since no areas in Costa Mesa are served, it would be logical to ask for a de- annexation from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. E. Storm Drainage A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the northerly side of • 15th Street. The cost of this facility has been included in the road widen.; ing estimate. E,. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have poten- tial drainage problems associated with development and/or redevelopment of the area. A drainage study will need to be prepared to determine the effect of develop- ment on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsiz- ing or that a portion of the drainage from the area needs to be diverted to the west. F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights Would be the responsibility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment dis- trict proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. . In addition to the improvements discussed above, a number of minor repairs and improve- ments are needed •to bring the County Triangle up to City standards in the short term. The improvements that would be needed are as follows: ' ' J 15o II Manufacture and install 15 street name signs $ 300.00 Manufacture and install 5 speed limit signs 165.00 Miscellaneous street striping 100.00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with asphaltic concrete 250.00 MOverlay Monrovia Ave. with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete to re-establish street crown and restore proper drainage 5,250.00 Street tree trimming 1 ,848.00 $ 7413.00 Cost/Revenue In order to evaluate the approximate fiscal impact resulting from the annexation of the "County Triangle" to the City of Newport Beach, the following information has been prepared. The analysis uses existing land use and an estimate of Land Use based on development of the vacant 4.6 acres and redevelopment of marginal uses consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan (titled "5 Year Projection"), and shows the yearly net fiscal impact on the City of Newport Beach. The Cost/Revenue generation factors are based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis -System originally developed by Ashley Economic Services, Inc. for the City of Newport Beach in July of 1976. The system has been updated, based on recent Environmental Impact Reports •, to reflect changes in the revenue base as a result of Proposition 13,. The most conservative methodology, utilizing an "average cost approach", has been used for purposes of this comparison. LAND USE EACRESNG PROJECTED EXISTINGS�L5 YEAR PROJECTION Single-Family(2) 1.8 A-ORR-EESS 1325. -0- Duplex (12) 2.1 -O- 6• Multi-Family(366) 13.6 14.0 (12(810�6• (131335)6� .Mobile Hom (216) 15.1 15.1 (7,560)6• (7,560)6• Commercial- 3.6 3.6 6,898 6,898 Industgial4• 7.4 14.9 7,733 15,570 ' Office-'- 5.6 6.2 10,730 11,879 Church/School 1 .3 1 .3 -0- -0- Vacant 4.6 -0- -0- -O- ' 55.1 55.1 4,703 13,452 1 . Ford Property Development Analysis, Fiscal Impact Analysis, Newport Economics Group (Bob Dunham) , June 1979. 2• Yearly net fiscal impact (Costs-Revenues). 3. Based on $ 11 per square foot. The original Ashley Report (1976) contained separate ' generation factors for office and retail and commercial uses. However, the updated , information (1979) available in the Aeronutronic Ford report addresses "Commercial Retail" without a further breakdown of land use. Consewuently, the commercial and office uses in the County Triangle are all considered "Commercial Retail" for pur- poses of this analysis. Based on an estimated commercial density of .0 Gross. 4. Based on an estimated industrial density of .4X Gross. 5. Based on an average home value of $125,000 which would generate a net surplus of approximately $66/unit. (The Aero-Ford report showed figures for $280,000, $225,000, $185,000, and $60,000 so it was necessary to interpolate in order to estimate for a $125,000 home) ' 6. Based on an estimated value of $60,000 per unit (Rental $450 - $700/month). 160 The table on the previous page illustrates that the estimated yearly fiscal impact ' (costs-revenues) for the proposed annexation would be $4,t3. An increase to approximately $13,452 over a 5 year period could be anticipated due to development of vacant acres and redevelopment of marginal uses. These estimates do not include ' costs of any extraordinary capital improvements in the area. -i . / 00 i i� I j ij : ........... l '��iiljiiiil4lI!!!1lij�hjjli' {� � iiji�j=:!!��:'s '�!•, ' %// �`' u � ''^'i::!l::iii!!!liiiiiiiili!!i�i!i'iiiF�'!'ii'�l::•� � im ! city of NEWPORT AC t•.ru .�� Lr qr N.' �• iic EiEiEi:Eci22iii � - ----- —— • 1 1► r ADVANCE PLANNING CIVISION 1l171iiil7717. a1;7 it f li'1�.• ' Clty O EWP®RTEnt.CH OFA VIA city of NEWPORT BEACH rIv1116'fYhl rYK.' L/-" NYMINF , Block 901 Block 103 Block 104 is x M7= 901 OSc. � CENSUS BLOCK MAP Block 959 ? . - Aovauce � lJJ PLANNING .� O o � ji DIVISION ,L - r ® 165 ATTACHMENT 3 t JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL ' COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - ' 515 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET, ROOM 101 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 _ I Y•. I ' - IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE COMMISSION S REVIEW OF THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN• GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54796 YOU ARE REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO ' BYLAW NO. 31, TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE BEST OF" YOUR ABILITY. • ADDITIONAL SHEETS. MAY BE ATTACHED AS NECESSARY. 166 ATIFICATION OF PROPOSAL TITLE OF PROPOSAL County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 APPLICANT NAME City of Newport Beach ADDRESS 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach ZIP CODE 92663 TELEPHONE NUMBER:. AREA CODE (714 ) Advance P1ann g 640-2261 ' A. GENERAL: ' 1. SPECIFY THE TYPE OF PROPOSAL (CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, I.E. ANNEmTION OR DETACHMENT; MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION, I.E. TRANSFER OF TERRITORY; INCORPORATION). ' Annexation of •a County Island to the City of Newport Beach . 2. INDICATE WHETHER THE AFFECTED TERRITORY 'IS Inhabited .. (Inhabited) nna to r G (UNINHABITED 'MEANS LESS THAN (12) REGISTERED VOTERS ON THE PROPOSAL SITE.) 3. '• ' DESCRIBE THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSAL. '-(BE SPECIFIC) •• � ' '' •• 1 . To eliminate a County "Island" t6at* is entirely. . . surrounded by the City of Newport Beach . 2. To provide the Io,gical extension of City services. ' 3. To provide planning and ord'e.rly development consistent with Newport Beach and its adopted LGeneril Plan. 4. To resolve taxation and service probl.ems. B. PHYSICAL FEATURES: 1. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF ACRES INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSAL. 61 .12 acres , 167 .r„•Z;,,DESCRIBE, IN GENERAL, THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY. A nearly level area generally sloping to the southwest. 3. DESCRIBE THE "NATURAL FEATURES" (I.E. WATERCOURSES, P.IDGELINES, CANYONS, ETC.) AFFECTING THE SITE. None 4. DESCRIBE THE "MAN-MADE FEATURES" (I.E. FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS, FREEWAYS, RAILROADS, ETC.) AFFECTING THE SITE. None S. - DESCRIBE THE MAJOR HIGHWAY ACCESS TO THE SITE. Pacific Coast Highway via Superior Avenue. Costa Mesa- Freeway via Superior Avenue , Hospital Road and Newport . . . _Boulevard......... 6. DESCRIBE THE PROXIMITY OF THE SITE TO ANY AIRPORT AND/OR FLIGHT PATH. The triangle is located within five miles of Orange County Airport. C. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: I. . INDICATE THE NUMBER OF•PERSONS RESIDING ON THE SITE. 9,67' •2. •INDICATE THE NUMBER OF LANDOWNERS OWNING LAND WITHIN THE PROPOSAL SITE. 91 ' 3. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF REG_ISTERED.YOTERS WITHIN THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. 430 4. DESCRIBE THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSAL SITE TO OTHER POPULATED AREAS. Surrounded by Newport Beach: Within- one-half mile of Costa Mesa. Within three miles of Huntington Beach . S. DISCUSS THE PROBABLE POPULATION INCREASES WITHIN THE PROPOSAL AREA IN THE NEXT (10) YEARS. Existing County zoning allows for additional residential develop= ment of considerable density. Should development pressure cause _ all the residential areas to develop with housing at permitted 1 intensities , approximately 600 additional people could be expected to reside in the area. Under City zoning the projected population would be about the same as it is now: approximately 1000 people. 2. ktl�N19MI1��rrIrYN�rr•r �_.--' #ISTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL { 168 6. DISCUSS THE LIKELIHOOD OF POPULATION INCREASES IPI ADJACENT AREAS IN' THE, NEXT 10 YEARS. ' Population in surrounding areas- is expected to increase substantially, in the next ten years . By 1990, Newport Beach anticipates 95 ,659 residents; Costa Mesa expects to have 90,440 residents.; and Huntington Beach is expected to- attain ,a population of 221 ,000. D. ECONOMIC 'CHARACTERISTICS: 1. : IDENTIFY THE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS AND TAX RATE' CODE AREAS INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSAL. .. '. (Attached) A.P. NOS. TAX RATE CODES 2. WHAT, IS THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE, PROPOSAL SITE? $39562,790 3. OF THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION, HOW MUCH IS FOR: 7• (a) LAND? $1 ,386,470.00 (b) IMPROVEMENTS? S2.172.2oD.00 •4. INDICATE HOW MANY ACRES ARE PUBLICLY OWNED-WITHIN THE.SUBJECT PROPOSAL. -0- 5. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS EXISTING ON THE SITE. 596 6. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED F.OR THE SITE. 338 7. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LAND USES ON THE SITE: BE SPECIFIC Vacant: ' ' 11 .00 acres' Residential 39.66 acres ' Industrial : 7.86 acres Office: . 75 acres •� Commercial : . 3.00 acres 8: LIST THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE SITE. Commercial : Approximately 4% Light Industrial : Approximately 25% Multiple-family Housing: Approximately 71% 9. DESCRIBE ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN ZONING RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSAL SITE. The current zoning will be brought into conformance with the City's General Plan. This will .require a reduction in the amount of space devoted to residential 1 in- crease development; a substantia -, crease in the land' devoted to industrial uses ; and a slight • 1' Increase in the commercial uses. Areas designated for multiple- family uses by the City would be limited to 15 dwelling units Per buildable acre. 3. ' 1 "';STIFICA71I01l OF PROPOSAL 1� 169 10. INDICATE THE LAND USE DESIG:,AT10:!S APPLIED TO THE SITE ON THE ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. Commercial : Approximately 4% Multiple-Family Residential : Approximately 71% Light Industrial : Approximately 25% 11 . IF THE SITE IS CONSIDERED IN A CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, INDICATE THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION. Commercial : Approximately 10% Industrial : Approximately . 74% Multiple-family: Approximately 16% 12.' INDICATE ANY APPROVED SPHERES OF INFLUENCE FOR ANY LOCAL AGENCIES WHICH MAY _ BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPOSAL. S4-te is within the adopted sphere of influence for City of Newport Beach. 13. DOES THE PROPOSAL INVOLVE ANY TERRITORY UNDER AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CON- TRACT? NO IF YES, LIST THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN SUCH CONTRACT. 14. HAS EITHER A "NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL" OR "NOTICE OF CANCELLATION" BEEN FILED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE? N/A IF YES, INDICATE THE DATE. OF FILING. 15. COULD THE PROPOSAL INDUCE, FACILITATE OR LEAD TO THE CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE. LANDS TO OTHER USES? NO IF YES, EXPLAIN THE CHANGE•IN USE. a 4. 170 &TIFICATION OF PROPOSAL E. GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES: 1 . LIST AND DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LEVEL AND RANGE OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO THE PROPOSAL AREA (I.E. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, HEALTH SERVICES, RUBBISH COLLEC-• TION, LIBRARIES, PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES, SEWERS; STREET MAINTENANCE, STREET LIGHTING, ETC.). WATER: . -Costa Mesa Consolidated Water District SEWER: Costa Mesa Sanitary .District .GAS: Southern Ca.liforni,a Gas Company ELECTRICITY.: Southern _ California Edison Company TELEPHONE: Pacific �Telephone Company FIRE, POLICE, ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL SERVICES: • County of Orange PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Newport-Mesa 'Unified School. District COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Coastline Community College District _ 2.. ESTIMATE THE 'PROBABLE FUTURE NEED FOR NEW; OR INCREASED GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES IN THE PROPOSAL AREA: Ai There should fie 'no :beed for new or increased governmentai 'services'-,in the proposed 'aree.• • ' _ ' . " ' 3. DESCRIBE WHAT ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION EXIST TOR MEETING THE EXPECTED FUTURE NEEDS WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA.. Increased County service levels or annexation to the City of Newport Beach are the only two alternatives . ILL # 171 a #TIFICATI0.1 OF PRO. -.L j Ile PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES: 1 . ENUMERATE AND DESCRIBE 14HAT SERVICES n'OL'LD SE EXTENDED TO THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. General administrative services involving the folloeting City Depart- . ments would be extended to the area: (1 ) City Manager, Attorney, and Clerk (2) Planning Department (3) Building Department 4 Finance Department (Continued below)* �. . 2. DESCRIBE THE LEVEL AND RANGE OF SUCH SERVICES. The level and 'range of services would be' the same. as currently provided within City boundaries. . , INDICATE WHEN SUCH SERVICES CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. General Administrative services , maintenance, normal City trash collec- tion and those services 1.� now provided to some extent by the City (Police;`• Fire, Recreation and Library services) would be offered immediately. t Sewee* and'water 'services would continue to be provided by other 3urisdictions. Public Works services such as street improvements , starai drains and 1_ighting would be provided as the area develops or redevelops. :- "'` 4. INDICATE ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR UPGRADING OF STRUCTURES, ROADS, SEWERS OR YIATER • FACILITIES, OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED OR REQUIRED WITHIN THE AFFECTED TERRITORY SHOULD THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL BE COMPLETED. None. However, necessary improvements will be required'as• the area develops or redevelops . 5. HOW WILL THE REPORTED SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS BE FINANCED?_ Some services will be`• financed at the expense of developers as the property develops or redevelops, Others will be financed through tax revenues. * Maintenance of public property and normal City trash collection would be provided by General Services . Police, Fire, Recreation, and Library services now provided to some extent by the City would become the entire responsibility of the City. JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL • �, I 172 ;r t 7 ' / -6. DESCRIBE WHAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN TO DETACH THE SITE FROM ANY DISTRICTS) WHERE A DUPLICATION OF SERVICE AND TAXATION WOULD RESULT SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED. Sewer service ,to the area will continue to be provided by Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which assesses its own tax for services. Newport Beach maintains its sewer service through the City's sewer service "fee. ` 7. COMMENT ON,ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF VALUE TO THE COMMISSION • IN REACHING A DECISION ON THIS PROPOSAL, _ None: G. (ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR INCORPORATION OR DISTRICT FORMATION PROPOSALS ONLY.) '; 1. LIST AND DESCRIBE THE LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES AND MAJOR PROJECTS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED AGENCY IN THE •FIRST AND SECOND YEAR OF OPERATION. . " Does notapply - ' '2. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED AGENCY'S BUDGET FOR 7HE 'FIRST TWO YEARS OF •� OPERATION. (ATTACH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION) 'Does not apply , -' 3. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED AGENCY'S TAX ,RATE FOR THE FIRST 7140 YEARS OF OPERATION. (ATTACH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION) Does not apply 7. :� + -'11N 1 trtt,A1 iUii Ur YKUNUJAL ,.' 173 �F 4. LIST AND DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVIDING GOVERN?rNTAL SERVICES OTHER THAN BY THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OR FORMATION. Does not apply S: PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFOR14ATION WHICH MAY BE OF VALUE .TO THE COMMISSION IN REACHING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OR FORMATION. Does not apply ■ _ . X. ; G H. LIST THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF EACH PERSON (3 MAXIMUM) THAT NOTICES �1 AND COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE SENT., NAME: 'Craig •T. ' Bluel7 •• • . ADDRESS: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach , CA ZIP CODE . 92663 TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE ( 714) 640-2261 NAME: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE ( ) NAME: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE SUBMITTED BY: DATE: Signature MAILING ADDRESS: TEL. NO.( ) k/78; KIDS 8• „SSESSOR'S TAX RA1F 'PARCEL NUMBER AREA 174 ---.-•--.,_ _ �-TIFICATIOH OF PROPOSAL 116•-320-08 55-033 116-320-14 55-038 D. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS - 1� 116-320-25 55-038 1T6-320-26 55-038 116-320-21 55-038 116-320-28 55-038 424-011-01 55-038 424-011-02 55-038 424-011-03 55-038 424-U11-04 55-038 424-011-05 55-038 424-011-06 55-038 424-011-07 55-038 424-011-08 55-038 ” •424-011-09 55-038 424-011-10 55-038 . 424-011-11 55-038 424-011-12 . 55-038. 424-011-13 65-038 .424-011-14 55-038 424�011-15 55-038 -424-011-16 . 55-038 424-011-17 55-038 424-011-18 55-038 '424-011-19 :'':55-038 : •' ,_. . : . . . 424-011-20. 55-038• ,424-011-2.1 55-038 :,�: •. �. • 424-011-22' . . :._.. 55-038 424-011-23 55-038 424-011-27-• . . - 55-038 424-011-28 55-038 . 424-011-29 55-038 ' -f; , c: r;:Y,i . ''n ; .■ 424-012-01` 55-036 424-021-06 55-038,. 424-021-07' . .: 55-038 :•r °:.-`ri:� 424421r08 -.. - 55-038 424-021-12 55-038 424-021-13 - 55-038 424-021-14 55-038 .;:'` =: ' 424-021-16 55-038 424-021-19 • 55-038 424-021-21 • 55-038 •424-021-24 55-038 424-021-25 55-038 424-151-01 55-036 , 424-151-02 55-038 ,424-051-03 . 55-038 424-051-04 55-038 424-05T-05 55-038 424-061-06 55-038 424-161-01 55-038 424-161-02 55-038• 424-161-03 55-038 424-161-04 55-038 " 424-161-05 55-038 424-161-06 55-038 424-161-08 55-038 424-161-09 '55-038 175 ^� • ATTACHMENT 4 November 2, 1979 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE'ANNEXATION WESTERLY OF SUPERIOR AVENUE A. Arterial Streets 1. Superior Avenue: This street is classified as a primary road (4 lanes divided) in the City's circulation element. Approximately 300 feet at the easterly end of the triangle remains to be widened to meet primary standards. The construction of the improvements for the widening is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-way acquisi- tion is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have to be relocated for the widening. The relocation assistance for •the mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the mobile home park changes use or redevelops, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. • 2. Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in conformance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches of sidewalk which will require completion. 3. 15th Street: This street is currently classified at a secondary road. It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the secondary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which re-- quires that the widening be done along the north side of the street. There is no existing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is antici- pated that the street may have to be completely reconstructed to pro- vide an adequate structural section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will be expensive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of 15 to 20 trailers in the parks on the northerly side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary standards are estimated to be $288,000 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000. �• Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000. The construction estimate also includes a storm drain along 15th Street. The right-of-way and construction of improvements westerly of Monrovia were included in the estimate ($200,000--cons truction and right-of-way). These improvements and right-of-way may partially be funded through prior commitments related to the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. 176 Subject: Public Works •port on Proposed County Trianr Annexation Westerly of Superior nTenue -- Page 2 B. Local Streets • Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street in the annexa- tion area. The street is improved except for 640t feet northerly of 15th Street on the easterly side. The completion of improvements in this area includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, and six feet of paving; estimated to cost $28,000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the southerly portion of the triangle. Medical Lane is little more than an aisle through a parking lot and does not meet the City',s private street guidelines. Development in the southerly portion of ,the triangle should be required to upgrade the street. C. Water Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa County Water District. Under the 'terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time, it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service provided by the City. Some construction costs would-be associated with •such a de-annexation should it occur; this amount is esti- mated to be $15,000. D. Sewer Service . Sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. A1.1 of the sewer tines in the triangle serve only that area or areas in Newport Beach. •They drain by way of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway Where they empty into a Sanitation District tine. Since no areas in Costa Mesa are served, it would be logical to ask for a .de- annexation from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. E. Storm Drainage A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the northerly side of 15th Street. The cost of this facility has been included in the 'road widen- ing estimate. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have potential drainage problems associated with development and/or redevelop- ment of the area. A drainage study will• need to be prepared to determine the effect of development on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsizing or that a portion of the drainage 'from the area needs to be diverted to the west. 177 v r/ Subject: Public Works Report on Proposed County Triangle Annexation Westerly of Superior Avenue Page 3 F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsibility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment district proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. G. Summary Much of the improvement work which is enumerated above would be 'the respon- sibility of the adjacent property as it develops or redevelops'. Of the remaining items, none has a sufficiently high priority to merit funding in the near future. The largest item, 15th Street widening,,has a very taw priority of need at the present time. Benjamin B. Nolan r��e Public Works Director DW:jd I 178 • ATTACHMENT 5 October 31 , 1979 TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 'ATTN: CRAIG BLUELL FROM: General Services Department, SUBJECT: PROVIDING CITY SERVICES TO THE PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION AREA In .accordance with your memo dated October 19, 1979', the following special expenditures that would be required by the General Services, Department in order to provide normal City services to the County *trtan le are*g Manufacture b install 15 street name signs $ 300.00 Manufacture 6 install 5 speed limit signs 165.00 Miscellaneous street striping 100.00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with asphaltic concrete • 250.00 • Put in approximately 20,200 sq. ft. of sidewalk 30,300.00 Put in approximately 1,940 linear ft. of curb 6 gutter 21,340.00 Overlay Monrovia Ave, with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete kv to re-establish street crown 8 restore proper drainage 5,250,00 TOTAL $57,705.00 Since there are very few residential. units and most of the area is .dev- eloped for light industry that now uses bins, there are no additional refuse collection costs anticipated at this time. It is recommended that a professional study be made to determine what the storm drain requirements for the 'County triangle should be: REC EIV E'D Wade S. Beyel er �; D:eu r,•.iuM WSB/i b OCT 3 i i979p�- ,4 citi!5 H NE1A'P�F. ' S i :'y f - _ ATTACHMENT 6 179 Re.. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (_9 POLICE DEPARTMENT 19? S1 HFwP0 ,J' ,.ti t•.�` November 2, 1979 .A oti<iF`icy ` TO: Department of Community Development FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: PROVIDING POLICE SERVICES FOR PROPOSED COUNTY TRIANGLE AREA ANNEXATION RECOMMENDATION: (r From a police perspective it is recommended that the "County TriangTe," 11�5 located within the Newport Beach city limits, be annexed. Although the Police Department would be to some degree impacted by annexation, consideration of economy, efficiency, and effectivness makes annexation a logical choice. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are, and have been, responsible for law enforcement in the Triangle. However, Newport Beach police units respond to the Triangle on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. This occurs primarily because those agencies having responsibility have insufficient units in the area, or.because their estimated time of arrival is not a satisfactory "response time." These emergency calls include burglary alarms, armed robberies,, thefts, locating walkaway mentally •ill patients, and traffic accidents for purposes of medical aid and traffic control. WORKLOAD: Statistical information was not available on short notice from the CHP. The., Sheriff's Department was not able to provide total "called for services;" but did provide crime data for fiscal year 1978-70: Part I .Offenses (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Burglary, Grand Theft, Aggravated Assault, Auto Theft) : 39 Part II Offenses (Lesser Offenses) : 32 During the same period, Newport -Beach experienced 3J63 Part I crimes and 2,564 Part II crimes for a total of 5,727. Therefore, the Triangle crime re- presents about 1 .25% of what Newport Beach experienced. Based on the above figures, we would anticipate an increase in workload pf 416 manhours in the Patrol Division and 158 manhours in the Detective Divisfbn for a departmental total of 574 manhours. 180 31 Providing Police Services for Proposed County Triangle Area Annexation Page '2 . COST: � No immediate financial impact relative to the Police Department's budget is anticipated. The County Triangle is located within Area Two of the Police Department's Area-Policing organization. Commander of Area Two is Lt. Jim Gardiner, who. is of the opinion that the police services.to be provided to the Triangle area could be provided with present resources. As indicated in the "Workload" section, we anticipate a departmental increase of 574 manhours. The Department's current budgetary cost per field hour is - $25.19. Thus, the cost of policing the Triangle computes to approximately $14,500. However, as previously noted, it is believed that present manpower can absorb this increased workload. As described previously, we are now responding to calls in the Triangle area, However, at present, neither the Police Department nor the City is receiving any revenues for these services. To be cost effective .from the Police Department's standpoint, the City should annex the County Triangle in order to obtain the revenues to pay for these currently supplied emergency services. LEVEL OF SERVICE: Another consideration is a comparison of services that would be available from ., this Police Department versus the services provided by the existing agencies for residents of the Triangle Area. Response time would be dramatically lower, primarily because our units are constantly on patrol within the current city boundaries that totally surround this area, whereas county units may have to respond from another county area miles away. Additionally, patrol characteristics would be enhanced as, again,, city units are constantly patrolling surrounding areas and would be able to extend their patrol- ling with a minimum of effort. County units must come from a distance away, thus losing patrol time due to much higher driving time to and from the area. Further, centralizing both patrol and, traffic functions for this area in one central , more closely accessible location would be much more convenient for the County Triangle residents, FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Captain Rich Hamilton at '644-3650. Charles R. Gross Chief of Police ATTACHMENT 7 181 .y • 'co- '.M ` �e°�p1pvp NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT �' c�,• �,�. . DATE ^^+^ber 30 1979 • TfX�t'� Craig T. Bluell , Associate Planner ROM: \ James M. Reed, Fire Chief I SUBJECT: Fire protection to county triangle annexation. i • hat the area under consideration for annexation would affec It is my fe'�ing t the Fire Department in the following manner. COST No increase im manning or equipment would be needed. LEVEL OF SERVICE provided there . .a,.. . . -Services to this area would remain at the same level as presently now Orange the County Newport Department•DeThis levelnt under service is aid commonmto all areasthe served by this department. • AREA FIRE PROTECTION PROBLEMS As a result tsof annexationdards for Of this ntiatedcommercial and lind controld gain industrial development on the CityctsNnoto nl the area to be annexed, but adjacent exposed areas of of Beach Business and -industry within the area haveng no sarchange ious fire of oprotectioccupancynoreconstruction Existing flaw can necessitates a change. Water supply for fire protection appears to be adequate excepting a single dead end leg of 6" main which runs eastward from Monrovia south of 15th Street. There are na•significant structures in this area at this time. Accessibility to existing structures does not appear to be a problem- The amount of weed abatement work to be done in the annexation area can be handled without increasing staff. FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCIES xists mong idents of his as toAt e who eprovides etheir fire ibprotection/emergency amedical sservices. t area This annexation would resolve the confusion. JMR:rw ,JAMES M. REED (Form No. 36 NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT N0: DATE October 30, 1979 TO: Craig T. Bluell, Associate Planner FROM: James M. Reed, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Cost of fire service to county triangle annexation. I would anticipate that the fire department can provide fire protection, paramedic and fire prevention inspection services to this area without additional manpower or equipment. Under an existing agreement with the Orange County Fire Department, we presently provide fire protection and paramedic services to the area. The only additional workload would relate to fire prevention inspection- services. 1JAMES M. REED JMR:rw 1.0 n S \i`� REC51v:0 • ti� Co....•.nt�y f Da:• i..n.•,+nt r OCT 3 31 g 1919+t-j CIfY Gr _ NEWOR7 E:t:ACH, Form No. 36 1 183 ATTACHMENT 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 31 , 1979 TO: CRAIG BLUELL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: SERVICES TO COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION AREA As requested, the figure below represents current costs for tree trim- ming that would become the responsibility of this Department if the proposed annexation were to occur. 'Assumptions have been made that significant public park or beautification development would not occur on the vacant parcels. And, as recreational services are now based on a self-supporting basis, the impact of additional residents i.s mute. Estimate of cost for trimming: 5 days for two-man crew: $ 704.00 Equipment, materials & supplies: 836.50 • Administrative Overhead: 308.00 TOTAL $ 1,848.50 l PRODUCTION PLACE has 7 Ficus Nitida. They are behind the sidewalk but would be on easement. There is no damage to sidewalk or curb at this time, but as the trees grow they will cause damage. MONROVIA STREET has 2 large Ficus Nitida, one large Date Palm, 3 Oleander standards, 6 FFoporum latum and 4 Eucalyptus. The 2 Ficus are very large and have done damage to the sidewalk and curb. The estimate for repair should come from General Services. None of the other existing trees are doing damage at this time. ` . 15th STREET has two Eucalyptus. No damage at this time. �• R- GId�-U •�,� Ronald A. Whitley i Rw:h 1979" ;4 . ' ATTACHMENT 9 184 LEGAL DESCRIPTION COUNTY "TRIANGLE ANNEXATION NO'. 87 To The City of Newport Beach All of Lots 715, through 717,2, 815 through 819. 915 through 919, 1015 thtough. 1017 and .a portion of Monrovia Avenue, Placentia Avenue and Newport Avenue and all of 15'th Street as shown on the "First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract" recorded in Book 89, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder in ,the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an angle point In' the existing boundary line"I -: of the City of Newport Beach as created by "Annexation No. 54" and the "Superior Avenue Annexation" said point being the most westerly southwest corner of said "Superior Avenue Annexation" ; 6,� thence along said existing boundary line per said "Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "First Addition to Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "Annexation No. 58" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital. Road Annexation Nd.79" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74" and per "Annexation No. . 54" in a general Easterly, Southwesterly, and Northwesterly . . direction to the point of beginning. ; .., The above described, parcel of land contains 63.6 acres, more~. or less. _ : •: ,•st_.;r.-:•': . ..., ate" •,•• .. •r`, .. .. - ^Y ' '.7;. . .+s ,t'K,�t�y , • , •- Corrected copy ' 3/13/80 b 85 ATTACNMENT 10 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9647 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLYING TO THE LOCAL AGENCY ' FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY SURROUNDED BY TH$•CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND KNOWN AS THE "COUNTY-TRIANGLE," PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 (Annexation No. 87) WHEREAS, the logical formation and determination of the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach is an important factor in the orderly development of the City; and � WHEREAS, the proper management of islands of County territory by the City is essential-to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City; and WHEREAS, the extension of the logical boundaries of the City to include islands of County territory is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the.area known as the "County Triangle" is totally surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and can best be served by the City of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows 1. ' The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby applies to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for authorization to order the annexation of the County Triangle without an election, pursuant to the Municipal . Organization Act of 1977. 2. The area to be annexed, known as the County Triangle, 'is generally described as follows: 10/5/79 186 That area located between Superior Avenue on the southeast, the city limits of the City of Newport Beach on the north, and the city limits of the City of New- port Beach on the southwest, and, said area is shown on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3.' This proposed change of City boundaries is by form of annexation of an unincorporated•island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby requests that the proceedings to be taken for annexation of said area be authorized pursuant to the Municipal organization Act of 1977 and that the proceedings maybe taken without election pursuant to Section 35150(f) of the California Govern- ment Code, and that-the Local Agency Formation Commission per- form all acts necessary to implement said change of organization L • of the City of Newport Beach. 5. The nature of these proceedings, are a jurisdictional boundary change for the logical inclusion of a County island within the corporate limits of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 9th day of October , 1979. Mayor ' ATTEST: City RRC/kv r 10/4/79 V /�CHtRIlb�51 MI !1 CM aAR Q III:Cltt a!R..d �.44 _ r WAR. DOT 11 1979 ttvwazvl+ rtnca LIMY ♦IUNVAM1 E � a ----------- 1 �A AA 1 1 AovANee -_-U PLANNING OIViB10N -✓ ' rW4�',11,1...T� sRp?";nv� •rs>yn •iw..r'?P'�'(Y✓"{�is �T ;7v IIt�'Xp„ r v',. �{ y, ^�s- kp±r t ' �J�M1.f� ;III M yy�1i"\i4 T•y.4•�1, l Y•It1 M•� . � 1. n ' .. t ; c.. .f! t...A:, !t�� \' -4•� �• L: s,,. .Y,w>•�.0 'Yry*. `-'i�a.�yti• ,3/f 188 Alt pL.-. �rruror� CO Do Nor �. .:, ►��, � "== ��� PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 714) 640-2137 January 17 , 1980 Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer, Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza - Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Dear Mr. Turner: In accordance with the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and pursuant to Section 35150(f) of that Act, the City of Newport Beach requests that the Local Agency Formation Commission accept for filing this City Council' Resolution - of application for annexation•. The City further requests the commencement of proceedings for this annexation, referred to as County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87, to - the City of Newport Beach, an-d that this matter be placed on the agenda of the Commission`s ,meeting of February 1.3, 1980. Also enclosed with the Resolution of Application are the additional items needed to complete the application: 1 ) A plan for providing services to the subject - area, addressing the items in the "P'lan for Services" as specified by the Act and LAFCO. 2) A reproducible map and regal description. ` 3) A completed "Justification of Proposal ."' 4) A letter regarding environmental documentation. 5) A list of each affected registered Voter and each affected landowner with envelopes addressed and posted (First Class ) to same. ' 6) Filing and processing fees of �588.6 f 'y 189 Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer Page 2 January 17, 1980 If you have any question concerning this matter., please contact Craig Bluell , Senior Planner, at ( 714) 640-2261 . Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAM . D. HEW CKER j. Director JDH/kk Attachments 190 P4 � BO HOT ©R OP RESOLUTION NO. 964 - 1 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NENPORT BEACH APPLYING TO THE LOC;Z AGENCY FORMATION CO[MIISSION (LAFCO) OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF NEOPORT BEACH CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND KNOWN AS THE "COUNTY TRIANGLE," PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL "ORGANIZATION ACT OF' 1977 - (Annexation No. 87) WHEREAS, the logical formation and determination of the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach is an important factor in the orderly development of the City; and - WHEREAS, the proper management of islands of County territory by the City is essential-to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City; and WHEREAS, the extension of the logical boundaries of 4 the City to include islands of County territory is appropriate; and ' ,WHEREAS - ^ ^the area known as the County Triangle is, totally surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and can best be served by the City of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: 1. ' The city Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby applies to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for authorization to order the annexation of the County Triangle without an election, pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. 2. The area to be annexed, known as the County Triangle, 'is generally described as follows: 10/5/79 i 191 That area located between Superior Avenue on the southeast, the city limits of the City of Newport Beach on the north, and the city limits of the City of New- port Beach on the southwest, and, said area is shown on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1 3; This proposed change of City boundaries is by form of annexation of an unincorporated island completely surrounded•by the City of Newport Beach. 4'. The City,Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby reguests'that the,proceedings to be taken for annexation of said.area be authorized pursuant to the Municipal organization Act of 1977 and that 'the proceedings may be taken without election pursuant to Section 35150(f) of the California Govern- ment Code; and that the-Local Agency Formation Commission per- form all acts necessary to implement said change of organization of the City of Newport Beach. 5. The nature of these proceedings are a jurisdictional t bonndary .change for the logical inclusion of a County island within the corporate limits of Newport Beach_ ADOPTED this 9th day of October , 1979. Mayor ATTEST: � r , C ty C er ' ugc/kv CM(WPD AS t. _ vil 10/4/79 01 ettr ev„x of m:ottor ne.n.t.� � OCTelm 1 1 1979 ' - fRiY116�VN fNwE _ LIMY MI{INCPL _ 's m 5M& ' > r r • �t AUVANCS r N � ' • � 1 •LANNIND p O p - u G��l • ' r OIVIOIDM �� ;I1rf � � � • � �,�. `,� � AF ' � -,:� '� .�' ,r■i6 ICI A M.11/►• (Mi �� FNE C� 193 Y L I "PLAW FOR SEi% ICE&" �J�,''!i�•.pP.:NQ7'f F�F JA i 1 i r� 'r jq) 1�Ir - ?®r In't,rodL1Cti011 f•ICFAMD T. Tu.i;_Z, GC llTl:c CFFlC,R i�rtl. ACc"CY FC.^.Iv"•?'!:'f C9":iiSS10(I Pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGc) Chapter 2, Article 1, Sections 35100 -• 35104, a City is empowered to initiate preliminary annexation pro- ceedings by adoption of a resolution. If the City initiates proceedings for annex- ation, it must also submit a plan for providing service to the affected area. In accordance with the requirements of MORGA and the requirements of LAFCO, the follow- ing "Plan for Services" has been prepared for the County Island in West Newport Beach commonly known as the "County Triangle". This plan represents the City's best esti- mate of what improvements and services are required for the "County Triangle" and how much they will cost. In addition, planning ratters of a general nature are discussed and a cost/revenue analysis is provided. Existing County Zoning and Surrounding Land Uses The County of Orange has established the zoning designations for the County Triangle area. These designations are briefly described as. follows: That area westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 (Industrial) uses. The area easterly of Pla- centia Avenue is designated CC (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses. The remainder of the County Triangle (between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues) is R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Residential) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia Avenue shown CC (Commercial Communi.ty). The land uses surrounding the County Triangle area include tovm homes and condomin- iums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the north. Existinq Land Use The County Triangle is a mixed use area and can be generally described as follows: Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate. There are also Single Family residential and office uses in the area. Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for Multi-family and mobile home residential uses. *The area also contains some commercial, office industrial and single-family residen- tial uses. Easterly of Placentia Avenue, commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrial and multi-family residential uses also in the area. LAND USE INVENTORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1.77 A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 30.855 A . DUPLEX 2.133 A MOBILE HOME 15',081 A COMMERCIAL 9.141 A OFFICE 5.571 INDUSTRIAL 7.397 A INSTITUTIONAL 1.320 A TOTAL DEVELOPED ACREAGE 50.483 A VACANT 4.644 A TOTAL ACREAGE (EXCLUDES STREETS) 55.127 A to 194 Lorin o and Lend Use Plan Consistency The City of Newport Beach General Plan shows land use designations for the County Triangle area. That portion of the Triangle southerly of X:edical Lane extended is shown for "Multi-Family Residential" uses. Nortierly of isdical Lane, the Land Use Plan shows, an "Industrial" designation. Must of the area easterly of Placentia Avenue is "Retail and Service Conmercial" with the small northerly strip designated "Industrial". When compared to Orange County zoning designations, there are two areas of incon- sistency with the Newport Beach General Plan. The first is the strip of "Industrial" General Plan designation east of Placential Avenue. The County zoning shows this . area for "Commercial Community" uses. The second and largest area of inconsistency occurs in the area northerly of Medical Lane extended and between Monrovia and Pla- centia Avenues. County zoning allows R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Residential) uses while t the Newport Beach General Plan designates the area "Industrial". Upon annexation, these inconsistencies gill have to be resolved to bring General Plan.and Zoning Designations into conformance as required by State Law. EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION BLOCK EXISTING POP. POP/,H.H. PROJECTED POP.(Nerr,ExisG. ting) . 103 476 1.65 476 104 52 1.33 50 959 422 1.47 418 901 6 2.0 0 TOTAL 956 944 " Community Facilities And Services The County Triangle is surrounded by well-established urban development which has all the public facilities and services normally provided to, a modern city. Several juris- dictions are presently responsible for providing community facilities and services to the County Triangle resulting in duplication of effort, overlapping responsibility, and in some case's, inadequate or totally absent facilities and services. Annexation of the County Triangle would be the first step in consolidation of jurisdictional respon- sibilities-, elimination of'wasteful duplication of effort and enhancement of conununity facilities. Schools The Newport-Mesa School District has experienced a decline in enrollment since the '1969- 1970 school year. On a district-wide basis, the enrollment figures have dropped from • . •26,264 students in 1967-1970 to 20,034 students in 1979-1980. This decrease in enroll- ment has necessitated the closure of three elementary schools; Monte Vista, Mesa Verde and Victoria. School age children residing in the area attend Whittier Elementary School. Communication with the Newport-Mesa School District student predictions staff disclosed that there would be sufficient capacity for both Elementary and High School age students that might reside in the area. No significant impact resulting from annexation. 195 Police Services The Orange County Sherriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are respon- sible for providing law enforcement to the "County Triangle". However, Newport Beach police units respond to the area on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. This occurs primarily because those agencies having responsibility have insufficient patrol units in the area, or because the estimated response time is not satisfactory. Emergency calls include burglary alarms, armed robberies, thefts, locating walk-away mentally-ill patients, and traffic accidents for purposes of medical aid and traffic control. Based on crime statistics 'provided by the Sherriff's Department for the period 1978- 1979 and Newport Beach crime statistics for the same period, crime in the County Tri- angle represented about 1 .25% of what Newport Beach experienced. Based on the crime data provided by the Sherriff's Department, the City law enforcement "workload" would increase by approximately 574 manhours. However, the City Police Department pelieves that present manpower can absorb the increased workload since some of the, projected manhours are currently being provided as assistance with emergency calls. Annexation would define responsibility for police services, eliminate duplication of effort and provide better -service to the area. • Increased manhours for service could be absorbed by present staffing and the City would- begin to receive revenues from the area for service now being provided but not paid for through City taxation. Fire Services The Orange County Fire Department is responsible for fire protection service to the County Triangle. However, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department is first to be dispatched by the Orange County Fire Department to an emergency fire call under the l provisions of a mutual aid agreement. When emergency fire calls require backup assis- tance, this assistance is provided by the Orange County Fire Department. All emer- gency paramedic services are provided by Newport Beach's Fire Department. The only additional workload would relate to fire fighting backup which would be' provided by existing fire companies and fire prevention inspection services. The Newport Beach Fire Department anticipates that all fire protection, paramedic and fire prevention inspection services can be provided by existing manpower and equip- ment. i At the present time, considerable confusion exists among residents of the area as to who provides their fire protection/emergency medical services. Annexation'of the County Triangle would resolve the confusion. In addition, fire prevention inspection and weed .abatement would become the responsibility of the City Fire Department. As.-in the case of police services, annexation would eliminate overlapping responsibility and provide the City with revenue for services now being provided. Public Works Improvements and Repairs ' This section represents the most significant problems that the City will have to resolve "if annexation takes place. Much of the improvement work which is enumbrated on the following page would be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner as it devel- ops or reddvelops. Of the remaining items, none has a sufficiently high priority to merit funding in the near future. The largest item, 15th'Street widening, has a very low priority of need at the present time. ►z 196 • A. Arterial Streets 1 . Superior Avenue: This street is clessifie� as a primary road (4 lanes divided) in the Citty's circulation elewen t. l*pproxiamtely 300 feet at the easterly end of the triangle remains t: be widened to meet primary standards. The construction of the improv_ments for the widening is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-:•gay acquisition is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have' to be relocated for the widen- ing. The relocation assistance for the mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the 'mobile home park changes use or redevelops_, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. 2. .Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in con- formance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches , os sidewalk which will require completion. 3. 15th Street: This street is currently classified as. a secondary road. I.t was recently added to the arterial street system, and has not been improved in conformance with the secondary classification. The County has adopted a precise alignment for, this street which requires that the widening be done along the north side of the street. There is no exist- ing street westerly of Monrovia Avenue. It is anticipated that the street may have to be completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural • section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will be expensive and time consuming. Widening will require 'relocation of 15 to '20 trailers in the parks on the northerly-side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary standards are estimated to be $2882000 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000. Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for, the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000. The construction estimate also includes a storm drain along 15th Street. . The right-of-way and construction of improvements westerly of Monrovia were included in the estimate ($200,000--Construction and 'right-of-way). These improvements and right-of-way may partially be funded through prior commitments related to. the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. B. Local Streets Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street in the annexation area. The street is improved except for 6401 feet northerly, of 15th Street on the easterly side. The completion of improvements in this area inclu4es curb, gutter, sidewalk,. and six feet of paving, estimated .to cost $28,000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the southerly portion of the triangle. Medical Lane is little more than an aisle through a parking lot , and does not meet the City's private street guidelines. Development in the southerly protion of the triangle should be required to upgrade the street. 1 197 C. Water Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Consolidated Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time, it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service provided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur; this amount is estimated to be $15,000. D. Sewer Service Local sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District,, while main transmission lines are provided by Orange County Sanitation District #6., The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. All of the sewer lines in the triangle serve only that area or areas in Newport Beach. They drain by way of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway where they empty into a Sanitation District line. I E. Storm Drainage A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the northerly, side of 15th Street. The cost of this facility has been included in the road widen- ing estimate. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have poten- tial drainage problems associated with development and/or redevelopment of the area. A drainage study will need to be prepared to determine the effect of develop- ment on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsiz- ing or that a portion of the drainage from the area needs to be diverted to the west. F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsibility of the property owners under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment dis- trict proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. In addition to the improvements discussed above, a number of minor repairs and ,improve- 'ments are needed to bring the County Triangle up •to City standards in the short term. The improvemerts that would be needed are as follows: i -6- yLl • 198 • Manufacture and install 15 street name signs $ 300.00 Manufacture and install 5 speed limit signs 165.00 Miscellaneous street striping 100.00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with asphaltic concrete 250.00 Overlay Monrovia Ave. with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete to re-establish street crown and restore proper drainage 5,250.00 Street tree trimming 1 ,848.00 , $ 7,913.00 Cost/Revenue In order to evaluate the approximite fiscal impact resulting from the annexation of the "County Triangle" to the City of Newport Beach, the following information has been prepared. The analysis uses existing land use and an estimate of Land Use based on development of- the vacant 4.6 acres and redevelopment of marginal uses consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan (titled "5 Year Projection"), and shows the yearly net fiscal impact on the City of Newport Beach. The Cost/Revenue generation factors are based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis System originally developed by Ashley Economic Services, Inc. for the City of Newport Beach in July of 1976. The system has been updated, based on recent Environmental Impact Reports •, to reflect changes in the revenue base as a result of Proposition 13.. The most conservative methodology, utilizing an "average. cost approach", has been L used for purposes of this comparison.EXISTING PRACRCTE D FISCAL C LAND USE ACS EXISTING5 YEAR PROJECTION Single-Family(2) 1.8 -0- 1325• -0- Duplex (12) 2.1 -0- (420))6• -0- Mutts-Family(366) 13.6 14.0 (12,810)6• (13,335)6• Mobile Hon ((216)) 16..1 15.1 (7,560 6• (7,560)6• Commercial 3.6 3.6 69898 6,898 Industri'al4• 7.4 14.9 7,733 15,570 Office • 5.6 6.2 10,730 119879 Church/School 1 .3 1 .3 -0- -0- Vacant 4.6 -0- -0- -0- 55.1 55.1 41103 132452 .a ford Property Development Analysis, Fiscal Impact Analysis, Newport Economics Group (Bob Dunham) , June 1979. 2. Yearly net fiscal impact (Costs-Revenues). 3. Based on $ .11 per square foot. The original Ashley Report (1976) contained separate generation factors for office and retail and commercial uses. However, the updated information (1979) available in the Aeronutronic Ford report addresses "Commercial Retail" without a 'Further breakdown of land use. Consequently, the commercial •and office uses in the County Triangle are all considered "Commercial. Retai,l" for Our- ' poses of this analysis. Based on an estimated commercial density of .4X Gross. 4. Based on an estimated industrial density of .4X Gross. S. Based on an average home Value of $125,000 which would generate a net surplus of approximately $66/uni't. (The Aero-Ford' report showed figures for $280,000, $2252000, $185,000, and $60.000 so it was necessary to interpolate in order to estimate fora $125,000 home) 6. Based on an estimated value of $60,000 ,per unit (Rental $450 - '$700/month). 1 997 The table on the previous page illustrates that the estimated yearly fiscal impact (costs-revenues) for the proposed annexation would be S4,703. An increase to approximately $13,452 over a 5 year period could be anticipated due to development of vacant acres and redevelopment of marginal uses. These •estimates do not include costs of any extraordinary capital improvements in the area. L � r / ..... We- - PO _.._._._._...._..._ . .. ........".................. t"n_:".... W^e.": :::>::.: -- -- _ - ��s:. .t. arc ..s .............:.... ..aiEec: VYrA . NEWPOO RT =•EA 'T /J /ROOUL'iVµ ftaG$ , j• :� .:` ::z's-s= aD�;•t ...�rv-C�. '. ' �`_>� � c c e e4'�..S�y;l�'°. 1 1:-• 'a•�'•:..����� �-S yt- .Pr`i'" 1[sYC.•21v'-:''•eG'a'•'�F _yam � w IS 7R' ett,SEt cee coca• yR�». ••:;r y ease an j P c j ;c.ot jc A Y or o cs•cce .... -y .: v • a. C�V�1/11„I ICY IV Nrl • cccc• •i c•::••j �. •:•i• wfl„IUIw/1V/ill .j �� li Amm-rimy 51N�.8 fprv�Y va- wr ADVANCE Ow @ F PLANNING ' DIVISION f i twaua-clrK I►>,cs - 1 � . .... ....... . .. . .............. ... ........ Ir \ 14 W 519W r o tt F' L{` I i• I' . Ow tom! 0416%f.KGAL,MAL '. Jr hWlxl"'PMS1�Y ACVAMCC h� .f. • ^.� _ {{ PLANNING f DIVISION t ' ATTACHMENT 9 • 203 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION COUNTY "TRIANGLE ANNEXATION 110 . 87 To The City of Newport Beach All of Lots 715 , through 717, 815 through 819, 915 through 919, 1015 through 1017 and a portion of Monrovia Avenue , PI-acentia Avenue and Newport Avenue and all of 15th Street as shown on the "First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract" recorded in Book 81 Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps• in the office of the County Recorder in the County of Orange, State of California , more particularly •described as follows: Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary .line of the City of Newport Beach as created by "Annexation No . 54"; and the "Superior Avenue Annexation" said point being the most westerly southwest corner of said "Superior Avenue Annexati.on",; thence along said existing boundary line per said "Supe'rfor : Avenue Annexation" per the "First Addition to Superior .Avenue Annexation" .per the "Annexati-on No . 58" per the "Supe-rior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation N6 . 79" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No . 74" and per "Annexation No . 54" in a general Easterly, Southwesterly, and Northwesterly ` direction to the point of beginning . _ The above described parcel of land contains 63.6 acres, more or less . Corrected copy 3/13/80 i l :'•'1`;N-• •e 1J 1! �i �'71 d C-0 d P �! ��� _� �.I� 8� t \ ,per, Jim fir L--Arc-gw.:— F—,g r 1 S Eel/O.Q :O ►xENdE NN .AT�GN ,' via r No „7 Of e/s Ac pqA �� L 6GENrJ _ i , +` 4NNEXeT/QN NO �•� Jf,ae�>�/ T!/E ray !; 1 - b „- NElYPDdT.. BE,oC.ti Thic •1' 1�n l<+y n�•: 9' :4"y !M24"wJV TI .�4't; l:a. 'k.yR •x�' ' • 'z. •e:f;`• `,•••-•,fir Y`' rryl:.��{� y ��- <• � /JV y� /��.Yi584T.GYi1t?79 - , � S •:J JR. <l. . S � frf/.O FIT J 205, f ATTACHMENT 3 JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL °o 'llllor�op)e gFMO�F COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET, ROOM 101 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 -, ' - IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE COMMISSION S REVIEW OF TjHE FACTORS 'SET FORTH IN- GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54796 YOU ARE REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO . BYLAW No. 31, TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING •QUESTIONNAI'RE TO THE BEST OF' i YOUR ABILITY. • ADDITIONAL SHEETS MAY BE ATTACHED ,A$ NECESSARY.. . i �` r• 206 ATIFICATION OF PROPOSAL TITLE OF PROPOSAL County "Triangle" .Annexation No . 87 , APPLICANT NAME Ci ty o.f 'Newport Beach ADDRESS 3300 "New o.rt Boulevard Newport Beach ZIP CODE 92663 TELEPHONE NUMBER:• AREA CODE (714 ) Advance Plann g 640-2261 A. GENERAL: 1. SPECIFY THE 'TYPE OF PROPOSAL (CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, I.E. ANNEXATION OR DETACHMENT; MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION, I.E. TRANSFER OF TERRITORY; INCORPORATION). Annexation of -a County Island to the• City of Newport Beach 2. INDICATE WHETHER THE AFFECTED TERRITORY IS Inhabited (Inhabited) nna to (UNINHABITED MEANS LESS THAN (12) REGISTERED VOTERS ON THE PROPOSAL SITE.) 3. DESCRIBE THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSAL. -(BE SPECIFIC,) 1. To eliminate a County "Is•land" that is entirely surrounded by the City of 'Newport Beach . _ 2. To provide the logical 'eictension of City services. 3. To provide planning and orderly development consistent with Newport Beach and i,ts adopted General Plan. 4. To resolve taxation and service problems. • r B. PHYSICAL FEATURES: 1., INDICATE THE NUMBER OF ACRES INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSAL. 61 .12 acres JUSTIFICATION QL?ROPOSAL ' • • 2. DESCRIBE, IN GENERAL, THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY. A nearly level area generally sloping to the southwest. 3. DESCRIBE THE "NATURAL FEATURES" (I.E. WATERCOURSES, P,IDGELINES, CANYONS, ETC. ) AFFECTING THE SITE. None 4: DESCRIBE THE "MAN-MADE FEATURES" (I.E. FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS, FREEWAYS, -RAILROADS, ETC.) AFFECTING THE SITE. None 5. DESCRIBE THE MAJOR HIGH14AY ACCESS TO THE SITE. Pacific Coast Highway via Superior Avenue. Costa Mesa Freeway via Superior Avenue , Hospital Road- and Newport Boulevard. : 6. DESCRIBE THE PROXIMITY OF THE SITE TO ANY AIRPORT AND/OR FLIGHT PATH. The triangle is located within five miles of Orange County Airport. L C. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 1. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS RESIDING ON THE SITE. 967 2. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF LANDOWNERS OWNING LAND WITHIN THE PROPOSAL SITE. , 91 3. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS WITHIN THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. 430 4, DESCRIBE THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSAL SITE TO OTHER POPULATED AREAS. Surrounded by Newport Beach . Within one-half mile of Costa Mesa. Within three miles of Huntington Beach . 5. DISCUSS THE PROBABLE POPULATION INCREASES 14ITHIII THE PROPOSAL AREA IN THE NEXT (10) YEARS. t . Existing County zoning allows for additional residential devel,op'u ment of considerable density . Should development pressure cause all the residential areas to develop with housing at permitted intensities , approximately 600 additional people could be expected to reside in the area. Under City zoning the projected population would be about the h s.ame as it is now: approximately 1000 people . 2. 208 ( ! •ISTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL �. 6. DIS CUSS THE LIKELIHOOD OF POPULATION INCREASES I,61 AD�ACENT AREAS IN THE* NEXT 10 YEARS. Population in surrounding areas is expected to increase substantially in the next ten years . By 1990, Newport Beach anticipates 95 ,659 residents-; Costa Mesa expects to have 900440 residents ; and Huntington, Beach is expected to attain a population of 221 ,000. D. ECONOMIC 9HARACTERISTICS: 1. IDENTIFY THE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS AND TAX RATE CODE AREAS INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSAL. (Attached) &P. NOS. TAX RATE CODES 2. WHAT IS THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL SITE? $3,,562, 79Q 3. OF THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION, HOW MUCH IS FOR: (a)' LAND? $1 ,386,470.00 (0) IMPROVEMENTS? 12,172,200.00 • 4. • INDICATE HOW MANY ACRES ARE PUBLICLY OWNED �WITHIN THE-SUBJECT PROPOSAL. -0; 5. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, EXISTING ON THE SITE. 596 6. INDICATE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED 'FOR THE SITE. 338 7. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LAND USES) ON THE SITE. (BE 'SPECIFIC) Vacant:, 11'.00 acres Residential 39.,66 acres ' Industrial : 7.86 acres Office: . 75 acres Commercial : 3.00 acres 8: LIST THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE SITE. Commercial : Approximately 4% Light Industrial : Approximately 25% Multiple-family Housing: Approximately 71% 9. DESCRIBE ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN ZONING RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSAL SITE. The .current zoning will be brought into conformance with the City's General Plan . This will require a reduction i'n the amount - of space devoted to residential development; a substantial in- i crease in, the land devoted to industrial uses ; and a slight - increase in the commercial uses . Areas designated for multiple- family uses. by the City would be limited to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. 3. 209 0 i 01STIFICATION OF PROPOSAL • 10. INDICATE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS APPLIED TO THE SITE ON THE ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. Commercial : Approximately 4% Multiple-Family Residential : Approximately 71% Light Industrial : Approximately 25% 11 . IF THE SITE •IS CONSIDERED IN A CITY�S GENERAL PLAN, INDICATE THAT LAND USE ' DESIGNATION. Commercial : Approximately . 10% Industrial : Approximately 74% Multiple-family: Approximately 1.6% 12. INDICATE ANY APPROVED SPHERES OF INFLUENCE FOR ANY LOCAL AGENCIES"WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPOSAL. Site is within the adopted sphere of influence for City of Newport Beach. 13. DOES THE PROPOSAL INVOLVE ANY TERRITORY UNDER AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CON- TRACT? NO IF YES, , LIST THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN SUCH CONTRACT. 14. HAS EITHER A "NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL" OR "NOTICE OF CANCELLATION" BEEN FILED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE? N/A IF YES, INDICATE THE DATE. OF FILING. 15. COULD THE PROPOSAL INDUCE, FACILITATE OR LEAD TO THE CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE.'LANDS TO OTHER USES? NO IF YES, EXPLAIN THE CHANGE.-IN USE. 1 . 4. i WTIFICATION OFIPROPOSAL . E. GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES: 1 . LIST AND DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LEVEL AND RANGE OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO THE PROPOSAL ,AREA '(I.E. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, HEALTH SERVICES, RUBBISH' COLLEC- TION, LIBRARIES, PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES, SE:-fERS, STREET MAINTENANCE, STREET LIGHTING, ETC.). % WATER: -Costa Mesa Consolidated Water 'District SEWER: Costa Mesa Sanitary District GAS: • Southern California Gas Company ELECTRICITY.: Southern California Edison Company TELEPHONE: Pacific Telephone Company FIRE, POLICE, ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL 'SERVICES: County of Orange PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Newport-M;sa Unified School 'District COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Coastline Community College District 2i ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE FUTURE NEED FOR NEW OR INCREASED GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES IN L. • THE PROPOSAL AREA. There should be •no •need for new or increased governmental . services %in the proposed d rea. 3. DESCRIBE WHAT ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION EXIST FOR MEETING THE EXPECTED FUTURE NEEDS WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA. Increased County service levels or annexation to the City of Newport Beach ,are the only two alternatives . 1 5. r .iTIFICATION V 1PF'.f;?OS.`:L • IF. PLAT! FOR PROVIDING SERVICES: i . ENUMERATE AND DESCRIBE WHAT SERVICES 14OULD BE EXTENDED TO THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. General administrative services involving the following City Depart— ments would be extended to the area : (1 ) City Manager, Attorney, and Clerk ((2) Planning Department (3) Building Department 4 Finance Department (Continued below)* 2. DESCRIBE THE LEVEL AND RANGE OF SUCH SERVICES. The level 'and 'range of services would be the. same as currently provided within City boundaries . 1 3. INDICATE WHEN SUCH SERVICES CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE AFFECTED TERRITORY. General Administrative services , maintenance , normal City, trash collec- ti.on and those services now provided' to some extent by the City (Police, Fire, Recreation and Library services) would be offered immediately. t. Sewer and water 'services would continue to be provided by other Jurisdictions. Public Works services such as street •improvements , storm drains and lighting would be provided as the area develops or redevelops. • 4. INDICATE ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR UPGRADING OF STRUCTURES, ROADS, SEWERS OR WATER FACILITIES, OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED OR REQUIRED WITHIN THE " AFFECTED TERRITORY SHOULD THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL BE COMPLETED. None. However, necessary improvements will, be required, as the area develops or redevelops . S. HOW WILL THE REPORTED SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS BE FINANCED? 1 Some services will be'. financed at the expense of developers as the property develops or redevelops . Others will be financed through tax revenues . Maintenance of public property and normal City trash collection would be provided by General Services . Police , Fire, Recreation, and Library services now provided to some extent by the City would become the entire responsibility of the City. r 212 r STIFICF;fION OF PROPOSAL • t 6. DESCRIBE WHAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN TO DETACH THE SITE FROM ANY DISTRICTS) i WHERE A DUPLICATION OF SERVICE AND TAXATION WOULD RESULT SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED. Sewer service to the area will continue to be provided by Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which assesses its own tax for services . Newport Beach maintains, its sewer service through the City's sewer service fee . 7. COMMENT ON ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH 14AY BE OF VALUE TO THE COMMISSION IN REACHING A DECISION ON THIS PROPOSAL. None w G. (ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR INCORPORATION OR' DISTRICT FORMATION PROPOSALS ONLY . 1. , LIST AND DESCRIBE THE LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES AND MAJOR PROJECTS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED AGENCY IN THE 'FIRST AND SECOND YEAR OF OPERATION. Does not apply 2. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED AGENCY'S BUDGET FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OPERATION. (ATTACH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION) Does not apply 3.• PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE. OF THE .PROPOSED AGENCY'S TAX RATE FOR THE FIRST-TWO YEARS OF OPERATION. (ATTACH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION) Does not apply 7. i �STIFICATION OF PROPOSAL • ' 4. LIST AND DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVIDING GOVERt'.,'i-;TAL SERVICES OTHER THAN BY THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OR FORMATION. Does not apply 5. PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF VALUE TO THE COMMISSION IN. REACHING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OR FORMATION. Does not apply H. LIST THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF EACH PERS01-1 (3 MAXIMUM) THAT NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE SENT. NAME: Craig T. BluelI ADDRESS: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach , CA ZIP CODE 92663 TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE ( 714) 640-2261 NAME: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE ( ) i NNAME: t M ADDRESS: ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA CODE ( ) M SUBMITTED BY: DATE: Signature MAILING ADDRESS: TEL. NO.( ) 1/78; KWS 8. II � ~ 214 +,RSSf.S50R'S TAX RA1F PAItCE'L NUt-0ttE:R AREA . TIFICATION OF PROPOSAL 116-320-08 55-038 116-320-14 55-038 O. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 116-320-25 55-038 116-320-26 55-038 116-320-27 55-038 116-320-28 55-038 424-011-01 55-038 424-011-02 55-038 , 424-011-03 55-038 424-011-04 55-038 424-011-05 55-038 -424-011-06 55-038 424-011-07 55-038 424-01"1-08 55-038 424-011-09 55-038 424-011-10 55-039 424-011-11 55-638 424-011-12 55-038 ' 424-011-13 65-038 •424-011-14 55-038 424-011-15 55-038 424-011-16 55-038 424-011-17 55-038 424-011-18 55-038 424-011-19 . 65-038 424-011-20 65-038 424-011-2.1 65-038 424-011-22' 56-038 424-011-27 • 65-038 424-011-28 55-038 424-011-20 55-038 424-012-01 55-038 424-021-06 55-038 424-021-07 55-639 424-021-08 55-038 424-021-12 55-038 424-021-13 55-038 424-021-14 55-038 424-021-16 55-038 ' 424-021-19 55-038 424-021-21 55-038 424-021-24 55-038 424-021-25 55-038 424-151-01 55-038 424-151-02 55-038 424-061-03 55-038 424-051-04 55-038 424-051-05 55-038 424-051-06 55=038 424-161-01 55-038 424-161-02 55-038 424-161-03 55-038 424-161-04 55-038 424-161-05 55-038 424-161,06 55-038 424-161-08 55-038 424-161-09 55-038 215 ATTACHMENT 1 .j CITY Y 01' N 1'.IVIP ART B14J ICI I e PLANNING DcPARTi cNT (714) 640-2261 'pq<l FU•�Nrl January 7, 1980 Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 515 North Sycamore Street, Room 101 � •, Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Environmental Documentation - County Triangle Annexation No. 87 Dear Mr. Turner: In accordance with your request we have reviewed the need for environmental documentation on our proposed annexation designated "County Triangle Annexation No. 87." ( It is the opinion of the City of Newport Beach tha-t the proposal is categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15107, 15108, and/or 15119 of the "State EIR Guidelines." Therefore no initial study has been prepared. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by B ARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/nm City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 u • 216 • 0� '44 r 100�. RFM �j- PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION #87 • . r • :r. :r. 1 r,V F. Ili,;•._rr, Bernard Fla,) 217 Paul Gustave 1 15 h:onri�: ia Avenuc : •Palermo !•aII: , 835 West 15th Street Newport Cea;h CA 92063 tong Leach CA 97,:;3 pe::,iort beach 92660 seph H. irani Shirley B. Perry Carman C Rodgen 31 M:onro:/ia Ave, Suite E P 0 Box. 1352 827 1.1 15th Street i, mport Beach CA 92660 Tulare, CA 93274 Newport Leach CA 92660 Enterprises- 0 & Payne Ltd � Leonard 0. Linclnorg Heltzer Enter P 0 E Edinger Ave 112 18th St. Brookview Newport ita Ana CA 92705 Huntington Beach CA 92648 740 N. La Brea Avenue Los Angeles CA 90038 . . . , /.I...... . ... ............................ .. ......... Aubrey Carney.,. . . . . . .. Inneth H. Woodson ... 101 Scholz Plaza PH24 : Bertha S. Coldoff 1481 Placentia Avenue 1472 Monrovia Avenue Newport Beach CA 92663 Port Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92663 i , . ItI1411111111.II I I I I I C 1411.(111 II 111141111.:.111111411111111111111111.1.I I I I I..1.1.I I..:..1 I.I I.I I I IV.,... t/.t.1(Ifrr11 hn C. Combs Shell Oi1' Co. Burtis Corp. Union Oil Co. of California 435 Monrovia Ave P 0 Box 4848 P 0 Box 7600 wport Beach CA 92660 . Anahiem, CA 92803 Los Angeles CA 90054 la.ltlll.4..III/II(.ffltl.1111111.1111.11.1.1..1111.111111.11r11..11.1.1111111111...11..(I1.1111..t1\.It111a.1a.II 1111�.1...(..• kited California Bank Newport Christian Schools Branko Mid Aveic I�0 Box 3667 883 W 15th Street 2526 S 2n Avenue Terminal Annex Angeles CA 90051 Newport Beach CA 92663 Arcadia' CA 91006 1 .1 .,.1.11l.,. . .11,1•.f..1,11...1..11.....1..........1....1.........1.......1..............:......1.f.:........11[........r.... Superior Properties Ltd Ruth L. Clayton William R. Morgan f�0 Box 3045 : y 210 S Grand Avenue, Suite 202 I�w ortiBeach CA 92663 1484 Monro-via Avenue Glendora CA 91740 P j Newport Beach CA 92660 .......,,..i•. 1.1..1... ...:......f.....I.....1....t.'..:...............� .. ..... ...... ... .. .-... Jp,e.,r,ior Properties Ltd j Richard Sewell Inc. Marvin E. Stiles 'LIA57 Superior Avenue : 136 Rochester St. P 0 Box 1813 a :port Beach CA 92660 Costa Mesa GA 92627 Costa Mesa CA 92626 ..,1.,,,... . ., ..II, , ,..,, , , . .II.,... , I. .. '... • .... . ................. aId Jackson Hazel Hill George Mic kelwait ., T455 H Superior Avenue .1478 Monrovia St. 1425 Superior Avenue wport Beach CA 92660, Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 f . ...... .. . obert Kureger Otto M. Schutt Cape Aire Co. 455 G Superior Ave 847 W 15th Street 1433 Superior Avenue ewport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach 92663 r ..,..... .. .. .. 11. ..... . . .......... John R Rawlins Ronald C. Dick Sr. Griset Development Corp r74 %a Y%a Cir. 843 15th Street. 9476*Via Onorto. Sutte 206 Cta R+�A n.1I1,1' a 218 ik,lsa lil:tt . "11SOS 111c. #ark I;nli. J. Car. 22 h1 ,a .e A:=:r,,.".I Via I;r.; In 5 U W;..-wport Ur. ,.h CA 92663 {'-eorge N. Ulflson Janes E. Phillips 1504 Beech SC. 1544 Placentia Avenue So. Pasad;:;: CA 91030 Newport Beach CA 95046 41il.liam J. ,Cowan Ben Indes, Jr. 330 West Placentia Avenue K & 1-1 Enterprises I'nc. Suite 206 10000 Jefferson Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92660 Culver City CM 90230 1 Mary Morrison „a Roland Peterson 3061 Carob Street 129 E Bay Avenue Newport 'Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92661 1 1.11[.frlCul♦♦1a.la!!a!•111a11laJIr1.111.:illN.u1 U1111 u.Iru11.1111uI.Inln111.1.r!•1l,.lata-I!•Ilaalttull r,lrNllUulrl Irvine 'National Bank 2171 Campus Drive Irvine CA 92715 YI.YUI4(/alll.rl/frll.t 11141r114(4a1111!/11•IIIIr.111111,.111.111•Ia11•.1•I!1•'l1.11••11111.1•.`I.rI1([a1•IrIf.Il1�'I..il.r••1•,I l♦I 1 1 , �...1.I,IIIa.t y�1(1:r1��•��I:II,I•a;.1.1111.1((I.I..I.!•.Il.(111.1.1.11.1111...1.........1...11♦.,,1♦ 1,.111..1•.1.11....l,.I li� Eugene R. ,Kirkpatrick 444 W Ocean Blvd., Ste 1616 ? 'Long Beach CA- 90802 .......r.l..• 1♦..,... ♦..11,.1(.r..1:111,..,,I•.I..11. .............. • .... .. I .. , Walter Burroughs 1070 Westminster Ave Costa Mesa CA 92627 1 : (1........♦.Ia1ll.1(a♦1.1.r.111•II I.f Iar•r♦♦ rr.r f r.• .. ••iI\..1.1..111..i a.\.t,....!\a 1•.•h.11!•l. Seacliffe Mobile Park 890 W' 15th St. , Space 1 i Newport Beach CA 92660 . • I.1.111. ♦.4a• 11 I ♦ .4..\ala• hiericana Land Associates 15719 Texaco Avenue Paramount CA 90723 ... i.1. . . Ir l..� r. .1..1..1... ...I..... . • . . .. ...... •� Iiattwood Ltd. Mattwood Prop. Mgmt Corp. 12571 Gnrr:an rrnvn Rlvd. s Cc sa 1"I;t rlll'iSC;; Inc. n1; l:olm:rass;2r9 lI1J. Cow .11 �222 N.:llo;e Ak•.- • ,'11(1 llld Ili ,i•III Los Anq.•le.- U, 9 ,, •;, Ijport I;:li, h CA 92663 George I.I. Ison .lames E. Phillip; 1 4 Beech St. 1544 Placentia A:•_, S� Pasaduna CA 91030 Newport Beach CA --(3215 Wiliam J. Cowan Ben Indes, Jr. 330 West Placentia Avenue K & M Enterprises Inc. Ste 206 10000 Jefferson Blvd. N port 'Beach CA 92660- Culver City CA 90230 tt�Y Morrison Roland Peterson 3061 Carob Street 129 E Bay Avenue Ntort Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92661 t •11\Ifll4.l1... Illll lll.tl../1(1(\1111.1.;1114111111.IIIIIIII.11111.It11•II tI I.I.I1• l•..1'rlflt..111\..tl(tla..(l r..fl('.1IIIII 1 1, 'ne National Bank 2111 Campus Drive Irvine CA 92715 ; •. •.I1.11..-. r..1(((.I I... IIII a111.11••••1•IIIt•I'•t1..1.1111•...................... ..••..It•II.f(..I/I[.III....11.1/II.•I ta.. � awe ��.I. ( .. • . I . y 1 l • 1 .t�'Y...1... � � . ."1.\(\11..71..1 i 11•.l,a(I lai la 1.l•1(.•11.•.1.1(Il..i......•..•...........•.•.r.1....1.e .•.......•. ......l Ll.at1. Eugene R. Kirkpatrick i W Ocean Blvd., Ste 1616 Lc�g Beach CA- 90802 I ,.. . . . ... .<. �. . .. . I11.111.. . ...111.1.......I..1... .......... • .. ................. . .... ............ /. Y er...Burroughs 1070 Westminster Ave C ta Mesa CA 92627 i 1 Siliffe Mobile Park 8 1•1 15th St., Space 1 LNewport Beach CA 92660 ; Arr� *Cana Land Associates 15■19, Texaco Avenue Pa mount CA 90723 Mattwood Ltd. M4twood Prop. Mgmt Corp. 1 /1 rnrthan r: nun Rl url zzo AlIz 00 Plop �F44 . 1 REGISTERED VOTER LIST COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION #87 i i 1 t.tu N. Schut t Una B {flood 221 Pfmsy Y, i;i l drod Plc-C mn JL47 W 15L1; St. P0 l•1 1Sth St. • 1: 4 1lith St. ::94vq,ort I.: ,,eh, CA 9'rG6g :ct•,port hoaci , c,, , I,c.c,po, t I:_ ,�h, cn .,rar,,. Elizabeth S Cle�::e Julia M. Barry 890 41 15th 5t. =1- 1.1•abel L. Christianson i90 W l5th St 890 11 15th St. ."25 ewport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, Cr-. "s_:Ei Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irian M. LeBlanc Georgia E. Yutzy Phiietus A Williams . 890 {J 15th St. 890 W 15th St. 015 890 W 15th St. 71726 �ewort Beach, CA 92663 i Newport Beach, CA 52.63 p Newport 'Beach CA 92663 1lfred R Madden Frances D Krarr:i Florence N Kupfer 90 W 15th St. 890 W 15th St. 1 6 : 890 W 15th St. #27 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 f1( tft Of lf[I</t.11<lfl(ttftff..ftfffll[[ff[[.tf...Uf[.f.[ff.f..f[[.[.f.[ff ��eeannene R Morrison Bernice McQueen Lillian A Kerr �90 W 15th St. 890 W 15th St. #17 : 890 W 15th St. #30 77ffewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ..Iff,ff.<f,,, .,/.ttfftf.,,f.,.........f.:....................f....[.......l..f......:.f..,,,...,.f[,..f,.f,t.,Lf[t•t tt[[,[I,[t Blair Herbert Leonard C White Rosa L Basso ,.m0 W 15th St. #3 890 W 15th St. #18 New W tB'd St. #31 L ort Beach. CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 New Beach CA 92663 AI , /t[[,tt,/I .t[[..[,..t[.[1,.[..[[.:.[.......,[r.................ff........f...../[.!./r[f.[I trt...[[[..[[ft./... Howard & Margaret 7rissel Daisy E. Pooley omas E McLean 890 W 15th St. #19 890 W 15th St. #32 890 W 15th St. #6 7 Newport Beach, CA 92663 twport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 / fewoport tilda th St. # Margueritte E Denton j Stephen Hladis W 15th St. #7 890 W 15th St. #20 890 W 15th St. #34 Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Susan L. Hedrick Eileen C Johnson Leona E Jarvis �0 W 15th St. #8 890 {J 15th St. # 21 890 W 15th St. #35 wport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ...... .. .A cile Stoddard Corinne L Davis Mary E Jones POg W 15th St #9 890 W 15th St. =22 890 W 15th St. 1136 ort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 9.2663 ...... . . . !' , 'n M. Hausladen. Stephen L Emmons Joseph A & Shirley Thompson 890 'W 15th St. #11 890 W l5th St. . 23 890 {J 15th St. 711 37 wport Beach, CA 92663 Newport BEach, CA 92663 Newport .Beach, CA 92663 Ilizal?c:li1 f'errii.11 Juan Shcphr,rc 222 Ic!%1 f . Doa all Q:?4 1f 1Li.! St.. r.) �324 4! 1£iY.h SG. ?.? �£s24 11 Pith S�. 5 ,di, CA 9765:; gf',Jport he.1r.1 , (: ;,•::port I' 4 92663 Ellen L. i•: i;innav Miry J Lund Pose Santagata 824 W 150 St. 7#10 824 W 15th St. :S'l 824 11 15th St. =48 newport Dt.lch, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 9e5S3 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Helen D J6Ubort Lois L. Woodmansee Patricia J Adams 824 W 15th St. #13 t 824 1-1 15th St. =32 824 W 15th St. 51 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Le Roy J. Joubert Florence M. Wittwer Dale M Jeffries t 824 W 15th St. #13 824 W 15th St. #34 824 W 15th St. #54 „ Newport Beach, CA 9< •` 92663< ... Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Kenneth C & Jill Perdomo Bernice L Jernigan . Ken W h C St. l P Rosella D. Robinson 824 W 15th St. #55 Newport Beach CA 92663 824 W 15th St. #35 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Carman R.. Paul I Iria G Sibley s Jack J. Walley 827 W 15th St. 824 W 15th St. #15 824 W 15th St. 036 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Avis & William Gleason Jeane Alexander Kenneth R. Wilson 824 W 15th St. #17 , 824 W, 15th St. #39 827 W 15th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 .......................................... .......a,...n.u..................,...... ....................... ........ ...:... Eldon L. Frazer Gustave W & Donna Paull �t Helen B. Louvier 824 W 15th St. #40 i 835 !9 15th 'St. 824 W 15th St. #18 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport. Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663, .',.., ...... ........ .. ...a.................... n.........,.} . Glenn A. Mason Gladys T. Houlihan Sandra J Sandoval 824 W 15th St. #21 824 W 15th St. r41 835 W 15th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Netiport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ....... ........... .............. ...... .... Howard & Betty Seay Donna G & Helen B Atwood Ronald Dick 824 W 15th St. #23 824 W 15th St. #43 843 W 15th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 9 y . ... .. �.. Mar 11. Smith Elizabeth A Hess Robert & Made Machen 824 W 15th St. r�4 824 1.1 15th Sit. 125 Newport Beach, C , 92663 New W 15th St. i 1lewport Beac , C4 92663 Newport Bepch, CA 92663 / 223 1.se A l' iIhoiLu David 14. l•O("P R. kugt:n: Sr•ilor 95 Superior Ave `?b �,.15 Sup:n•'ior Avc : 4a • 15!;6 Srgrr.•rio, Avg: liaaiport I:r:r.�lr, CA 9?.G63 IJewport B::ach, U. 9%:;:; Er-tiporL L'aach, CA 9Iu�,3 nneth i-i n Kenneth P Gormley Harvrl 11 Goode Virginia R. Strong 35 Superior Ave i'26 1555 Superior Ave 1555 Superior Ave wport Beech, CA 926G3 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Flora S Green Ida M Williams few ry Tishler : 1555 Superior Ave 1555 Superior Ave 35 Superior Ave #28 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 port Beach, CA 92663 i Florence H. Haines Vera G Winslow Paul W. Slinker 1555 Superior Ave 1555, Superior Ave 35 Superior Ave #31 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 wport Beach, CA 92663 ......,.<.......<<.<...<..................:........................................... .......... ck B. Conners •:Al•fred J Hasselback eatrice C. Quinlan 35 Superior Ave #32 1555 Superior Ave 824 W 15th St. ewport Beach, CA 92663 3 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 'J Aeank L. & Viola R. Troxel Verga M. Hutton Ruth W Woodrow 35 Superior Ave #33 1555 Superior Ave 824 W 15th St #2 wport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 Dorothy Marsden Lois I Kaehler Elmer & Bernardine Haver 35 Superior Ave #34 j 1555 Superior Ave 824 1d 15th St. #3 wpont Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 .Jella:8. ........... ...........•. ............ Fowler Frances J McGowan Rosie M Ramirez 535 Superior Ave #36 1555 Superior Ave 824 W 15th St. #4 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 : ..... .......... ...... ................. .. ......... , .... . .. , 1hara Cookson Alexander & Esther Meston Bertha E Tietje_n 35 Superior'Ave #38 1555 Superior Ave 824 W 15th St. 05 - wport Beach, CA 92663 Negort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1bert P. Siegmann Emma C Miller Geraldine Mieding 35 Superi'or Ave #39 1555 Superior Ave 824 W 15th St. #6 Oewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport BEach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ether L. Lyon Laura I Pommier Gordon H. & Estfler E. Babcock 35 Superior Avr ti�(��, 1555 Superior Ave.11,1 824 W 15th St. f;uy fio.:l Dorothy Dre;224 r • 1 ;:3 55 f Sally U. Alger 1•,,i; 5;:;1.•: inr Ave T. .Irf.,, Superior nvr 1535 Superior Ave 1`3 f? •tirarF I'•: .:r:h, CA 97663 Newporl: I;:-ach, C., 9'Lir�: flewport Beach, CA 92663 flatricia Spiritus Donald & Lance T. Jacf:son Carlton V. Ellis 1,133 Sup ::•ior Ave {660 1455 Superior Ave -H 1535 Superior Ave ,; Newport ['each, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 William E. Howard Lorraine F. Cully Robert C. Fleming 1433 Superior Ave #S344 i 1515 Superior Ave 1535 Superior Ave #6 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach,, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 .. .................. M- ria Cieck - Mitch A. Graham David W. Uhlmeyer ' 1445 Superior Ave 1517 Superior Ave #C 1535 Superior Ave #7 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 bll..2.•41.1. '/Il.fl H Itl•I,.f 11111 NI.•II:,IIIY.I Yffll.ly.1\N111••1I111111!•/\.1111\,14IIf(If<lll44J111,l[1,(•f,ItL(lf.1f(<.• Maude A. Geddes John R. Fore Shirley M. Carrido #, 1445 Superior Ave 1517 Superior Ave #C 1535 Superior Ave #11 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 926631 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -..\.. f.l[f.1,.//.1,1<f1.:I.Ift1.1 Nlff fv lll;\f 111.YM 11 HH 1\I LIH III.I,.,Yv11 lt/,ll(1111,1••II P,(1111•1/•II/4•\(ll, , f . Verna N. Taylor Lesley S. Gier Walt & Helen M Robbins 1445 Superior Ave 1535 Superior Ave P P 1635 Superior Ave #15 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 ; .\l. .1..11... /.,ll•.,.1.(,( a,l,.l.•f...,,:...11.\...,... •1\..\:1...,.(..I...I..lIl.1...1.f.,.1„l<,tl/(.I......(11.........•.,, Max Levine Grace D. McGovern.* Hugh M. Baker 1446 Superior Ave #23 i 1635 Superior Ave i 1535 Superior Ave #17 / Newport Beach, .CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 N6#rt Beach, CA 92663 Grace L. Heinrich Robert M. Moos1535 Superior Ave Mearl F. Baker 1445 Superior Ave #38 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1535 Superior Ave #19 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ....... ...... 1..... .... ,. . H ........I...........( Leonard Perruzzi Alice L. Ellsworth 1535 Superior Ave Homer R. & Amelia Forkey 1445 Superior Ave #35 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1535 Superior Ave #20 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ...1:., ..,...1.. ..1 .,..1... .... .. .... . .......... Omar J. Moorhouse Mary A. Dunn 1535 Superior Ave #1 Clinton A. Reynolds 1445 Superior 'Ave #39A Newport Beach, CA 92663 1535 Superior Ave #22 Ntwport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mary Krueger Kathi D Eargle 1455 Superior. Ave #G 1535 Superior Ave 172 y M. heal Newport Beach, •CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1��� duper1or ve #23 225 Ilan JaCI,Son ter W. Goodwin raved J. liunson 433 SCiP rlor Ave, P271 *33 SUION IOr Ave °°;Gi 0 433 Superior Avg: 1`3 3 ewport Ge ch, GA 92663 t•Ictiport Beach, CA 92b63 Ne:;i,ort Beach, CA 92603 ina l.. S:echs Rudy Sariana Dana B. McRae 433 SUI)c:rior Ave, r"279 1433 Superior Ave =r30E 1433 Superior Ave 11362 ewport IIeach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Esther T. Haggberg William S. Diver William J. baloney �433 Superior Ave, #283 1433 Superior Ave 0,315 1433 Superior Ave #364 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 red e i Sup 1433 Superiorrior Ave, #290 Virginia L. Weaver Anne C. Frederick 1433 Superior Ave #316 1433 Superior Ave #366 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 r..r.,t....r.. . . ...r.r.........r.......a.......u.n u.�,.......ru..r....r....,.. ,r...rra rr..rr.n,.r,r•,,.r a..,. ,.c..rrr 4ex L. Durham i Patricia D. Long Larry A Frederick 433 Superior Ave #292 1433 Superior Ave #317 1433 Superior Ave •#366 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA ,92663 enry M. Soto Candace L. Ringo Caroi A. Trueman 433,Superior Ave #294 j• • 1433 Superior Ave 1317 i 1433 Superior Ave #367 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, GA42663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 .. .. , r ,..„ :•r r.. ,,ir.....,..�r.,..r....a.�................................ r....,......., •., r.r,. ...., .... ,.,, i r., N.Terry. L. Briggs Rita M. Betance : Lori K. Houston 433 Superior Ave #295 1433 Superior Ave #328 1433 Superior ,Ave #367 ewport Beach, 'CA 92663 ; ' Newport Beach,' CA 92663 Newport Beach,' CA .92663 Alan E. Freeman Jean M. Witt Cynthia R. Campbell �433 Superior Ave # 301 1433 Superior Ave #329 1433 Superior Ave #371 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport_Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ichard M. Rutherford i Brad Raaen Louise C. Behar 1433 Superior Ave #302' 1433 Superior Ave #334 1433 Superior Ave 076 ewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport� Beach, CA 92663 1ary G. Y.evorkyan Steven R. Fox Martha McCartney 433 Superior Ave, #304 1433 Superior Ave #338 1433 Superior Ave 1i381 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 rudy Stambook Dayton W. Hypes ,rc A.. Kcni: 433 Superior Ave #305_ 1433 Sunerior Ave r35?. 543 ' Superior Ave 11381 226 i':I11141•". is : .Irllla 'liU<.L'.'l le ' �:'I Ciiel l'(fJ M. I'11i�r:�i7i 11'l•1in 6a1 t%Irkln 1'133 SI!;: •�'t.lr Art: 433 Supvriol^ r:: 1%5 0433 Superior Ave, F229 iuh CA 92G: 3 (!"..."port I;E*C: C ;%;', Newport Leach, CA 92663 , Gregory I. . :filler Craig S. L'ra.11ey Charles F. Koos, Jr. 1433 Superior '1= n u 1433 Sul: r for Ave -:C" 1 up rio t ._ =1 1 l33 Superior Ave r,2's0 Newport 11cach, CA 92663 t'lewport Beach, CF 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Iloy Abrams f Bernice A & William E Wright Russell J. Egeland 1433 Superior Ave, 1104 1433 Superior AVe137 1433 Superior Ave, #235 r 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 M' {... , ...... .......r..... , u.............1....................... .... ... ...... . .. Roberta L. Budnick Deborah S. SI•li'th Brian T & Ty B. Arnold 1433 Superior Ave, #106 1433 Superior Ave, #205 1433 Superior Ave, #237 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 ; 1 , Hf..fle\111.1...\IIIIrl1f11111111r111.111111111111 H111.11..1.1,1.1.111111rI r•1•I11.11;111 N IIft111111 NAI(11/fall allf(I IfIl1(1• Don- G. Wilson Donald E. Harrison Anne M Boyum #i i433 Superior Ave, #107 1433 Superior AVe, #209 1433 Superior AVei #238 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mfrflt<IIIIIrrl.11111r 111r,1 t•111111.1•Irra1111•rIr•I Lt11r••Iru1r1,Ir 11i•III a1111.111 Irr•I!r!llrlrllrtflrlfall re.r1.r 1111„ • r Debbie Bentley Jim RI Yokoyama t Ronald A. Penhall 7433 Superior Ave, 110 1433 Superior Ave, #210 1433 Superior Ave,. #239 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA '92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Y.It.r..4.lrt..r..•rllfirl.....a11a/1aa1111a111f a111r1111111a 1.a•Ir•..1•.I/Ir.,1.1/1111;a1414rr rrllaarr.l.f rfl.r.\...r.alra.r... Laurie -L. Neuhauser ? Patrick R. Seifert Brenda Powers 1433 Superior Ave, #113 1433 Superior Ave, 0217 1433 Superior Ave, #243 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport• Beach, CA 92663 s ... .1.\a.l...... ........ . .. ............ u...11.1.a t.r......... .il a I.F,.a.i1-e.6.1............ta1.11.1 Toribio M. Jimeno ; John C. Meaney Becky Bishop 1433 Superior Ave, #174 1433 Superior Ave, ;`218 Superior erior Ave, #251 t Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 926 63 Newport Beach, CA 92663 George 8 Hannah Noel r 1433 Superior Ave, 115 Robert T. Heineman James T. Svritzed ijewport Beach, CA 92663 1433 Superior Ave, #221 1433 Superior:'.Ave, 11.253 Heliport Beach, CA 92663 Newport .Beach, CA 92663 • ♦. . . .. I...I. ... .. .•. .. . • • �' ...1......1lY.a..1..1\\................... Joyce Forrest Stephanie A. Fisher Susan F. Greer 1433 Superior Aye, `222 1433 Superior Ave, ,`119 Newport Beach, CA 926,63 1433 Superior Ave, #255 11ezrport Beac h, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 liar^a R. Streeter Michael R. Spratt 1433 Supr,rio, At,� #1?.3 1433 Superior Ave, #223 ��VSL'rerioornAve, 1,1271' Newport Leocp, , 199f.r4 ,. I .. . ul L' kic: Garcut.L Rose R. St P227ro feltiiotcy 8 i;;n•in Lopez 1o9 Placr•;:lia Ave ?16A .1403 SuileViel' f,: ,11;97 Superior Ave, f'G Newport. L'cauh, CA 92663 Newport Beach, c.;: C:.::;,art Beach, CA 92u6 Laura Dooton Rachel R. tir"n Pa-cla L. Lowis 1 9 Placar,tia Ave r223A 1405 Superior hvc. , 1409 Superior Ave, :10 NKport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 2:• .3 (c-wport Leach, CA 92663 L C. Gotcher(&Loreta D. Barbara L. Carroll Bonnie J. Williamson 14nl Superior Ave #C 1405 Superior Ave, =B 1409 Superior Ave, ;'14 Niport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 .11 ll...l.. .I..I.. .. I ..t........ . ,Illl.11ll.,l,l.......... . ..... ........ . ......fir. .. . . I ne W. Lee Steven C. Thornton Jay R. Amos 1 1 Superior Ave. #D 1405 Superior Ave, =6 1409 Superior Ave, #15 port Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Newport Beach., CA 92663 tf4ttff ifltalttt<ft M1llttllltttttt4<tt1tt11;111ttt1.411..4414111./tlaa4la..aa4ata..a.aa;.aa<1.«tttll(t1II4.Il4caa tf lrtl.a.I<t<.• 1�11s F. Winkler Stephen B. Wetch : Timothy J. Auringer Superior Ave, E . 1405 Superior Ave, #D : 1409 Superior Ave, #15 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Newport Beach,, CA 92663 : .: tttt I t.taal<t 11 ttlltlll tl<ttt U I11tII\,.I...IIIU tJ 1111I\.....I.....I..II..I...... att.a.t tla.ltl...t.l...l.,4a.ta.a.t.44.a jtmnu & Marge Reinhart Gary E. Wright Suzanne M. Montgomery _- 1� Superior Ave, G 1405 Superior Ave, D 1409 Superior Ave, #17 Eport F :.ach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport :Beach, CA 92663 1\ .l tl l I.IIII.411 e,I",1.11111111111111111111\1/1/11\141111//Illllll.1/./IIIIII..I...I..n....I I...1..1.I I..41.-.II.,I .. .tlal• tan St Pierre Victor Lindsey Hugo V. Schmidt 03 Superior Ave 1405 Superior Ave, "C' : 1419 Superior Ave port' Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 It .......... ..111111.., . l. tlt..t..... :.. .1..41.1.............1................ . . .. .. .. ..... n ... .-.. , ... ..... .. l� James T. Alexander June H. Mickelwait ul A. Russell 1403 Superior A : 1409 Superior Ave 1425 Superior Ave port 'Beach, CA 92663 j Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 \t,4.11l.11.l.. . \1ll,il ...... 11l,.11a.... Il.a.11.... ......... a. , ..... .. .... . . ., :.1 . . . . k A. Bender Lawrence & Janice Trop Barry M. DuBois 3 Superior Ave,#A � 1409 Superior Ave, -1 1431 Superior Ave #235 • ewport Beach) CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 arII H. Weisse Richard J. Sevier Fred L. Du Pree 3 Superior Ave, #D 1409 Superior Ave, =2 1433 Superior Ave Sport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Joseph Katcher Edmond M. Levy Maple W. King IA03 Superior Ave, #C 1409 Superior Ave =3 1433'Suparior Ave #port Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Net•Soart Brach. CA 92664 JohnaG. P,ippas Bois Linig•:rZ28 . Linda D. Higgins 1549 Plar; ;itia Avo Ill02 1549 Placentia L., 1%% 1559 Plarentia Ave ;:217 Newport Coach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA ;%£03 Newport Reach, CA 92663 James Gosciminsi•i Crnest.o C. Bautista 15rolyn49 Placentia Fisheritia Ave • 103 1549 Placentia Av: •1?-, 1549 Placentia Avet218� Newport Beach, CA _G:•� Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ............ .. �. Patricia C. Ne;)ton Sara A. M Jorge P. Guzman McKay 1549 Placentia Ave #105 1549 Placentia Ave =128 Newport Placentia Ave 2663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ne;rport Beach, CA 92663 ........ ..,, ..•,,.....,.•:.•........................ ............. Miriam B. Horsley i Charlotte Snyder Kevin R. Ploughan 1549 Placentia Ave #109 1549 Placentia Ave r203 1549 Placentia Ave #219 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ...,.aa.a....,. ....a.a,a a.....a,a a a,..aaa,:a a a.a,a,a a.a a,.a,a.,,a...,a ...............7...,.,,.,,........,..,...,.,,•.,,.,.,... Linda M. Cashman i ' Cindi Clough Mary E. Langhorst ' 1549 Placentia Ave #111 1549 Placentia Ave #205 1549 Placentia Ave 1,1221 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ..a..a4,al.......................afauau.:ua,uuan naa nuuU.a..uau u,•un.a,:aan u,ua<..,...N,,......na.e.u.•u... Daniel -Stragier Michele D. Artieres :Richard & Margaret ,Hinton 1549 Placentia Ave s205 e, E"1649 Placentia Ave#112 : 1549 Placentia 222 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 a ..`,•.a,.,a,.,,,a..,a,,,a,,.,.:..,,,a.,aa,.a.a„a.............aaa.,..,..,.:.a.......,,.......,...:. ,..a,,,,..a.,.a, Lea b Mary Wood ? Sandra A. McLeod 1549 Placentia Ave #114 : Barry Therese Williamsi549 Placentia Ave #222 Newport Beach, CA 92663" 1549 Placentia Ave 0206 Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Terry S. Angeles Rodger Smith Michael & Louise Weller 1549 Placentia Ave #118 a 1549 Placentia Ave #223 ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 1549 Placentia Ave €207 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 a.................... :.... .. ............. . .. .. ....... Lynne Conroy Rolet & Barbara Alderman Christi Navarrol 1549 Placentia ave #119 1549 Placentia Ave `213 1549 Placentia ,;202%� 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' ....... Susan J. Levine : John S. Schwartz 1549 Placentia Ave #119 : 1549 Placentia Ave #215 Brian A. Roberts tleWort Beach, CA 92663 - Newport Beach, CA 92663 1549 Placentia Ave #2034 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Deborah Johnson James K. Allen James L. Wynn 1.549 Placentia Ave #124 1549 Placentia Ave "216 150 Plarnni•in Avn .n91nA jpoiq vphine 1:'1'rts Penny A. Rcustft9 Sc:oLt A. Gardner• , 5 P'lacr.nl.ia Avc ; U4 ?5 !'l.u.entia /,•:t " •1525 PlacenLi#i Ave L::'? un•L I c,,r,;,, (: 1;e;rwrt I:cach, CA 92663 Minton Brown Jr. Robin L. Edwards Elizabeth J. Ambrose 1525 Placentia A s i!"s 1525 Placentia Ave ` 113 f1 5 Placentia Ave "E7. Newport Leach, CA = 3 Newport Deach, CA 92653 11port Beach, CA 92663 Cynthia Tyree Linda C. Starr David & Dale Voss 1525 Placentia Ave =fl , 1525 Placentia Ave #P3 1 5 Placentia Ave #E3 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1if 1port Beach, CA 92663 ... .......... . . . Susan L. Bernbrock Beverli & Marilynn Young R err & Thomas Young 1525 Placentia Ave #K2 1 5 Placentia Ave #E4 Newport Beach, CA 92663 : 1525 Placentia Ave # P4 1J port Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA '92663 .<1 I.<f 11i.1.Ilffflf.If.Ill.1.f.f.f1.1<f.111.....If..a................f.....1......,.f llllf.fl.l,.1<111f11<f<1(1• <Illa fll,< f ricia L. McBride Julie A. Low Buddy DeLosee 165 Placentia Ave # Fl ; 1525 Placentia 'Ave #Y.3 ; 1526 Placentia Ave #119 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 INS <41If1\Ilfll flfllllllfll11111f 11,1,1.1.111111.1\11\..I.I,II,..,I....4.I.II.IIII4III4IIIf IIIICI II II,A 11111..411 f...1111111111 . 1 1 . Allen E. Beck Lydia Tovar Edward & Jaris Parker •125 Placentia Ave # F2 1525 Placentia Ave # L5 1544 Placentia Ave 'r LN port Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 „ •..1......1...11.<.1.. i..1.1.1.1.1.........................11......1.., fl..•.1• ....,..1111f,. I'lliam McKnight David B. Whitehead Walter & Laura Anderson 1�5 Placentia Ave #F4 1525 Placentia AVe #L5 1549 Placentia Ave N port•Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ................. , • . . .. ..... . Lirel F. Hollowaty Robert Wertz Andrew Antekeier 1525 Placentia Ave #G2 1525 Placentia Ave # M1 1549 Placentia Ave N port Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 \ ....... ... . ... ... . ..... ... ..1,.. , . , . .. , .. Rfph D. Shoup Penni S. Reeves Denise Willacker 1 5 Placentia Ave # G2 1525 Placentia Ave 1549 Placentia Ave •• Newport Beach, 'CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92653 . . I.;I....., f111................ Dine L. Grubert Shirlee J. Blalack Arthur Davis 1 5 Placentia Ave #G3 1525 Placentia Ave #113 1549 Placentia #101 h',- ort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1..�. . . .. . . . . . Zecky S. Donohue Denise A. Benoit velyn •A Pappas 1 5 Placentia Ave G 1525 Placentia Ave =11� 549 Placentia #102 �r^ Newport Beach, CA 92663 MC{vnor Rnarh rA q9r,6z Bertha C(,laoff Clay C. I;1'uinc ;r,l, 230 ° �I J Ire:nr.• 1,. 1472 I.lonla:•ia Avenue_ '0481 Nrinrov'ia A:'e • 1�2'.; I'1 ,e-rltia Ave :;t3 Newport Coach CA 91GG3 Newport Leach C/ :,%(.G3 cl• •( > i,_.rhui t L_;,Cit, CA ../G 1,, Normall Fr Hazel L09,11) , 1478 Monrovia Avenue John F. I;cKay8 Kevin HcKay ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Richard £r Marr(.Ii : i:aF.t1C 1;26 Placentia Ave FB2 1481 Placentia Al:t ••10 L'ewpot•t Beath, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1.. ........ ....... .. es A Michael o Gagnon Michael F. Roche 1525d Placentia oAve r63 Newport A tdBeach,a Ave 1481 Placentia Ave rll flew port Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 j P ' , Newport Beach CA 92663 , .............................. Ruth L. Clayton Steve R. Di Federico John & Jill Stebbins Newport ' Monrovia Ave, 21 1481 Placentia, r15 1525 Placentia Ave 484 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA '92663 .4.4.011111.1„ 1.1111.1..1\ r.1..1.1...,1.111.1...1.11.1........................L.1,,........... ...... ........•.......••. 1 , David L. Witt Melinda E. Spalding Gaye A Armstrong1500 ' Newport Monrovia Ave Newport Beach CA 92663 1481 Placentia Ave, #18 1526 Placentia Ave frC2 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA- 92663 L,.,r.,,.r.... 1....... ,11..1.......,.1.,..1.41111.r1...... James & Melisse Bridges I Alex & Juanita Higuera Catherine Michaels :1515 Monrovia Ave 1481 Placentia Ave, ik]9 j' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1525 Placentia Ave #C2 Newport Beach, CA 92663 , .,\„ .r1.r111.111.t1r...11.,r,1,1....,.,.1..11..1r1. ,.. •..1...4 111..1........, Mary -Higuera John M. Leonard 1515 Monrovia Ave 1481 Placentia Ave nN Barbara Ross Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1525 Placentia Ave ilC3 ?' Newport Reach, CA 92663 1.\l<,.I I,I,I.r1,.11.l 1, .1 „Ill llll.1..11\111..11..1111.1.111...111•.111.11...1••1 ' li Alan E. Rossi Kenneth May Barbara A May 1517 Monrovia Ave Newport Beach CA 92663 1 1525 Placentia Ave 1525 Placentia 4lC4 ; Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 .\..r, ,,, 1,1,.Ir.1 \., 111,,.,..Irll,...1.1. ..,• .. • ., .,, „1 Gilbert A & Reginald Higuera Steve Tyree Newport William H Palmer u Monrovia Ave 1625 Placentia Ave 1520 Placentia Ave r,D7 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 t ,..,.,11,1.. +1..11•,.,..,..1,.1.., ,.1.. . , • .. . .,. ., . . .,,. .,. I Aubrey & Lydia Carney Elizabeth A. Wescott Linda C. Burton 1481 Placentia Ave 1525 Placentia Ave 1525 Placentia Ave ,",D1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport [leach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Elizabeth Hall Michael Whitehead Michael 8 Claire Ginthc�r 1481 P a ent'a `gg 1525 P77a ent'a Ave '.-'Al 157.E !'lacentia Avc �r ; Newpor �eac�t; A 92663 Newport �leac�t CA 9'1663 Ne1li)01'L' IlL'aCI), CA 92E,1i3 LJI � i, le•iuo L'uulcun John E Sylvi:. h�^_lvin Ya;rrock ��, W 11101 Ct . 9(1 W)b 41 16Lh St. i ' •890 1.1 15th SL. '117 purl 1.. . h, CA 9206:; hl:atllort ha,:ci., ( • f1cw1,urt Beach, CA 9?06's 1 Ella J Cea•.champ Barry 1•1 Cayla;s Josephine B Green i1i ' 1-1 15th St. r,'93 890 1.1 15th St. :•1 890 1-1 15th St. T119 C:Wo•rt Beach, CA 92G63 Newport Beach C-, ;2-- Rewport Beach, CA 92663 MI(I H 1•10111 Jane S Le Blanc 890 W 15th St. 1,194 890 •W 15th St. 0105 Nefort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 8ety J Mactavish John & Blanche Carroll 899''00'' W 15th St. 05 890 W 15th St. 907 Flewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 aBJ & Sara Arnett Susanne Mulheron IJ 15th St. #96 890 W 15th St. V4108 tkwport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Joe & Mary Moore Virginia A Adams 89[W 15th St. #97 890 W 15th St. #110 aye ort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 Adl G Earll Verda Rumble 8911d 15th St. M98 890 W 15th St. rlll Ne ort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 HaIld Womack Ella E Morvay 890 14 15th St. ,199 890 W 15th St. r112 Neamort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ila Leine Chambers Elizabeth M Vo 89 W 15th St. #102 9elpohl Tleiort Beach, CA 92663 890 4! 15th St. T11S Newport Beach, CA 92663 Emily R Deming Bernadette I Dulsorth 89§1:1 15th St. #103 890 1-1 15th St. 1115 Re. oi,L• Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Jul C Morrison Creed & Marjorie liood ti9�W 15th St. VIOh 890 W 15th St. '116 4 ort Beach, CA 92663 mownnr1• RFerh CA W-63 232Phyllis I kJrsL Carolyrt S Cair Al.anaa I. I:hitr.l:er 890 V! 15111 St. 37 �190 V., 1St11 St. • £:90 h loth St. 11e1•1porL It:ach CA 92663 Newport Bead!,i. . , N nport. Leach, CA 92663 Nolen I' ltilson 890 W 15Lh St. `:38 John t, G;raudctl';:. .'_i:, VJor,dford e4 Franco, I!n;/ce Newport B ach> CA 92663 890 V! 15t1r 5 L. 890 VI 15th St. •'•'%2 ' Newport Beach, C;, ;•,':' Iieerpnt t'Bed ch> CA 91.663 Frank P McDonald J Louise Legg Vera 0. Moody ' 890 W 15th St. "39 890 V, 15th St. == 50 890 1.1 15th st 7#74 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92653 Newport Beach, CA 92663 t Robert & Barbara Moreland Arlene 14 Carson Corris L. Zeoli890 W , NewportSth St.Beach, CA0 890 92663 NewportSBeach CA592663 NewportSth Beach, CA892663 Bessie R Oyster Raymond C Milton Katherene 14 Ingman 890 W 15th St. 890 W Newport Beach, CA192663 ! Newport SBeach, CA392663 Newport 890 ki SBeach,th St. CA992663 Dorothea A McMillan Mary J Retmier Samuel D. Egolf 890 W 15th St. #42 890 W 15th St. #57 W 15th St. 80 Aewport Beach, CA 92663 I Newport Beach, CA 92663 890 89014 Newporfi Beach, CA 92663 • i Mabel Hooper Herbert & Helen Murdock ' 896 W 15th St. #43 890 V! 15th St. r 58 Francis C. Fowler Newport Beach, CA .92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 890 W 15th Si . 81 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Willie & Iris Craft Alberta T. Clarke Verne M Anderson ' 890 W 15th St. ;i44 890 W 15th St. s65 890 4! 15th St. 1J83 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 , Jean L Egolf Nell B. Leedy 890 W '15th St. #47 890 W 15th St r66 890 VI 15th Maymie L Roberts St. Jf 85 ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport teach, CA 92663 Norma E Jeffress • Agnes F. Bomm 890 W 15th St. 1147 890 W 15th St. r67 John C. Manwaring NewportSBeach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 890 1.1 15th St. f.`86 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Leona E Thorkildsen Florence G Whitacre Attd.Iust 890 W 15th St. 114,8 890 VI 15th St, #68 r Jost Newpoa"tteach CA 92663 Newport Beach CA 92663 II90,,;i,•i'�ia::St. ` �� ' 233 (54'+4i :..` I :\,r. +„1 I'd..•'It .. .- I TO(AL AVOUNT I i I I 021440005 $360.00 $360.00 � � I Annexatioq application fee for County Tri, ngle FLCPSF DETACH THIS SrA1CMEN1' guy CHECK WrINUEBEU IN DEFOFL' DEPOSITING CHECK CITY OF NEYYFUk"f BEACH PAYMENT OF ITEMS LISTED C A L I F O P N I A RECEIPT COUNTY Af ORANGE Song r/d," Ca .ifornio 038799 i U JIVED OF: A'eo Joe. : =+ off/5lzse ; WDRESS: =-�/ '�� e_�2�"/ ��orf CITY! � 't:: el j BY CASH S .__CHECK - �, -----�_- PI SCACL'NO. 234 � p ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, "', STATE OF CALIFORNIA �F COUNTY OF ORANGE CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation ' Commission of the County ,of Orange, do hereby certify that: 1 . The application hereinafter referenced and described has been submitted to me and has been found to be in the form prescribed by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2. The application• contains, the information and data requested and required by said Commission and provisions of State Law. 3. The application has been accepted for filing by me on this*the 18th, day of�an�ary 19 8t. Applicant: City of Newport Beach ' Address: 3300 W Newport Blvd Newnorr alifornia 92663 Application Title: `County "Trianule" Annexation No 87 to the City of Newport Beach General Location: _Approximately 61+ acres surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach located northwesterly of Superior Avenue, north and south of 1.5th Street. Affected Agency: _ City of Newport Beach This certificate of filing is issued pursuant to authority and requirements of Sections 54791 and 56198 of the Government Code, State of California. All time requirements and limitations , for processing and consideration of aforementioned application specified by State Law and/or rules and regulations of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission shall become effective and run from the date of issuance of this certificate of fi to Hearing Date: _ February 13, 1980 Fee:_ $360.00 Environmental Determination: �: ✓q�y�^ ` Categorically a5tempt 6�'`'�!• :Ou/i/ xecutive' O 'ricer ' Local Agency Formation Cnrrmtrginn I 235 • ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,ROOM 458 1- ,4 O U NTY O F SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 2 1 TELEPHONE: (714)634.2239 RAN CIE b 6 1 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALD A.Me1NNIS January 28, 1980 COUNCILMAN ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERTE.DWVER 3300 W. Newport Blvd. C =RgATTATIIC OFNewport Beach, California 92660 NEML PUBLIC ILIP L.ANTHONY Attn: , Doris George, City Clerk SUPERVISOR %IRST DISTRICT DISON W.MILLER U►ERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT O,NALDJ.SALTARELLI Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be i� OFTUS ITY IN held by the •Local Agency Formation Commission of ALTERNATE Orange County February 13, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. , . EAMMLAIN Orange County Hall of Administration Building, 10 CILWOMAN Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California on proposed OFDYrRESE annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated ERNATE County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87. AN K.RIDDLE EPRlSENTATIVE OF ENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE JARRIETT M.WIEDER U►ERVISOR Very truly yours, ECOND DISTRICT RICHARDT.TURNER �•-.� EXECUTIVE OFFICER <°'�• Richard T. Turner ;; ')• Executive Officer RTT:ff CCIN CL¢¢K b .91. )o 10 J PhCY1 n 3 ^ FILE COPY 236 ORANGE COUNTY J \ HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING � �^• \ DC NOT P.7i1011c 30 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,ROOM 456 .4 ( U NTY O F SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONEt(734)634.2239 e s � ' RANGE. �� LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION t �Eg3119 CHAIRMAN , DONALD A.Mo1NNIS February 4, 1980 ,•-' i • ,-r, //� . COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `� "" -�` » ✓ .•Y Local Agency Formation �Comunission VICE-CHAIRMAN County Hall of Administration Building .q�--•(- `cs ROBERT E,GWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Santa Ana, California 92701 GENERAL PUBLIC PHILIP L.ANTHONY In Re: Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated • - SUPERVISOR County "Triangle" Annexation 'No. 87 FIRST DISTRICT EDISON W,MILLER Ladies and Gentlemen: SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DONALD J.SALTARELLI DESCRIPTION COUNCILMAN CITY OFTUSTIN By Resolution No. 9647 passed October 99 1979, the Newport Beach ALTERNATE City Council. has initiated annexation proceedings on a certain 61+ ALICEJ.M✓1CLAIN acres surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach located COUNCILWOMAN northwesterly of Su erior Avenue, north and south of 15th Street CITY OF CYPRESS p (see accompanying' Exhibit A). ALTERNATE REiNESINTATIVE OF The reason for the proposed annexation is to eliminate a county , OENERALFUSLIC island of less than 100 acres as defined in California Government ALTERNATE Code Section 35150 (f), This section authorizes the Commission to HAIRRRIE oR.WIEDER approve a city annexation after notice and hearing and to designate SECOND DISTRICT the conducting authority (the County Board of Supervisors) to order RICHARDT.TURNER annexation of the territory without election if the Commission EXECUTIVE OFFICER finds the territory contained in the annexation: 1. Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area constitutes the entire island; 2. a. Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to , Which annexation is proposed or by such city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or b. Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities; 3. Is substantially developed or developing; , 4. - Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; and 5. Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving benefits from , the annexing city. FINDINGS The annexation site consists of an unincorporated county island of approximately 61.12 acres completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach. It is an inhabited and substantially developed area with a mixture of land uses. The estimated population is 967 of which 430 are registered to vote. There are 91 landowners. 237 February 4, 1980 , Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Page 2 The annexation site is within one-half mile of Costa Mesa and within three miles of Huntington Beach. Population in surrounding• areas is expected to Increase,, substantially in the next ten years. By 1990 Newport Beach anticipates 95,659 residents; Costa Mesa expects to have 90,440 residents; and Huntington Beach is expected to attain a population of 221;000. There is a mixture of land uses within the annexation site. Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses.-predominate. There are also single-family residential and office uses in the area. Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for multi-family and mobile home residential uses. The area also contains some commercial , office industrial and single-family residential uses. Easterly of Placentia Avenue commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrialland multi-family uses also in the area. The existing county zoning on the site is as follows: Westerly of 'Monrovia Avenue is designated for M1 (Industrial) uses; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated CC (Commerical Community) -allowing commercial uses; and the remainder of the territory (between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues) is R2/1800 and R3/1800 (Multi-Family Residential ) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia Avenue shown CC (Commercial Community). The land uses surrounding the annexation area included townhomes and condominiums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the east and general' industrial uses to the north. Existing county zoning allows for additional residential development of * considerable density. At the existing density an additional 600, people could be expected if all the areas designated residential developed. Under city zoning. the projected population would be approximately the same as it is now, about 1000 total residents. City zoning would reduce the amount of land designated for residential development and increase the amount of land designated for industrial uses with a slight increase in the commercial uses. Areas designated for multiple-family uses by the city would be limited to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. The general plan land use designations for the area are as follows (percentages are approximate).: ' County City Commercial 4% 10% Multiple-Family Residential 71V 16% Industrial 25% 74% TOTAL 100% 100% 5 • 238 February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87' Page 3 Since ,the territory is 'substantially developed it cannot be considered prime agricultural land as defined in 'Government Code Section 35046. The territory is within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach as established by the LAFC in November, 1973. Several jurisdictions are presently providing urban services and facilities to the annexation territory. 1. Police Services: The Orange County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are responsible for providing law enforcement to the territory. However, Newport Beach police units respond to the area on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. Fire Services: The County of Orange is responsible for fire protection services. However, under a mutual ,aid agreement the Newport Beach Fire Department provides initial response to structural fires. All emergency paramedic services are provided by Newport , �... Beach's Fire Department. Water Service: Water is presently provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Under the terms of an agreement dated October 11, 1973, between -the city and, the district, the district would continue to provide water. Service is financed by user charges. Sewer Service: Local sewer service is presently provided .by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Trunk sewers, treatment and disposal are provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. The Sanitary District finances services from a combination of property tax and state special district agumentation funds. Pursuant to Government Code Section 35102 the city has submitted a "plan for , services" (copy attached) for the proposed annexation. The city's plan indicates that police, fire, recreation and Tibrary services, public maintenance, normal city trash collection and general administrative services ' would be made immediately available upon annexation. The level and range of services would be the same as currently provided within city boundaries. Street improvements, storm drains and street lighting would be required as the , area develops or redevelops and will be financed by the developers or adjacent property owners. The city will not require any immediate upgrading of structures, roads or facilities as a result of annexation, 239 • February 4, TO Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Page 4 The city's cost/revenue analysis estimates that the yearly fiscal impact (costs- revenues) for the proposed annexation would be $4,703.00. An increase to approximately $13,452 over a five year period could be anticipated due to development of vacant acres and redevelopment of marginal uses. The city's estimates do not .include costs of any extraordinary capital improvements in the area. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The city of Newport Beach, as lead agency, determined the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Administrative Code Section 15119, Class 19 (a) exempts: "Annexations to a city (emphasis added) or special district of areas containing existingpublic or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have .a capacity to serve only the existing facilities." ADVISORY REPORTS County agency/department reports received have not expressed any concerns over the proposed annexation. CONCLUSIONS The annexation site is a county island completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach. The site was included in the LAFCO approved .sphere of influence for the city of Newport Beach which presumes eventual annexation to the city. Existing statutes provide a special procedure for annexing county islands less than 100 acres in size to cities. Pursuant to this procedure the Newport Beach City Council has initiated proceedings for annexation of the subject territory. The city of Newport Beach is a full service municipality providing such urban' services as: police and fire protection, water and sewerage, public library, parks and recreation programs, street lighting, trash collection, street sweeping, paramedics, development services (planning, building and zoning . enforcement, public works) and general governmental administration. Several governmental jurisdictions are presently responsible for providing urban services and facilities to the annexation territory resulting in duplication of�effort, overlapping service areas, and in some cases, inadequate or totally absent facilities and services. 7 . • • • is 240 • February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Page 5 Annexation 'of the territory would Abe a step forward in consolidating ' jurisdictional responsibil-ities, eliminating duplications and advancing community facilities. Annexation woul&,also be consistent with state, county and LAFCO policies encouraging the .elimination of county islands. There would not be any increase in property taxes as a result of annexation. However, recent statutes (AB 8) require the negotiation of any property tax transfers between the affected city and county before the, State Board .of Equalization will consider the"annexation effective. RECOMMENDATION 1. Concur With the city of Newport Beach that the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from CEQA. 2. Approve the proposed annexation by resolution with the following: a. Findings: (1) The territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and such, territory constitutes the entire unincorporated island completely surrounded by the•ci.ty limits of Newport Beach. (2) The territory is developed-. (3) The territory is "inhabited" as defined in Government Code Section 35038. (4) The territory is 'not "prime agricultural land" as defined fn Government Code Section 35046. (5) The territory will i^eceive benefits from. the city of Newport Beach. b. Provisions: (1) Designate the Orange County Board of Supervisors es.the conducting authority and direct the conducting authority to initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with said resolution. (2) Authorize the conducting authority to order the territory annexed without an election as provided by Section 35150 (f) of the Government Code. 14 (3) Require the city of Newport Beach to pay all expenses incurred in conducting and completing, proceedings for the proposed annexation; and subject to any terms or conditions the Commission may deem necessary. Re ectfully s bmit .ed, Richard T. T4rner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:bd Attachments cc O. Craig T. B1uell , City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 14, 1980. FILE COPY TO: City Manager GO NOT REMOVE FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission February 13, 1980 - County Triangle - Annexation No. 87 COMMISSI.ON MEMBERS PRESENT: Edison Miller Donald Saltarell'i Robert E. Dwyer Alice MacLath Harriet Wieder t� COMMISSION ACTION: Continue to April 23, 1980 to allow time for the City to hold public hearings and meet with property owners •�' SPEAKERS I.N , FAVOR: James D. Hewicker - SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION: iRon Dick . 843 West 15th Street William J. Cowan 330 West Placentia Avenue Mr. Miller idr. Zac Akiva Mr. Tom Allenson George Moun-Shung Chi Owner of Seaview Trailer Park Rolan Peterson Owner of Harbor Trailer Park Dick 'Hoga.n representing Ish Sultania' and Joseph H. Irani ' Mrs . Jean Morrison representing Mary Morrison, 3061 Carob Street ' Mr. Bill Wood Mr rR Paul 242 70, City Manag(O. 2. �• OTHERS: i Ray Brilla Water District GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THOSE IN OPPOSITION : 1) City has not held public hearings to inforsi property owners as to their reasons for wanting to annex or intent as to future land uses. 2) They feel that once the area is annexed, the property will be down-zoned and no further residential growth will be permitted. 3) They are concerned that they will not be able to proceed with projects for which they have a-lready invested substantial sums of money in, the plans. 4) They are concerned with what they read in the newspapers as to the law suits which have been filed against the City. 5,) They are concerned that the City will force the mobilehome parks out of the area. 6,) The City has recently lowered densities in an area adjoining the annexation (BEECO) . 7. Reduction in. density i.n residential development wi•11 reduce the income to adjoining commercial area. , CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS: 1 ) City has not held public hearings to inform the residents and property owners . as to their reasons for the annexation.. . 2) The City was not concerned enough to send an elected representa- tive to attend the hearing. M P anni Director JDH/kk - 243 City Council Meeting February 25 , 1980 Study Session Agenda Item No. 4( c) l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY D0 NOT REMOVE February 20 , 1980 ' i TO: City Council FROM: Planning, Department SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation No. 87 (County Triangle) Suggested Action If desired, direct Staff and/or the Planning Commission to proceed with one of the alternates discussed in the "Analysis!' section of this report. Background L At the City Council meeting of January 7, 1980,• the City Council received a copy of the completed annexation application" fo,r the "County Triangle" ,and directed Staff to file the • appli,cation with the local Agency Formation Commission. Staff filed the application and requested that the application for annexation, be heard at LAFCO' s next •public hearing. That request was granted and the hearing was scheduled for February 13, 1980. At that hearing, Staff made a presentation concurring with the Staff report prepared by LAFCO (copy attached) . In addition, the Chairman of the Commission read a telephone message supporting the annexation in behalf of fifteen residents unable to attend the public hearing due to the inclement weather. Ten residents and property owners spoke in opposition to the annex- ation because of the current land use designation in the City' s General Plan and, probable future zoning designations . It• is clear that many of the residents and property owners in the "Triangle" would. be strongly opposed to the annexation because of the City' s current General Plan designations. Because of the opposition to annexation expressed at the public hearing, LAFCO continued the hearing for sixty days (April 23, 1980) to allow the City time to hold public hearings . The purpose of these hearings would be to inform residents and property owners 'of the City' s reasons for annexation and clarify what land use i and zoning designations would be applied to the area. a i 244 T0 : y Council - 2. • Analysis There are three alternative approaches that the Council may wish , to consider for the "County Triangle" ,annexation as follows : Alternative One. The City Council and/or the Planning Commission could hold public meetings with the owners and residents in the annexation area for informational purposes. At those meetings the rea-sons for annexation would be explained. In addition, the present General Plan designations and the future zoning designa- tions to be established consistent with the City' s General Plan would be described. Alternative- Two. The City Council could direct the Planning com- mission to in tiate prezoning: of the area and' to hold public hear- ings for the purpose of establishing zoning designations consistent with the City's current General Plan. The prezohing action would require environmental documentation substantially more extensive than that required for the annexation since the City would be establishing original zoning for the area. It is estimated that this procedure would take a minimum of four '(4) months. It is probable that Staff would need to contract for the services of an environmental consultant to are re the necessary prepare h , for cess y documentation. Adequate funds would need to be allocated e this purpose. r Alternative Three. The City Council could direct the Planning MEMO on to KaT d a public hearing to amend the City's General �^- Plan making the land use designations basically the same as the _ County's , and pre zone the area consistent with the City's amended General Plan. Environmental documentation requirement§ and timing would be the same as for Alternate Two. The 'General plan Amend- ment could be processed with the ' second set of 1980 amendments to the Land Use Element. ' Based on the opposition pp sition to annexation expressed by the property owners and the discussion at the LAFCO. opinionhearin it is Staff s that the ,ann a 9 ex tion will be successful only f y i the City' s General ene a1 Plan is amended to generally conform with the County s, and agreement can be reached withthe he property owners e a the in tensity of development. P P Y r g rding Respectfully submitted,P Y t ed PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director b ( . Y BL L Sen r Planner CTB/kk Attac h m t, LAFCO Staff Report , i 245 ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING \ 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,ROOM 458 t - SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 U NTY OF TELEPHONE:(714)834.2239 2 � RANGE /� 5 a 1ioC. v LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Iva J. CHAIRMAN 1980 MOONALOA,M.INNIs February 4, OUNCILMAN ta.^•' , ITY OF NEWPORT■ CH 11 (� Local Agency Formation Commission \ 6 .� VICE-CHAIRMAN County Hall of Administration Building \ ROasn'r E.DWYER •I ii31 \ REPRESENTATIVE OF' Santa Ana, California 92701 GENERAL PUBLIC PHILIPL,ANTHONY In Re: Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated , UPERVISOR County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 MRST DISTRICT EDISONW.MILLER Ladies and Gentlemen: SUPERVISOR _ THIRD DISTRICT _ NAL01 SALTARELLI DESCRIPTION 'oo CITY OFTUSTIN By Resolution No. 9647 passed October 9, 1979, the Newport Beach ALTERNATE City Council has initiated annexation proceedings on a certain 61+ IALIC14 MSSLAIN acres surrounded• by the city limits of Newport Beach located COUNCILWOMAN northwesterly of Superior Avenue, north and south of 15th Street CITY OF CYPRESS (See accompanying Exhibit A,). ALTERNATE REPPNRe NITA IVEOP The reason for the proposed annexation is to eliminate a county OENERALPUSLIC island of less than 100 acres as defined in California Government ALTERNATE Code Section 35150 (f). This section authorizes the Commission to 'HARRIETT M.WIEDER approve a city annexation after notice and hearing and to designate SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT the conducting authority (the County Board of Supervisors) to order RICHARDT.TURNER annexation of the territory without election if the Commission SXECUTivs OFFICER finds the territory contained in the annexation: 1. Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area constitutes the entire island; 2. a. Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city and a county I boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or b. Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities; 1 3. Is substantially developed or developing; 4. Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; and' 5. Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. FINDINGS The annexation site consists of an unincorporated county island of approximately 61.12 acres completely surrounded by the, city limits of Newport Beach. It is an inhabited and substantially developed area with a mixture of land uses. The estimated population is 967 of which 430 are registered to vote. There are 91 landowners. y 246 February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No'. 87 Page 2 The annexation site is within one-hal-f mile of Costa Mesa and within three miles of Huntington Beach. Population in surrounding areas is expected to increase substantially in the next ten years. By 1990 Newport Beach anticipates 95,659 residents; Costa Mesa expects to have 90,440 residents; and Huntington Beach is expected to attain a population of 221;000. There is a mixture of land uses within the annexation site. Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses.-predominate. There are also single-family residential and office Uses in the h area. Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues j most of the land is used for multi-family and mobile home residential uses. The area also contains some commercial , office industrial 'and single-family - residential uses. Easterly of Placentia Avenue commercial uses are the most prevalent .with industrial and multi-family uses also in the area. The existing county zoning on the site is as follows-: Westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M1 (Industrial) uses; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated CC Commerical Community) allowing commercial uses; and the remainder of the territory (between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues) is R2/1800 and R3/1800 (Multi Family Residential ) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia Avenue shown CC (Commercial Community). The land uses surrounding the annexation area included townhomes and condominiums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the north. Existing county zoning allows for additional residential development of considerable density. At the existing density an additional 600 people could be expected if all the areas designated residential developed. Under city zoning, the projected population would be approximately the same as it is now, about 1000 total residents. City zoning would reduce the amount of land designated for residential development and increase the amount of land designated for industrial uses with a slight increase in the commercial uses., Areas designated for multiple-family uses by the city would be limited to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. .A The general plan land use designations for the area are as follows (percentages areapproximate): i Count Commercial 41.v 10% Multiple-Family Residential 7116 16% Industrial 25% 741% ' TOTAL 10010, 100% ' 247 February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Page 3 Since the territory is substantially developed it cannot be considered"prime agricultural land as defined in Government Code Section 35046. The territory is within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach as established by• the ;LAFC in November, 1973. Several jurisdictions are presently providing urban services and facilities to the annexation territory. .. Police Services: The Orange County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are responsible for providing law enforcement to.the territory. However, Newport Beach police units respond to the area on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. i Fire Services: The County of Orange .is responsible for fire protection services. However, under a mutual aid agreement the Newport Beach Fire Department provides initial response to structural fires. All emergency paramedic services are provided by Newport Beach's Fire Department. Water Service: Water is presently provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Under the terms of an ,agreement dated October 11, 1973, between the city and the district, the district would continue to provide water. Service is financed by user charges. Sewer Service: Local sewer service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Trunk sewers, treatment and disposal are provided by Orange County Sanitation District ,No. 6. The " Sanitary District finances services from a combination of ,. property tax and state special district agumentation"funds. Pursuant to Government Code Section 35102 the city has submitted a "plan for services" (copy attached) for the proposed annexation. The city's plan indicates that police, fire, recreation and library services, public maintenance, normal city trash collection and general administrative services would be made immediately available upon annexation. The level, and range of services would be the same as currently provided within city boundaries. Street improvements, storm drains and street lighting would be required as the area develops or redevelops and will be financed by the developers or adjacent property owners. The city will not require any immediate upgrading of structures; roads or"facilities as a result of annexation. 248 �r February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 , Page 4 The city's cost/revenue analysis estimates that the yearly fiscal impact (costs- ■ revenues) for the proposed annexation would be $4,703.00. An increase to approximately $13,452 over a five year period could be anticipated due to development of vacant acres and redevelopment of marginal uses. The city's estimates do not A nclude costs of any extraordinary capital improvements in the area. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The city of Newport Beach, as lead agency, determined the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Administrative Code Section 15119, Class 19 (a) exempts: "Annexations to a city (emphasis added) or special district of areas containing existinpublic or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever - is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities." ADVISORY REPORTS u County agency/department reports received have not expressed any concerns over the proposed annexation. CONCLUSIONS The annexation site is a county island completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach. The site was included in the LAFCO approved sphere of influence for the city of Newport Beach which presumes eventual annexation to s the city. Existing statutes provide a special procedure for annexing county islands less t than 100 acres in size to cities. Pursuant to this procedure the Newport Beach City Council has initiated proceedings for annexation of the subject territory. The city of Newport Beach is a full service municipality providing such urban services as: police and fire protection, water and sewerage, public library, parks and recreation programs, street lighting, trash collection, street sweeping, paramedics, development services (planning, building and zoning enforcement, public works) and general governmental administration. Several governmental jurisdictions are presently responsible for providing urban services and facilities to the annexation territory resulting in duplication of effort, overlapping service areas, and in some cases, inadequate or totally absent facilities and services. 249 February 4, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Proposed Annexation to City of Newport Beach designated County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 Page 5 Annexation of the territory would be a step forward in consolidating jurisdictional responsibilities, eliminating duplications and advancing community facilities. Annexation would also be consistent with state, county and L•AFCO policies encouraging the elimination of county islands. There would not be any increase in property taxes as a result of annexation. However, recent statutes (AB 8) require the negotiation of any property tax transfers between the affected city and county before the State Board of Equalization will consider the annexation effective. RECOMMENDATION 1 1. Concur with the city of Newport Beach that the proposed annexation is categorically exempt from CEQA. 2. Approve the proposed annexation by resolution with the following: a. -Findings: (1) The territory does not exceed 100 acres in area and such "territory constitutes the entire unincorporated island completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach. (2) The territory is developed. (3) The territory is "inhabited" as defined in Government Code Section 35038. (4) The territory is not "prime agricultural land" as defined in Government Code Section 35046. (5) The territory will receive benefits from the city of'Newport Beach. b. Provisions: j (1) Designate the Orange County Board of Supervisors as the conducting authority -and direct the conducting authority to initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with said resolution. (2) Authorize the conducting authority to order the territory annexed without an election as provided by Section 35150 (f) of the Government Code. (3) Require the city of Newport Beach to pay all expenses incurred in conducting and completing proceedings for the proposed annexation-, - and subject to any terms or conditions the Commission may deem necessary. Re ectfully s bmit ed, Richard T.-Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:bd Attac�hh ents cc Craig T. Bluell , City of Newport Beach / '.1.,PY�f T1i1Ail MON i:i I N r• I ttfJ� ��'�rb,YT�TIVl, ( •'•.�K� n 2 ffR UI��•L+IL• - HIM TIMM �!.yF' Yy [[3����{L;.2�, ¢ R'^t., I,'�V.^�,V (1]�, .n ;/'� k:' 1 . tl is.'3 L'y � •r.�i7+�Cy,�����k• -i DiveY.�.w _Ak •.• :yY �. �� ��t�}CFui'�+��k�y ,btu �j ,•,-D -C,•^7F-'+, fc,��� Yc4a' - }`+1c'1f.�'F���` /� 4 ' F�. 'sY' -�@{ ;�"�C�� •��''��/w9''�'y�r����0'�?,�r���"v, �,�`�`" �, .v> m; •�,�_+_�J rt�.v�.��I�ia:a a:.�i3<tN,iv'W.l a�.<�'Y�,. �.t�.. ...� � '+E.-.V Fork �Sa k�4�. .f.,•.•��� ,� c Y, .r. ,� (, ,i ,f�b •.a tD�`'.", I } ✓'�.r�+'�"r�♦'w ''rr, `fir'/•J•4 . 12D .`Glt.•1��'.'x?;A�.J,4,t�'tb� `+'`•>>•.r�,h, �•t)�,fR�k_t •�� IN oRMU k� . w`` � ... 251 "PLAN FOR SERVICES'. j! In:.IUdr_CtlOn r.i(flfliJ t. a,',d_,i, Wal Pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (110= ;) Chapter 2, Article 1 , Sections 35100 - 35104, a City is empowered to initiate Preliminary annexation pro- ceedings by adoption of a resolution. If the City initiates proceedings for annex- ation, it must also submit a plan for providing service to the affected area. In accordance with the requirements of MORGA and the requirements of LAFCO, the follow- ing "Plan for Services" has been prepared for the County Island in 41est Newport Beach commonly known as the "County Triangle". This plan represents the City's best esti- mate of what improvements and services are required for the "County Triangle" and 'how much' they will cost. In addition, planning matters of a general nature are discussed and a cost/revenue analysis is provided. Existing County. Zoning and Surrounding Land Uses The County of Orange has established the zoning designations for the County Triangle area. These designations are briefly described as, follows: That area westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 (Industrial) uses. The area easterly of Pla- centia Avenue is designated CC (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses. The remainder of the County Triangle (between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues) is R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Residential) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia Avenue shown CC (Commercial Community). The land uses surrounding the County Triangle area include town homes and condomin- iums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the north. Existing Land Use The County Triangle is a mixed use area and can be generally described as follows: Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate. There are also Single Family residential and office uses in the area. Between Monrovia 'and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for Multi-family and robile home residential uses. 'The area also contains some commercial, office industrial and single-family residen-• tial uses. Easterly of Placentia Avenue, commercial uses are the most prevalent with 'industrial and multi-family residential uses also in the area. LAND USE INVENTORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1.77 A i` MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 30.855 A DUPLEX 2.133 A MOBILE HOME 15.081 A COMMERCIAL 9.141 A OFFICE 5.571 INDUSTRIAL 7.397 A INSTITUTIONAL 1'.320 A TOTAL DEVELOPED ACREAGE 50.483 A VACANT ' ' 4.644 A IOOTAL ACREAGE (EXCLUDES STREETS) 55.127 A iu 22 %onin��it>d t and-Use,Pl�in Consistency Tha Cily or Newport Beach General Plan siio,rs land we :;,i; Triangle area. That portion of the Triangle sou` r. • „ „ di cal for the County �h_t 1 :„ J .decal Lan,. cr.tend�d is shown for Multi-Family Residential" uses, tcortiLer Use Plan shows an "Industrial" designation. host of the_�,� a";,teal Lane, the Land Avenue is "R etail 1 and tr _ area easterly of Placentia n Say-vice Conur etcial with the small nor"Indus „ northerly strip designated trtal When compared to Orange Count P 9 y zoning designations, titers are two areas of incon- sistency with the Newport Beach General Plan. The first is the strip of "Industrial" General Plan designation east of Placential Avenue. The County zoning shows this t area for "Commercial Community" uses. The second and largest area of inconsistency occurs in the area northerly of Medical Lane extended and between Monrovia and Pla- centia Avenues. County zoning allows R=2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Residential) uses while the Newport Beach General Plan designates the area, "Industrial". Upon annexation, - these inconsistencies will have to be resolved to bring General Plan and Zoning Designations into conformance as required by State Law. EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION BLOCK EXIST_ ING POP. POP/H.H. PROJECTED POP (Per Existing N.D. G: P. 103 476 1.65 476 104 52 1 .33 50 _ 959 422 1 .47 418 901 *6 2.0 0 ¢ TOTAL 956 944 Community Facilities And Services The County Triangle is surrounded by well-established urban development which has all the public facilities and services normally provided to a modern city. Several•:*juris• dictions are presently responsible for providing community facilities and services to the County Triangle resulting in duplication of effort, overlapping responsibility, and in some cases, inadequate or totally absent facilities and services. Annexation of the County Triangle would be the first step in consolidation of jurisdictional respo sibili.ties, elimination of wasteful duplication of effort and enhancement of community facilities. Schools The Newport-Mesa School District has experienced a decline in enrollment since the' T969- 1970 school year. On a district-wide basis, the enroll,-' nroll;er.: figures have dropped. from •269264 students in 1967-1970 to 20,034 students in. 1979-1980, This decrease in enroll; ment has necessitated the closure of three elementary scr;.ols; I•ionte Vista, Mesa Verde and Victoria. School age children residing in the area extend Whittier Elementary Schoo� Communication with the Newport-Mesa School District stv�ent predictions staff disclosed' that there would be sufficient capacity for both Elementa-y and High School age students that might reside in the area, i10 significant impact resulting from annexation. Pol !cc_Srrvicos 1'hr Or,�nge County Sherriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol are respon- si,ble for providing law enforcement to the "County Triangle". However, Newport Beach police units respond to the area on a regular basis to assist with emergency calls. This occurs primarily because those agencies having responsibility have insufficient patrol units in the area, or because the estimated response time is not satisfactory. Emergency calls include burglary alarms, armed robberies, thefts, locating walk-away mentally-ill patients, and traffic accidents for purposes of medical aid and traffic control . Based on crime statistics 'provided by the Sherriff's Department for the period 1978- 1979 and Newport Beach crime statistics for the same period, crime in the County Tri- angle represented about 1 .25% of what Newport Beach experienced. Based on the crime data provided by the Sherriff's Department, the City law enforcement "workload" would increase by approximately 574 manhours. However, the City Police Department believes that present manpower can absorb the increased workload since some of the projected manhours are currently being provided as assistance with emergency calls. Annexation would define responsibility for police services, eliminate duplication , of effort and provide better service to the area. • Increased manhours for service 1 could be absorbed by present staffing and the City would begin to receive revenues . from the area for service now being provided but not 'paid for through City taxation. 'Fire Services The Orange County Fire Department is responsible for fire protection service to the: County Triangle. However, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department is first to be dispatched by the Orange County Fire Department to an emergency fire call under the provisions of a mutual aid agreement. When emergency fire calls require backup assis- tance, this assistance is provided by the Orange County Fire Department. All emer- gency paramedic services are provided by Newport Beach's Fire Department. ' The only additional workload would relate to fire fighting backup which would be provided by existing fire companies and fire prevention inspection services. The Newport Beach Fire Department anticipates that all fire protection, paramedic and -fire prevention inspection services can be provided by existing manpower and equip- ment. I At the present time, considerable confusion exists among residents of the area as to who provides their fire protection/emergency medical services. annexation, of the County Triangle would resolve the confusion. In addition, fire prevention inspection and weed abatement would become the responsibility of the City Fire Department. As-in the case of police services, annexation would eliminate overlapping responsibility and provide the City with revenue for services now being provided. ' Public Works Improvements and Repairs This section represents the most significant problems that the City will have to resolve if annexation takes place. Much of the improvement work which is enumbrated on the following page would be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner as it devel- ops or redevelops. Of the remaining items, none has a sufficiently high priority to merit funding in the near future. The largest item, 15th Street widening, has a ver^y' low priority of need at the present time. 254 A,_ /irtcri<il Strcq 1 . Superior Avelluc: This streC't iS CIaSSI fiY.. i.i pl'i6Ylry road (4 banes divided) in the City's circulation eler,:_r;. r;;,re:;iamtely 300 feet at - the easterly end of the triangle re-,•ains t_ didaned to meet pririary standards. The construction of the i ,:prore:ents for the widening is estimated to cost $23,000. Right-of-,.,,ay acquisition is estimated to be $24,000. Up to 4 mobile homes would have to be relocated for the widen- ing. The relocation assistance for the mobile homes could range from $20,000 to $60,000. If the mobile hone park cr.anges use or redevelops, these improvements could be placed as conditions for development. 2. Placentia Avenue: This street is classified as a secondary road (4 lanes undivided). The street has been substantially improved in con- formance with the arterial classification. There are missing reaches os sidewalk which will require completion. - 3. • 15th Street: This street is currently classified as, a- secondary road. , It was recently added to the arterial street system, and has notbeen improved in conformance with the secondary classification, The County has adopted a precise alignment for this street which requires that the widening be done along .the north side of the street. There is no exist- ing street westerly of 'Monrovia Avenue. It is ariticipated that the street may have to be completely reconstructed to provide an adequate structural . section for the secondary classification. Acquisition of right-of-way for widening along the north side will be expensive and time consuming. Widening will require relocation of 15 to 20 trailers in the parks on the northerly-side of 15th Street. Construction costs to complete 15th Street to secondary standards are estimated to be $288.000 without reconstruction of the existing road- way. With reconstruction, the cost is $408,000, Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $344,000, and relocation assistance for the mobile homes could run as high as $300,000, The construction estimate also includes 'a storm drain along 15th Street. The right-of-way and construction of .improvements westerly of Monrovia were included in the estimate ($200,000--construction and right-of-way) . _ These improvements and right,of--way may partially, be funded through prior commitments related to the Grant Co. development of Newport Crest. 8. Local Streots Monrovia Avenue is the only dedicated local public street 'in the annexation area. The street is improved except for 640± feet northerly of 15th Street on the easterly side. The completion of improvements in this area includes curb, gutter, sidewalk;. and six feet of paving , estimated to cost $28,000. A private street called Medical Lane serves the southerly portion of the triangle. Medical Lane is little more than an aisle through a parking lot and does not meet the City's private street guidelines. Development in the southerly protion of the triangle should be required to upgrade the street. 255 13 f-0 ; C_ 4later Service Water service is presently provided by the Costa Mesa Consolidated Water District. Under the terms of an agreement between the City and the District, the District would continue to provide water service. However, at some future time, it is possible that this area would be de-annexed from the District and water service provided by the City. Some construction costs would be associated with such a de-annexation should it occur; this amount is estimated to be $15,000. D. Sewer. Service Local sewer service is presently provided by the Costa 14esa Sanitary District, while main transmission lines are provided by Orange County Sanitation District #6. .The Local Agency Formation Commission has previously taken the position that the City should ultimately provide sewer service in the area if it is annexed. i r• This could be done at nominal cost if support was received from the Costa Mesa ;Sanitary District. All of the sewer lines in the triangle serve only . that'area or areas in Newport Beach. They drain by way of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway where they empty into a Sanitation District line. i 1 E. Storm Drainage • A storm drain is required to replace the ditch along the northerly side of I5thIStreet, The cost of this facility has been included in the road widen- ing estimate. The area southerly of 15th Street has several low sump areas which have poten- . tial 'drainage problems.associated with development and/or redevelopment of the , area! A drainage study will need to be prepared to determine the effect of develop-, r ment on runoff. It may be found that existing storm drains will need upsi2- ing pr that a portion of the drainage from the area needs ,to be diverted to the hest. F. Street Lighting There is little or no street lighting presently existing in the area. Initial installation of street lights would be the responsibility of the property owners, under City policy. Inasmuch as the area is semi-developed, an assessment di•s- ' trict proceeding would ordinarily be used to install street lights• if they are desired. However, successful assessment district proceedings. ore becoming incrgasingty difficult to achieve. ' In addition to the improvements discussed above, a number of minor repairs' and improve- ments' are needed to bring the County Triangle up 'to City standards in the short term. The improvements that would be needed are as follows : i 1`1• 256 Manufacturc and ins-tall 15 streeL naive signs $ 300.00 i Manufacture and install 5 speed limit signs 165.00 Miscellaneous street striping 100.00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with asphaltic concrete 250.00 Overlay Monrovia Ave. with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete to re-establish street crown and restore proper drainage 51250.00 Street tree trimming 1 ,848.00 $ 7,913.00 Cost/Revenue In order to evaluate the approximate fiscal impact resulting from the annexation of the County Triangle to the City of Newport Beach, the following information has been prepared. The analysis uses existing land use and an estimate of Land Use based on development of the vacant 4.6 acres and redevelopment of marginal uses consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan (titled 115 Year Projection"), and shows the yearly net fiscal impact on the City of Newport Beach. The Cost/Revenue generation factors are based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis System originally developed' by Ashley Economic Services, Inc. for the City of Newport Beach in July of 1976. The system has been updated, based on recent Environmental Impact Reports' ,, to reflect changes in the revenue base as a result of Proposition 13,. The most conservative methodology, utilizing an "average cost approach ', has been ' used for purposes of this comparison. �p LAND USE EACRESNG P AC ffl EXISTINGS�L5 YEAR PROJECTIONSingle-Family(2) 1.8 -0- 132 - _0- Duplex, (12) 2.1 -0- (420)6. -0- Multi-Familly(366) 1.3.6 14.0 (12,810)6• (13335)6• Mobile Hom ((216)) 15.1 15.1 (7,560)6• (7,,560)6• . Commercial-)'- 3.6 36 6;898 6,898 Industial4• 7.4 14.9 7,733 15,570 , Office • 5.6 6.2 10,730 11,879 Church/School 1 .3 1 .3 -0- Vacant 4.6 -0- -0- -0- 65.1 55.1 _ 4,703 13,452 r 1:Ord Property Development Analysis, Fiscal Impact Analysis, Newport Economics Group (Bob Dunham), June 1979. 2. Yearly net fiscal impact (Costs-Revenues). 3. Based on $ .11 per square foot. The original Ashley '.eport (1976) contained separate generation factors for office and retail and commercial uses. However, the updated , information (1979) available in the Aeronutronic Ford report addresses "Commercial Retail without a 'Further breakdown of land use. Consequently, the commercial and office uses in the County Triangle are all considered "Commercial.,RetaiI" for pur- poses of this analysis. Based on an estimated commercial density of .4X Gross . 4. Based on an estimated industrial density of .4X Gross. 5. Based on an average home value of $125,000 which would generate ,a net surplus of approximately $66/unit. (The Aero-Ford report showed figures for $280,000, $225,000, $186,000, and $60,000 so it was necessary to interpolate in order to estimate for a $125,006. Based on anmestimated value of $60,000 per unit (Rental $450 - '$700/month). ��� ' �•• 257 � The table on the previous page illustrates that the estimate yearly fiscal impact (costs-revenues) for the proposed annexation would be $4,703. An increase to approximately $13,452 over a 5 year period could be anticipated due to development of vacant acres and redevelopment of marginal uses. These estimates do not include costs of any extraordinary capital improvements in the area. i �i • . t i 1 - 1 rvluait•K ra.a - f.\YY MYNIAi • r INk tDQNY ZONiNL • ay- U[ifif ImD1.15fRN1- Mum—F*ULY K Z 4 K-3 • ADVANCi • PLAIyNINDHEM D o MUM ' DiV11IDN �� ism .M Aw ,so lm ',w Ism s 60 im 'g 'M M* �M t ,m im no rag I NO 0 P- A. s� city of . ` NEWPOO RT BEACH . • • rrrr I MO� ��v or i%iiii;;i6,Eii; iii:...�.... .� �// L't._u • ■ 'Hiii: ....... / ' ::/• LL IN city of _ ` NEWPORT BEACH i i i i i Me i it in f' iM i is ir. A T2vt1:7Git/N ft.1W ..... N .R.. j I LIMY Is/YNDN7L i t \Block901 Block 103 Block 104 �3 4 901 05` P �r N Ii L-. I-- ---- Block 959 - tHq ' CENSUS BLOCK MAP �joc A 1 , ' AOYANCR ' - PL IVININ4 UtL.tNPO tJ L Lc '. PIVI9il71V O • � 262 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 26 , 1980 T0: JIM HEWICKER, DIRECTOR ILL COPY, ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT DO NOT Rctv9OVE - FROM: City Manager , SUBJECT: COUNTY TRIANGLE AREA Please arrange a meeting with owners of g 9 property of the County i Triangle Area. The purpose of the meeting is to brief the owners of property on the following: 1. Details of this City's General Plan. 2. Possibility, but maybe the probability of this City discontinuing police, fire and paramedic services to this area. This subject should not be treated as a "scare tactic" but nevertheless, they should be advised that it is possible for this City to �. withdraw these type services. 3, Question and answer period. This meeting should occur prior to the continued date by LAFCO for the consideration of this matter. Members of the City Council should be invited to the briefing, as well as the President of the Newport Terrace Association. � � J ROBERT�/L. WYNN ' lzo /� JI .�� • 263 • SEW Pp�,r e CITY OF NEWTPORT BEACH u z C,1</Fog N%* PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' ( 714) 640-2261 March 5, 1990 FILE Copy Dear Landowners and Residents, DO NOT ?CUM i As .you probably know, the City of Newport Beach has ini- tiated annexation proceedings with the Local Agency For- mation Commission for annexation of the area commonly known as the "County Triangle." During the first public hearing, LAFCO continued the hearing for 60 days, to their April 23, 1980 meeting, to allow, the City time, to' 1 hold public meetings with the landowners and residents in the annexation area. By this letter you are invited to attend a public mee.tin,g to be held by the City of Newport Beach at which time the ' City' s annexation proposal will be presented. Topics, such as zoning and the City' s General Plan wi'il also be discuss-e'd. Members of the City Council , Planning, Commission., •City 'Sta•ff, k^!, and ad3acent Home Owners Associations wi,11 ai.so be invited to attend. The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 19, 1990, at 7: 30 p .m. in the City Council Chambers , Newport Beach City Ha,11 , 3300 Newport Boulevard. Copies of staff reports regarding the proposed annexation are available at the Newport, Bea.ch P1d n'ni;ng1 Department in the Advance Pl'anning offices. Staff rep6rts •will . also be available at the' meeting. ' ' If 'you have ,any questions , please feel free to call Craig Bl.uel`l , Senior Planner, at 640,2261 . Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Craig uell Senior Planner CB/nm City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 L3Mrlo ?.ands Community Assoc . fir. David Goff, Pres . • 264 ' P 0 Box 1373 Newport Beach , CA 92663 Newport Crest Homeowners ' Assoc. ' � % Professional Mgmt Co. • 1101 Dove St. , Ste . 230 1 Newport Beach ,- CA 92660 Newport Beach Townhouse 'Owners Association I 4417 W Coast Highway ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' r4,., Balboa Coves Community Assoc. ;:•: Atr. Bill McLaughlin, Pres. #67 .Balboa Coves Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Shores .Conmunity.Assoc, The attached letter went to the following IMs Ninfa Jarvis, Pres. Homeowners Associations: 335 Canal i Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Lido Sands Community Association Newport Crest Homeowners Association : Seawind-Newport Community Assoc. Newport Beach Townhouse Owners Assoc. 0Planned Community Services Co., -0 Box 17994 Balboa Coves Community Association Irvine, CA 92713 .� i xA Newport Shores Community Association I ,West Newport Beach Improvement Assoc. Seawind-Newport Community Association Urs. Margot Skilling, Pres. 6610 W Ocean Front i':;, t West• Newport Beach Improvement Association, Newpore Beach, CA 92663 Park Lido Association Inc. - ALSO: Planning Commission City Council Heads.. , Department He _ :i•' .. Park Lido Association, Inc. �'• .�• E172 DuPont " Drive •, V', t • Irvine, CA 92715 Park Lido Associat ion, In c. ,. l 430 4 Patrice Road ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ! " Attn- Clarence Beveridge , �f 265 SEW PART u , mT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C7��FOAN�F PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' ( 714) 640-2261 March 12,• 1980 TO: Department Heads FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Public Meeting Concerning Annexation of the County "Triangle. " ' At the City Council meeting of February 25, 1980, the Council directed Staff to schedule a public meeting to discuss the City' s annexation proposal with the landowners and residents of the County "Triangle ." That public meeting is scheduled for March 26, 1980, at 7: 30 p ..m. , in the City Council Chambers . Invitations to this public meeting have been sent to members of the City Council , Planning Commission , City Staff, homeowners associations , and the 434 registered Y voters and landowners of the County "Triangle." Sincerely, ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By .Cra g T. Bluel Senior lanner CTB/nm City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California 92663 266 . 1 it IMPURTANT NOTICE _ :;'..,:• ' CHANGE OF PUBLIC CAVING ' ;.� DATE DUE TO A CONFLICT OF _ ' .; r:•a MEETING DATES, WE HAVE CHANGED : :�:• "^o Y ; : JiY'TIIE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC IEETING DATE ON THE•..n • s COUNTY TRIANGLE ANNEXATION FROM MARCH 190 1980, TO :.;MARCH 26, 1980, AT 7J P.N.. IN THE CITY COUNCIL :.CHAFERS. I'F YOU '• : - HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT, HESITATE TO CONTACT CRAIG BLUELL AT 640- 226I. • • _ ', •' �i;•:•:••• RAZE LUELL i• . f _. `� ._ 'S MIOR .,• NNER .. �•�:. ._..ti___..:A,S. ••A'Yr1••�i1:!'^_•SL•i.�_•'^%.�[}r,:__•'yy,-r�:1'•'.'.•r'•. f1 '46: Z67 ORANGE COUNTY \ HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,ROOM 456 O U N'1'Y O P SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 i TELEPHONE:(714)834.2239 o 3 / RANGE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION �HAIRMAN 'M E'M'0 R A N D'U M ONALD A.MoINNIS COUNCILMAN ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ICE•CHAIRMAN DATE: April 18, 1980 OBERT E. ER REPRE ENTAITVVEOF TO: Local Agency Formation Commission 1 GENERAL PUBLIC FROM: Executive Officer, Local Agency Formation Cd mission ' ILIP L.ANTHONY - UPERVISOR SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach County FIRST DISTRICT "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 DI W.MILLER UPSONERVI 11 HIRD DISTRICT DONALD J.SALTARELLI At the Commission's meeting of February 13, 1980, the subject UNCILMAN annexation Was continued �to the meeting of April 23, 1980. The CITY OFTUSTIN continuance was for the purpose of having Newport Beach city staff O LTERNATE members meet with residents and landowners to discuss the issues of ALICEJ.M,¢LAIN annexation. OUNCILWOMAN ITY OF CYPRESS LTERNATE The city reports there was a meeting on March 26, 1980 where the JOAN K.RIDDLE landowners and residents were invited to meet with staff and city REPRESENTATIVE OF council members to discuss the issues brought up at the Commission's ENERALPUBLIC meeting of February 18. The city also reports the Planning LTERNATEHAR Commission had a study session on the subject annexation on SUPERVISORR .wIEDER April 10, 1980 where the residents and property owners spoke with ECOND DISTRICT the commissioners about prezoning and future land uses on their ICHAROT.TURNER property. XECUTIVE OFFICER On April 14, 1980, the City Council also discussed the subject annexation regarding future zoning if the property were to be annexed to the city. Staff members of the city of Newport Beach will attend the Commission's meeting on April 23 to address the Commission as to the outcome of these meetings and, also, to discuss scheduling of general plan amendments for 1980 to the city's general plan regarding future land uses on the territory of the subject ti annexaon. =k'' _ 1 Richard T. Turner S yL-'- RTT:bd A 4 r.;• 9 cp 80� s � H, ! N 1 a jJ • 268 a c,�Fc 1 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO I ✓4/8 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 April 23, 1980 4 On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and.carri , 5 following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, a proposal for the proposed annexation of territory to tea 6 City of Newport Beach in the County of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of , 7 Newport Beach and accepted for filing on January 18, 1980 by the Executive Officer of 8 the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Part 2 of Title 49 Division 2, commencing with Section 35000 at seq of the Government Code; and 9 WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Governmant Code Section 10 35153 set February 13, 1980 as the hearing date of this proposal designated as "COUNTY 11 "TRIANGLE" ANNEXATION NO. 87 and gave the required notice and hearing; and WHEREAS, this Commission did continue said hearing to ,the meeting of , April 23, 1980; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer pursuant to Government Code Section '14 54794, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including his recommendation thereon* and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and lb WHEREAS, this Commission called this proposal for public hearing on 16 April 23, 1980, heard from the interested parties, consider ed red the proposal and the 17 -report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Coemissio , 18 to be relevant to this proposal including, but not limited toe factors specified in -Sections 54796 and 35150(f) of the Government Code; and 19 WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach. as lead Agency, determined the 20 proposed annexation to be "categorically exempt" from the requirements of the Califor- 21 nia Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Aoency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as folio.,• : IESSENTa Section 1 . This Commission finds that the territory contained in the 24. •0 Mayor proposal : JO® Manager2 5 Attorney a. Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such territory P W Director constitutes the entire unincorporated island le- m r comP- 26 ,�ra txv of,cta . � i❑ olrer � teT y surrounded by the -city limits of Newport Bench; 27 0 Councilman �;;� 'i b. Is substantially developed; [] � � trio 28 Resolution No. 80-33 1 c. is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; d. Will benefit from annexation to the City of Newport 3 Beach. 4 Section 2. Subject to the terms and conditions hereafter specified, 1114 5 said proposal is approved. Section 3. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be included j6 in and annexed to.the City of Newport Beach are specifi- q cally described in the legal description attached hereto 8 and by this reference made a part hereof. Salo territory is found to be inhabited and said territory is assigned 9 the following designation: COUNTY "TRIANGLE" ANNOATION , to NO. 87 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 1 Section 4. Any resolution ordering such annexation shall provide that such annexation shall be made subject to the folio- wing specified terms and conditions: a. That the city of Newport Beach, as applicant, shall bt 4 liable for and pay all proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings for the annexation. 5 Section 5. The Board of Supervisors of Orange County is designated 16 as the conducting authority and is hereby directed to 17 initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with this resolution. Said Board is authorized to order annexation 8 of the territory without an election. The Commission 9 recommends to the,Board of Supervisors that they .not proceed until the City of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. I Section 6. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided in Section 35159 of the Government Code. In addition, said Executive Officer shall also mail to said conducting authority a copy of the resolution accom- panying said proposal . • AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E. DWYER HOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 80-33 _p_ 270 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) , 46 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s' . I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation ' 3 Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing 4 resolution was duly and regularly adopted b said Co mission Y P Y C omission ate regular meeting 5 thereof, held on the 23rd day of April, '1980. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April $ , 6 1880. 7 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the 8 Local Agency Formation Commission 9 - of Orange County, California 10 8Y 11 Actff`g ecre III ' 14 16 1s ,17 - 1s 19 ; 2D 21 22 24 2b 26 27 1 28 Resolution No. 80-33 -3- i271 q Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 1980 Agenda Item No. 8 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' June 12, 1980 TO: Planning Commission rFROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 80-2 (Discussion) rRequest to set for public hearing an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan in the County Triangle area. . INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach - Background r At the City Council meeting of. October 9, 1979, the Council adopted -, a Resolution of application for annexation of the "County Triangle" and directed staff to complete the other elements of the annexation application package. On January 7, 1980, the City Council reviewed the completed annexation application and directed Staff to file the application with the Local Agency Formation Commission. The application for annexation was heard at LAFCO' s public hearing on February 13, 1980. At the February 13th meeting, the hearing was continued to the meeting of April 23, 1980 because of the opposition to annexation expressed by r the property owners and residents. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the City time to hold public meetings to inform residents and property owners of the City's reasons -for annexation and clarify whAt' land use and• zoning designations would be applied to the area. *The City held a public meeting on March 26, 1980. After explaining::•the City'.s reasons for initiating annexation proceedings, City representatives invited comments and questions from the residents and landowners in attendance. Some of the issues that were -raised included future res- idential growth, the fate of existing mobilehome parks in the area , current Newport Beach General Plan designations, and allowable residential, r densities. Additionally, the residents and property owners spoke with the Planning Commission about future land use designations at the . April 10, 1980 Planning Commission study session. At the April 14, 1980. City Council study session, landowners and residents discussed future r General Plan designations and development intensities with the City Council . r • 272 TO: Plating Commission - 2. On April 23, 1980, LAFCO held the continued public hearing on the annexation. The Commission heard testimony both favoring and opposing the annexation proposal . Primary concern still centered around future land use designations and development intensities. After all testimony was heard, the Commission discussed the annexation and took the fol1owing action as recorded in their minutes: ' On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously, carried, the Commission sustained the determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved , as recommended, the County Triangle Annexation No. 87 to the City of Newport Beach with the additional recommendation to the Board' of Super- , visors that they not proceed until the City of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L . ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL; , EDISON W. MI'LLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E. DWYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE ' Resolution No. 80-33 " Di•seussion I . Site Description The County Triangle is located on the west side of Newport .Beach. ... It is bounded on the southwest by Superior Avenue, and' by City boundaries to the north and southeast. The "Triangle" consists of approximately ' 61 .12 acres. It is inhabited and substantially developed with a mixture of residential , commercial , and industrial land uses. The land uses surrounding the annexation area .included apartments , town- homes, and condominiums to the south and east, a hospital and medical ' professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the north. To the west. the land is vacant and planned for residential development. The estimated population of the "Triangle" is 967; there are 430 registered voters and 91 property owners. 2. General' Plan Designations a. County General Plan (See Attached Map) Westerly of Monrovia is designated "Light Industrial " ; easterly ,of Placentia isdbs1z'gnated Community Commercial" ; and the remainder of e is small corner taty Superior gAvenue l,and vPlacentia Avenue y Density ndesignated h"Communit Commercial . " b. . City General Plan (,See Attacheh Map) That portion of the "Triangle" southerly of Medical Lane extended is shown for "Multi -Family Residential " uses . Northerly of Medical Lane., the Land Use Plan shows an "Industrial " designation. , Most of the area easterly of Placentia Avenue is "Retail and Service Commercial " with the small northerly strip designated "Industrial . ". 273 1 • -TO : �nning Commission - 3. General Plan Land Use designations for the area are as follows: ' (percentages are approximate) County City Commercial 4% 10% Multi-Family Residential 71% 16% ' Industrial 25% 74% TOTAL. - 100% 100% ' 3. Existing Zoning a. County Zoning (See Attached Map) The existing county zoning on the site is as follows: Westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 -(Industrial ) uses; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated C-C (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses; and the remainder of the territory (between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue) is R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Multi-Family Residential ) with a small corner at Superior and Placentia Avenues: shown C-C (Commercial Community) . b. City Zoning (See Attached Map) None. 4. Existing .Land Use, There is a mixture of land uses within the annexation site. Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate. There are also single-family residential and office uses in the area. Between• Monrovia and Placentia Avenues* most of the land is used for multi- family and mobile home residential uses- The area also contains some commercial , office industrial and single-family residential uses ' Easterly of Placentia Avenue commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrial and multifamily uses also in the area. ' Land Use Inventor Single Family Residential 2.2 acres ' M61ti-Family Residential 31 .2 acres Duplex 2.1 acres Mobile Home 15. 1 acres Commercial 8.7 acres Office 3.•6 acres , •, „ Industrial 6.9 acres Institutional 1 .3 acres ' Total Developed Acreage 50.3 acres Vacant 4.6 acres ' Total icreage. (excludes streets) 5 54.9 acres 274 ,TO: Pla*ng Commission - 4. County zoning regulations currently control development in the � . County Triangle. In general , the County' s M-1 Standards for industrial development are more permissive than City Standards. ' Neither a height limit nor an intensity of development standard are established by the County Code. The City' s Zoning Code would control height through Chapter 20.02 "Height Limits." The standards most applicable to the "County Triangle " would be the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation zone. Intensity of development is limited to 3 times the buildable area of the site by the City's Code. County parking requirements for the M-1 zone are one parking space per 1000, square feet of gross floor area for storage •uses , one parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area for office and storage ,,,or manufacturing and storage uses . and one parking space per 400 a square parkingfeet standard multi fore in theht 1 ria uses.For purposes The f the following dCl *ha.s not evelopmel analysis, a future- development intensity of 1 .0 was used to project industrial development under both County and City Zoning Standards. The commercial designation established by County zoning is (C-C/35) Community Commercial with a 35 foot height restriction.. In the case are slightly more permissive. , of commercial zoning, County standards pmissive. In terms of permitted height, the County' s standards allows up to 35 feet while the City's standards would be 32/50 feet. The County does not have an intensity standard but the. City's Code would limit ' development to two times the buildable area of the site. County ' parking standards are similar to City standards in that the County Code requires that retail uses have one parking space per 200. square feet of gross floor area while the city' s , standard is one space per 350 square feet of floor area and one loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Requi-red parking for office uses as established by County Zoning is one parking space for each 250 ' square feet of gross floor area. The City's standard is one parking space for each 350 square feet of net floor area. In order to project future commercial development, a development intensity of 2.0- was used. Residential designations established by the County Zoning Code are R-2 (1800) and R-3 (1800) . Both designations restrict building heights to 35 feet and require 1800 square 'feet of' lot area per unit, which permits 24.2 dwelling units per buildable acre. Parking requirements for both districts are also the same: One covered parking space and 1/2 open parking space for each , one bedroom unit One covered parking space and 1 open parking space for each ' two bedroom units Two covered parking spaces and 1/2 open parking space for each , 3 bedroom units . Plus . 2% open. parking spaces for. guest use per unit. ® 275 TO: PlanilTfig Commission ' - 5 . The City's R-3 designation restricts building heights to 28/32 feet and requires 1200 square feet of lot area per unit, which permits ' 36. 3 dwelling units per buildable acre. Parking requirements for the R-3 district are as follows: (a) Not less than two garage spaces for each single-family dwelling. (b) Not mess than one garage space for each family unit ' in any duplex, triplex, or dwelling group of four or less family units. ` (c) Not less than one garage space for each two guest rooms in any r•ooming ' house. (d) Not less than one parking space for each two guest rooms in any hotel . (e) Not less than one garage space 'for each of the first ' four family units , and two dffstreet parking spaces , one of which m6st ,be a garage space, for each additional family unit, in any dwelling group of more than four family units. (f) Not less than two garage spaces per family unit in any residential "B" District. The C.ity' s General Plan permits a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. In order to project future residential development, 24.2 dwelling units per acre .- was used for projecting future residential development under County standards , 15 dwelling units per acre was 'used to project permitted City intensities, and 20 dwelling units per acre was used as the Trend Growth Intensity. " Trend Growth was established by averaging a recently completed project , two projects under construction ' and two projects currently proposed and inr the hearing process. City and County standards for Commercial and Industrial designations are similar, however, the multi-family zoning is substantially different. . Therefore, consideration and development of an acceptable residential ' zoning standard and general plan designation will be .required i.n conjunction with the annexation. In addition, if consideration' .is to be given to preservation of the existing mobile home parks, language to this effect should be considered for the General Plan.. ' The .following table describes future development 'in the., County Triangle under a number of different alternatives: ' 1 . Existing-land use. .2. County Buildout using de've'lbpmen't 1ntensfties of '1 .,0 for induutrial , 2.0 for Commercial , and '24.4 dw.el`Ifng • units per acre. 3. Existing City General Plan designations and permitted City, intensities of. 1.0 for industrial , 2.0 .fpr commercial , ' and 15. 0 dwelling units 'per acre. `4. County. General . Plan 'designations and- permitted-+City intensities .` ill!Ong 276 TO.: P1anno Commission - 6. T<„• • S. County General Plan designations , preservation of the aww mobile home parks and permitted City development intensities. , 4 : '•. 6. Modified County General Plan designations preservation of the mobile home parks and permitted 'City intensities . ' - 7. County General Plan designations ,, Residential Trend Growth -»»+?• intensities , and intensities of 1 .0 for iridustrial ':uses- arid 2.0 for commercial usesand• 20.0 dwelling units per, acre. ; ??• - :_ 8. County General Plan designations , Residential Trend Growth ;•;`,ir�a`y ;'. intensities, preservation of the mobile home parks and Intensities of 1 .0 for industrial uses and 2.0•• for commercial , - s,z= uses. '• ♦:Environmental Significance �. ... i;:r' ' " Prior to the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 80-2 by the City, . : prepare Environmental Documentation on the proposed project . :'Staff will , "in accordance with City Policy and C.E.Q.A. •-Recommendation .I.f the Planning Commission desires, set General Plan Amendment No. 80-2 ;:for their second meeting in July (July 24, 1980) . Between now and that .i: r..meeting staff will be preparing additional information and the Environ- ' mental Documentation. ,,, � '" "PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. NEWICKER, DIRECTOR raig ue Senio Planner CB%dt ;A3tachments , 1 277 ORANGE COUNTY ri({ HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ' 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,ROOM 458 UNTY OF SANTA'ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 2 L�� TELEPHONE:(714)834- 39 GO ' 5 3 � ' RANGE r� �tiC.�.t r^y1t .S•' V LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MOCHAIRMAN ONALD A.McINNiS July 11',• 198D ,y `v`Nj�G ��c• !� OUNCILMAN ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The Honorable Board of Supervisors VICE-CHAIRMAN County of ,Orange •� '- ,ROBERTE.DWYER Santa Ana, California .92701 REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC IHILIFL.ANTHONY SUBJECT; County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the City of SUPERVISOR Newport Beach (District 5) 'PIRSTOISTRICT SUMMARY: Proposed annexation of a 61.12 acre unincorporated island EDISON W.MILLER SUPERVISOR completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach I THIRD DISTRICT located northwesterly of Superior Avenue, north and south 1DONALD J.SALTARELLI of 15th Street. COUNCILMAN CITY OFTUSTIN Subject annexation was initiated by resolution of 'ALTERNATE application of the Newport Beach City 'Council pursuant to ALICE J.MecLAIN Sections 35013 and 35150 (f) of the 'Municipal Organization COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF COUNCILWOMAN CYPRESS Act of 1977 (MORGA). MORGA provides that LAFCO after ALTERNATE notice and hearing may authorize the County Board of �JDAN K.RIDDLE Supervisors, as the conducting authority, to order REPRESENTATIVE OF territory annexed, inhabited or not, without election if: GENERAL PUBLIC • (1) the territory does not exceed 100 acres and such ALTERNATE territory constitutes the entire island; (2) the territory HARRIETSUPERVISOR M.WIEDER is surrounded b the annexing city; (3) the territory is suPERvlsoR Y 9 Y; SECOND DISTRICT substantially developed or developin ; (4) the territory RICHARD T.TURNER is not prime agricultural land; and (5) LAFCO finds that 'EXECUTIVE OFFICER such territory will benefit from annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. ' LAFCO found the annexation proposal met all the statutory criteria. The annexation site Was within the Newport Beach sphere of influence: The city of Newport Beach. was willing and able to assume the responsibility of providing ' urban services to the annexation area. LAFCO approved the subject annexation on April 23'. 1980. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt a resolution initiating ' proceedings to annex the territory to. the city of Newport ' Beach. 2. Set for public hearing. ' 3. Order the territory annexed without an election. 27s . July 11, 1980 Honorable Board of Supervisors Re County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the city of Newport Beach Page 2 Honorable Members of the Board: On April 23, 1980, the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the proposed County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the city of Newport Beach. Submitted is LAFCO Resolution No. 80-33. The Municipal Organization Act (MORGA) which became effective January 1, 1978 provides a specific procedure for annexation of unincorporated islands if the Commission finds the territory contained in the proposed annexation: (1) does no t exceed 100 acres in area and such territory constitutes the entire island; (1) is surrounded or, substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city and a county boundary'or the Pacific Ocean, or is surrounded by such city and an adjacent city; (3) is substantially developed or developing; (4) is not prime agricultural land;- and (5) will benefit from such annexation or is e city. alreadyreceiving benefits from the annexing 9 9 Y By resolution of application the Newport Beach City Council requested annexation of a 61.12 acre county island completely surrounded by the city pursuant to the MORGA procedure. The annexation territory is located northwesterly of Superior Avenue, north and south of 15th Street. The annexation area is inhabited with an estimated population of 967. There is a mixture of land uses within the area. Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial predominates. There is also some single family residences and office commercial . Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for multi-family residential and mobile home uses. There is some commercial, office industrial and . single family residential uses. Easterly of Placentia, commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrial and multi-family uses also observed. The existing county zoning on the site is as follows: westerly of 'Monrovia Avenue is designated for M1 (industrial) uses; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated • CC (community commercial), and the remaining territory between Monrovia and ? and 9 (multi-family) residential with a small is zoned R 1800 a R. 1800 m l i Placentia / / ( Y) =corner at. Superior and Placentia. Avenue shown as CC ('community commercial). The it of Newport Beach has initiated a general plan amendment to precede the city P 9 rezonin of the territory to zoning districts more compatible with the .county's P 9 Y 9 zoning. In accordance with the city and landowners wishes, LAFCO recommends that the Board of Supervisors not make a determination on the subject annexation until after the city of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. LAFCO found the proposed annexation met all of the statutory criteria required by MORGA (Section 35150 (f)). The subject territory was within the sphere of influence established by the Commission for Newport Beach in November, 1973. Upon annexation the city of Newport Beach will assume responsibility for providing urban services to the annexation area. 279 July 11, 1980 Honorable Board of Supervisors Re: County "Triangle" Annexation No., 87 to the 1 City of' Newport Beach Page 3 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: The proposed annexation is categorically exempt. Existing statutes (AB 8) require the negotiation between the affected city and the your Board of any exchange of property tax revenues as a result of annexation. Otherwise, the proposed annexation cannot be completed. Committees representing your Board and the League of California. Cities, Orange County Divi- sion have been meeting on this issue as it relates to all pending and future city annexations, but as of this writing, they have not reach any accord. Contact Ken Scattergood it x2239 for any questions relative to this proposed annexation. MR pectfully s bm tted, .Richard T. Turner Executive Officer f� RTT:KWS:bd Attachments cc: Mr rian Kuyper, County Counsel ty�!Robert E. Thomas, County Administrative Officer .r Craig T. .Bluell , Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach 1 i 280 1 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FOR14ATION COMMISSION ' 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALI,FORNIA 3 April 23, 1980 ' 4 On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and carried, the ' 5 following resolution was adopted; 6 WHEREAS, a proposal for the proposed annexation of territory to the ' City of Newport 'Beach in the County 'of Orange was heretofore filed by the City of 7 Newport Beach and accepted for filing on January 18, 198O by the Executive Officer of 8 the, Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Part 2 of Title 4, Division 2, 9 commencing with Section 35000 et seq of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section ' 1O 35153 set February 13, 1.980 as the hearing date of this proposal 'designated as "COUNTY 11 "TRIANGLE" ANNEXATION NO. 87 and• gave the required notice and hearing; and12 ' WHEREAS, this Commission did continue said hearing to the meeting of April 23, 1980; and 13 WHEREAS, the Executive Officer pursuant to Government Code Section , 14 54794, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including his recommendation thereon, and has furnished a copy of'this• report to each person entitled to a copy; and , 16 WHEREAS, this Commission called this'proposai for public hearing on 16 April 23, 1980, 'heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the , 17 report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Commissio 18 to be relevant to this proposal including, but not limited to, factors specified in , ,I Sections 54796 and 35150(f) of the Government Code; and 19 WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, determined the 20 proposed annexation to be "categorically exempt" from the requirements of the Califor- , 21 nia Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commissfon of the County of , Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: 23 Section 1 . Thi's Commission finds that the territory contAined in the , 24 proposal : 25 a. Does not exceed TOO acres in area and such territory ' constitutes the entire unincorporated island comple- 26 tely surrounded by the city Timfts of' Newport Beach; 27 b. Is substantially developed; ' 28 Resolution No. 80-33 ' 281 ' 1 c. Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; 2 d. Will benefit from annexation to the City of Newport ' 3 Beach. 4 Section 2. Subject to the terms and conditions hereafter specified, ' S said proposal is approved. ' Section 3. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be included ' 6 in.and annexed to the •City of• Newport:Beach are specifi- 7 tally described in the legal description attached hereto $ and by this reference made a part-hereof. Said territory ' is found to be inhabited and said territory is assigned ; 9 the following designation: COUNTY."TRIANGLE" ANNEXATION ' 10 NO. 87 TO THE CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH. Section 4. Any resolution ordering such annexation shall provide 11 that such annexation shall be made subject to the follo- 12 wing specified terms and conditions: 13 a.. That the .city of Newport Beach, as applicant, shall b 14 liable for and pay all• proper expenses incurred in conducting proceedings for the annexation. ' 15 Section 5. The Board of Supervisors of Orange County is designated 16 as the conducting authority and is hereby directed to ' 17 initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with= this resolution. Said Board is authorized to order "annexation ' 18 of the territory without an election. The Commission 19- recommends to the Board of Supervisors that they not proceed until the City of Newport Beach has concluded 20 its general plan amendment. 21 Section 6. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed 22 to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner. 23 and as provided in Section 35159 of the Government, Code. ' In addition, said Executive Officer shaT1 also mail to 24 said conducting authority a copy of 'the resolution accom 20 panying_ seid proposal . ' 26 AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND R03ERT E. DWYER 27 NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE 28 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE ' Resolution No. 80-33 _2_ 282 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) S. I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation 3 Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing 4 resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting 5 thereof, held-on' the 23rd day of'April, 1'980. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of April, 1980. 7 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the 8 Local Agency Foemation••Commission 9 of Orange County, California , 10 8y r 11 /Actvng Se etq8!� 12 13 i• ' 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 80-33 -3- 283 r ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' COUNTY "TRIANGLE ANNEXATION NO . 87' To The City of Newport Beach All of A ots 715 , through 717, 815 through 819, 915 through 919 , 1015 through 1017 and a portion of Monrovia- Avenue , Placentia Avenue and Newport Avenue and all of 15th Street as ! shown on the "'First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract" recorded in Book 8, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of ,the County Recorder in the County of Orange, State of California , ' more particularly described as follows : 1 Beginning- at an angle point in the existing 'boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as created by "Annexation No . 541I and the "Superior Avenue Annexation" said point being the most westerly southwest corner of said "Superior Avenue Annexation" ; _ thence along said existing boundary line per said "Superior, Avenue Annexation" per the "First Addition to Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "Annexation No . 58" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation 1Io . 79" per the "Superio.r Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74" and per "'Annexat:ion No . 54" in a general Easterly, Southwesterly, and Northw'es-tehly ' - direction to the point of beginning . The above described parcel of land contains 63..fi-:a•cr-gs mo-re - , { 1 or less . ' Corrected copy 3/l3%80 Date �� ,';,.;.y� w,:�:o uo st nv.+rxcoa�rovvaav oar,0 . f 1�IY/ 7RL�0" YO/V7•.J.1p�!'aY.9S If i0 IYM lIYCIII[i l y•s•r, 3r_—r�"'+�sz'r••' �PAY�a ii1/ta ANa ousla:.s. *a Ica K3 1bgMN t fl rtll�m e ,aoi-�r %YJI�� LJOdM3N 1.,q/ d ••,� •.J .t svON/!o� svYll�v.r3••••l7TTJ77•b ,� .�: /�Yn•�1n /.r RN NO/1iX�NHO tt Y a .tanans { .(3AHQS V JON ek oaonaa aas dViV 31/SOdWOO � ry n •✓ A • s t Y ! • F 0�:. . e •� - y� Z 1.y IIN it v vX I «. IF IT yJO�B 18Go'Ma�N d0 .fL/J i a7N1 Q•� aa9 M w .°I 1. lw- r 285 PM172 OR RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION 01' TIM, CITY COUNCIL 01' THE OF' NEWPORT REACH APPLYING TO T11E. POnNIATION COMMISSION (LA11CO) 0' C:::, FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY 0:- NEWPORT BEACH CERTAIN INHABITED TER2,ITXz---' SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I.ND XN014N AS THE "COUNTY TRIANGLE," PURSUA."ZiT TO THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 (Annexation No. 87) WHEREAS, the logical formation and determination of tie. houndaries of the City Of Newport Beach is an important factor in the orderly development of the City; and ' WHEREAS, the Proper management of islands of County territory -by the City is essential to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City; and WHEREAS, the extension of the logical boundaries of ;-the City to Include islands Of County territory is ,appropriate;* and WHEREAS, the area known as the "County Triangle" is totally surrounded by the City Of Newport Beach and can best be sewed by the City Of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows. 1. ' The City Council Of the City Of Newpori Beach hereby applies to. the Local Agency Formation COIT-Mission of Orange County for authorization LO order the annexation of the County Triangle without an election., pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. 2. The area to be annoyed, known as the County Triangle, is generally described as follows: 10/5/79 286 That area located hoLween Supo*!or Avenue on the southoant, the city !;:;its , of the City of Newport Beach on th :rrth, and the city limit!; of, the City oL '%,,.- port Beach on the sout•hwrct, and, said area is shown on the map attached hereto a:d marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reforence. 3. This proposed change of City boundaries is by ' form of annexation of an unincorporated island co:spletely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. ' 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby requests that the proceedings to be taken for annexation ' of said area be authorized pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 and that the proceedings may be taken without ? election pursuant to Section 35150(f) of the California Govern- �. went Code, and that the Local Agency Formation Commission per- , form all acts necessary to implement' said change of organization of the City of Newpo•:•t Beach. ' S. The nature of these proceedings are a jurisdictional ! , • i boundary change for the logical inclusion of a County island within the corporate limits of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 9th day of October , 1979. Grid�/ Mayor j ATTEST: I , I 1 city Clerk r }iRC/kv 10/4/79 cs2rnza ns t: l�•t-+��:.t cuu OCT 1 1 1979 `2- 287 • 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 July 15, 1980 ' Dear Landowners and Residents, x Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of' the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach to amend the. Land Use and Residen- tial, Growth Elements of the General Plan for portions of County I territory within the area commonly known as the "County Triangle," generally bounded by Superior Avenue on the East, Production Place, on the North and' Newport Beach City boundary on ;he ,West. 'Revisions include possible changes in land use designations and development intensities and are designated as General Plan Amendment 80-2. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of July, 1980, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Cauncii Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be 1 ; heard thereon.. ; Debra Allen, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach :r;r 1 • ' 288 ._._ .... 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC. HEARING Notice is hereb , y given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing 'on the application • of the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General. Plan for portions of County territory wi,th.in the area commonly known as 'the ' County Triangle," generally bounded by Superior Avenue on th-e East, Production Place on the North and Newport Beach City boundary on the West. Revisions include possible changes in land use designations and development intensities and. are designated as General Plan Amendment 80-2. , Notice .is hereby .further given th`wt paid pubMc hearing will . be held on the 24th day of-July,' 1980, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. is the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hail , at which, time and place any, and all persons interested may appear and be `heard thereon . Debra Allen, Secretary Planning Commission .City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received for Pub1 catio O By • • 289 • i Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 1980 Agenda Item No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 18, 1980 TO Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ISUBJECT:: General Plan Amendment 80-2 INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ' Background At the City Council meeting of October 9, 1979, the Council adopted a Resolution of application for annexation of the "County Triangle" and directed staff to complete the other elements of the annexation application package . On January 7, 1980, the City Council reviewed the completed annexation application and directed Staff to file the application with the Local Agency Formation Commission. The application for annexation was heard at LAFCO' s public hearing on February 13, 1980. • At the February 13th meeting, the hearing was continued to the meeting 1 of April 23, 1980 because of the opposition to annexation expressed by- the property owners and residents . The purpose of the continuance was `to• allow the City time to hold public meetings to inform residents and property owners of the City' s reasons for annexation and clarity what. 'I-and use and zoning designations would be applied to the area . The City held a public meeting on March 26. 1980 . After explaining the.. City' s reasons for initiating annexation proceedings , City representatives I invited comments and questions from the residents and landowners in attendance. Some of the issues that were raised included future res- idential growth , the fate of existing mobilehome parks in the area, current Newport Beach General Plan designations , and allowable residential densities . Additionally, ' the residents and property owners spoke with the Planning Commission about future land use designations at the April 10, 1980 Planning Commission study session . At the April 14, 1980 City Council study session , landowners and residents discussed future General Plan designations and development intensities with the City Council . 290 T0: Planning Commissi� 2 On April 23, 1980, LAFCO held the continued public hearing on the annexation . The Commission heard testimony both favoring and opposing the annexation proposal . Primary concern still centered around future land use designations and development intensities . After all testimony was heard, .the Commission discussed the annexation , and took the following action as recorded in their minutes : "On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously ' carried, the Commission sustained the determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality 'Act and approved, as recommended, the County "Triangle" Annexation No. 87 to the City of Newport Beach with the additional recommendation to the Board of Super- ' visors that they not proceed until the City of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. AYES : COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L . ANTHONY , JAMES T. JARRELL, , EDISON W. MILLER, DONALD J . SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E . DWYER NOES : COMMISSIONERS NONE , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No . 80-33" ' Based on the opposition to annexation expressed by the property owners and the discgssi,on at the LAFCO hearing, it is Staff' s opinion that the annexation will be successful *only if the C'ity' s General Plan E " is amended to generally conform with the County' s , and agreement can be reached with the property owners regarding the intensity of develop- ment. ' Discussion 1 . Site Description The County Triangle is located on the west side of Newport Beach. It is bounded on the southwest by Superior Avenue , and by City boundaries to the north and southeast. , The "Trian.gle" consists of approximately 61 .12 acres . I•t is inhabited and substantially developed with a mixture of residential , commercial , and industrial land uses . The ' land uses surrounding the annexation area include apartments , town'- homes., and condominiums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the east and general industrial uses to the ' north . To the west the land is vacant and planned for residential development. The estimated population of the "Triangle" is 967 ; there are 403 registered voters and 91 property owners . ".TO : Planning Commiti on 3 291 • 2. General Plan Designations a . County General Plan (See Attached Map) Westerly of Monrovia is designated "Light Industrial " ; easterly of Placentia is designated "Community Commercial " ; and the remainder of the territory is designated "Heavy Density Residential ," with a small corner at Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue designated "Community Commercial ." ' b. City General Plan (See Attached Map) ' That portion o-f the "Triangle" southerly of Medical Lane extended is - shown for "Multi-Family Residential " uses . Northerly of Medical Lane , the Land Use Plan shows an " Industrial " designation . Most of the area easterly of Placentia Avenue is "Retail and Service Commer- cial " with the small northerly strip designated "Industrial ." General Plan Land Use designations for the area are as follows : (percentages are approximate)' County City Commercial 4% 10% Multi-Family 71 % 16% Residential Industrial 25% 74% TOTAL 100% 100% 3. Existing Zoning a . County Zoning (See Attached Map) The existing county zoning on the site is as follows : Westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 (Industrial ) uses ; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated C-C (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses ; and the remainder of the territory (between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue) is R-2/1800 and R-3/1800 (Multi-Family ,. Residential) with a small corner at Super'ior and Placentia Avenues shown C-C (Commercial Community) . b . City Zoning None 4. Existing Land Use (See Attached Map) There is a mixture of land uses within the annexation site . ' Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate. There are also single-family residential and office uses in the area . Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of- the land is used for multi- family and mobile home residential uses . The area also contains some commercial , office industrial and single-family residential uses . Easterly of Placentia Avenue commercial uses are the most prevalent 292 T0 : Planning Commis1kn 4 • with industrial and multi-family uses also in the area. ' Existing Land Use Inventory , Single Family Residential 2 .2 acres Multi-Family Residential 31 .2 acres , Duplex 2.1 acres Mobile Home 15.1 acres ; Commercial 8.7 acres Office 3.6 acres Industrial 6.9 acres I Institutional 1 .3 acres , Total Developed Acreage 50 .3 acres Vacant 4.6 acres , Total acreage (excludes streets ) 54.9 acres S. Zoning Regulations , County zoning regulations, currently control development in. the ' � = County Triangle. In general , the County 's M-1 standards for industrial' development are more permissive than City standards ., Neither a height limit nor an intensity of development standard are established by the County Code. The City' s Zoning Code would control height through Chapter 20.02 "Height Limits ." The standards most applicable to the 'County Triangle" would be the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation zone. Intensity of development is limited to 3 times the buildable area of the site by the City's Code. County parking require- ments for M-1 zone are one parking space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for office and storage or manufacturing and storage uses and one parking space per 400 square feet of multiple industrial uses . The City has not established a parking standard for the M-1 . For purposes of the following development analysis, a future development intensity of 1 .0 was used to ,project industrial development under both , -County and City Zoning Standards . The commercial designation established by County zoning is (C-C/35) ' Community Commercial with 35 foot height restriction . In the case of commercial zoning, County standards are slightly -more permissive.. ' In terms of permitted height, the County' s standards allow up to 35 feet while the City' s standards would be 32.50 feet. The County does not have an intensity standard but the City' s Code would limit development to two times the buildable area of the site. County parking standards are similar to City standards in that the County ' Code requires that retail uses have one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area while the City' s standard is one space per . 350 square feet of floor area and one loading space for each 109000 ' square feet of gross floor area . Required parking for office uses 293 • TO: Planning Commill on 5 as established by County Zoning is one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area . The City' s standard• is one parking, space for each 350 square feet of net floor area . In order to project future commercial development, a. development intensity of 2.0 was used. Residential designations established by the County Zoning Code are R-2 (1800) and R-3 (1800) . Both designations restrict building heights to 35 feet and require 1800 square feet of lot area per unit, which permits 24 .2 dwelling units per buildable acre . Parking requirements ' for both districts are also the same : One covered parking space and 1/2 open parking space for each one bedroom unit IOne covered parking space and 1 open parking space for. each two bedroom - units Two covered parking spaces and 1/2 open parking space for each 3 bedroom units Plus .2 open parking spaces for guest use per unit. The City' s R-3 designation restricts building heights to 28/32 feet and requires 1200 square feet of .lot area per unit, which permits 36.-3 dwelling units per buildable acre. Parking requirements for the R-3 district are as follows : (a) Not less than, two garage spaces for each single-family dwelling. (b) Not less than one .garage space for each family unit in any duplex, triplex, or dwelling group of four or less family units . (c) Not less than on.e garage space for each two guest rooms in any rooming house . (d) Not less than one parking space for each two guest rooms in any hotel . 1 (e) Not less than one garage space for each of the first four family units , and two offstreet parking spaces , one of which must be a garage space , for each additional family unit, in any dwelling group of more than four family units . ( f) Not less than two garage spaces per family unit in any residential "B" District. ' The City ' s General Plan permits a maximum density of 15 dwel Ung units per buildable acre . I-n order to project future residential development, 24.2 dwelling units per acre was used for projecting future residential development under County standards , 15 dwelling units per acre was used to project f 294 •, i TO: Planning Commiss 6 0 .■ permitted City intensities and 20 dwelling units per acre was used as the "Trend Growth Intensity." • Trend Growth was established by averaging a recently completed project, two projects unde-r construc- tion and two projects currently proposed and in the hearing process. City and County standards for Commercial and Industrial designations are similar,. however, the multi-family zoning is substantially different. Therefore, consideration and development of an acceptable residential zoning standard and general plan designation will be required in conjunction with the annexation. In addition, if consideration is to be given to preservation of the •existing mobile home parks, language to this effect should be, considered for the General Plan. ' Development Alternatives , The following' table .desc-ribes future development in the County Triangle , under• a• number of different alternatives : 1 . Existing land use. 2. County Buildout using development intensities of 1 .0 for , industrial , 2.0 for commercial , and 24.4 dwelling units per acre. 3. Existing Newport 'Beach General Plan designstion's and permitted ' City intensities of 1 .0 for industrial , 2.0 for commercial , and 15.0 dwelling units per acre. 4. County General Plan designations and permitted City intensities . 5. County General, Plan designations , preservation of the mobile home parks and permitted City development intensities . 6. Modified County General Plan designations, preservation of the mobile 'home parks and permitted City intensities . , 7. County General Plan designations , Residential Trend Growth intensities , and intensities .of 1 .0 for industrial uses and 2.0 for commercial uses and 20.0 dwelling units per acre. ' 8. County General Plan designations , Residential Trend Growth intensities, preservation of the mobile home parks and intensities df' 1 .0 for th dustriai uses and 2.0 for commercial uses and 20.0 dwelling units per acre . Analysis L Housing A. Existing Conditions ' A total of 732 dwelling units are either in existence or under develop- ment in the study area . These include 9 single family units , 95 condo- miniums , 418 apartments , and 213 mobile homes . The major portion of the condominium units ('55 units) have not yet been completed. Selling prices for the new condominium units are anticipated to be in excess of $12.5,000. Based on a selling price of three times the annual household income, a first-time homebuyer purchasing a new unit would be expected to have an annual income of approximately $40,000, well above the County median. ' T0 : Planning CommisPion 7 i 1 Apartments i•n the study area ggenerally run about $350 to $400 a month for one bedroom units , about $50 more for two bedroom units , and about $50 less for bachelors . Based on a monthly income of four times housing costs , household income in the apartments would be expected to be about $1 ,300 to $1 ,600 per month , a moderate income. Mobile home spaces generally rent for $110 to $150 per month . Although residents must purchase their own mobile homes in addition to paying space rental , housing costs in the mobile home parks would still be ' expected to provide a source of moderate income housing. B. County Buildout This alternative would all.ow the construction of 903• units at 24.2 units per acre . This would increase the available housing stock by approximately 170 units . Assuming present development_ trends in the area were to continue, most new units and replacement housing for older units would be condominiums . The income required to purchase the u'ni,ts would be expected to be somewhat higher than that needed to reside in rental units or mobile homes . ' C. Newport Beach General Plan ' The existing Newport Beach General Plan would allow a total of 147 dwelling uriits at a density of 15 units -per acre . Available housing would be decreased by 585 units . Due to the permitted densities and existing housing tren.ds , new units would probably �be condominiums rather than mobile homes or apartments . Reduction of housing ,,. I density below existing levels and levels permitted by the County would result in the distribution df fixed costs for such factors as raw land, infrastructure improvement, etc . , among fewer units in a development. Housing prices would be expected to increase due to higher fixed costs per unit and to market pressures caused by the decreased availability of housing. - 1. County General Plan/City Intensity A total of 560 dwelling units would be permitted under this alter- native, a reduction of approximately 170 units from existing levels . While this alternative would provide a greater number of ho'using opportunities than Alternative C, housing prices would still be I somewhat higher than those in higher density areas where fixed costs are distributed over a greater number of units . Existing growth trends aad permitted densities would tend to encourage the develop= ' ment of condominiums in preference to lower cost mobile homes and rental units . E. County General Plan/Mobile Home Preservation/City Intensity Through a specific General Plan designation of "Mobile Homes ," existing mobile home parks could be preserved, helping to preserve the moderate cost housing provided by the parks . 'Under Alternative € ,: remaining areas designated for residential use would be developed• at a density of 15• dwelling units per acre . A total of 588 dwelling units would be permitted in the study area , of which 213 would be ' mobile homes . This would constitute an approximate 140 unit decrease in existing housing stock . ;•,T0 : Planning Commiss* 8 296 • ' F. Modified County General Plan/Mobile Home Preservation/City Intensity , Alternative F would also preserve the relatively moderate priced housing ' provided by mobile homes . The increase in residential acreage would bring total housing in the study area to 659 units , an approximate 70, unit decrease from existing housing, and a 70 unit increase from Alternative E. G. County General Plan/Trend Growth This alternative would allow the development of 747 residential units , at -approximately 20 units ,per acre . This density and unit total are approximately the same as those currently existing. While maximum densities are not as high as those permitted by the County, they are approximately equal to those currently existing and are higher than those Permitted by existing City land .use designations. Fixed cost new units would be spread over more units .than would be possible under existing City General Plan designations., albeit fewer than 'permitted , by the County. This alternative would make no provision for preser- vation of moderately priced housing provided by mobile homes . H. County General Plan/Mobile Home Preservation/Trend Growth , The 710 residential, units provided by this alternative are approximately equal to the existing housing total for the study area. Asunder Alternatives E and F; mobile homes would be maintained under a special General Plan designation. Thus , this source of moderately priced housing would be preserved. Remaining residential development would k occur at a density of approximately 20 units per acre, spreading fixed costs among fewer units than permitted by the County General Plan, but more than permitted by City designations . Thus new units ' would be expected to be priced higher than under County densities , but lower than under City densities . 2 . Traffic Generation (Table 2) The trip generation information provided enables a comparison of the effects of various land uses on traffic demand. Traffic generation t rates used to analyze the various land use alternatives are commonly accepted values most of which have been locally verified. The daily rates occurring most frequently are: 6 .0 to 6.5 trips per dwelling unit, with mobile homes having the lowest generation rate; 13 trips per thousand square feet of office space; 100 trips per thousand , square feet of commercial./retail area; and 40 trips per acre of ' industrial land use. For this analysis all office square footage was assumed to be administrative and professional; if medical offices were developed the ADT would increase from 13 to 45. ' The distribution of these trips throughout the day is also a function of land use. The number of trips generated in the afternoon peak hour (generally considered to be 4:30 p .m. to 6: 30 p.m.) ranges ' from 8% of the daily value for low density residential to 18% for office developments . This factor is of concern because typically the trans- portation system is subjected to the highest traffic volumes during the afternoon peak period. .; •, 297 T0 : Planning Commiston 9 • ' Because traffic is generally heavier in one direction on a highway than the other, the orientation of vehicles either toward or away from a development in Newport Beach can impact the congestion of the transportation system. Residential developments generate trips in an inbound to outbound ratio of approximately 2 : 1 during the afternoon peak hour. By comparison , commercial developments exhibit more nearly a 1 :1 ratio and office developments are characterized by a 1 :3 ratio for the same time period. Information on intersections and assumed improvements to major trans- . portation facilities will be provided at the Commission meeting- , 3. Cost/Revenue (Table 3) Following is an :p§timate of the net fiscal impact (costs minus revenues) for each of the alternatives. "Section 99. 8 -of the Tax and Revenue Code requires the City and County to negotiate a property tax distri- bution settlement before the annexation can be final . These negotia- ' tions could result in a property tax settlement that would affect the cost/revenue relationship used in this study . The League of California Cities and Orange County are currently developing a conceptual agreement regarding negotiation and ddstri- r bution of property tax revenues . Based on information from the League of California Cities this agreement would simplify negotiations , and result in the City receiving property tax revenue similar to those -..� collected from properties located in the City- which are of similar value and are within similar tax rate classifications . if this agreement is approved, little to no fiscal impact can be anticipated ' with respect to cost/revenue . If the agreement is not approved the actual cost/benefit relationship will not be known until the City completes property tax negotiations . 4. Sewer Capacity (Table 4) County buildout would generate the greatest amount of sewage while all other development alternatives would generate significantly less sewage. Therefore the sewage disposal system would sustain lesser ' impacts from development in accordance with any of the other alternatives . i 1 J • • ,•� TO : Planning Commison 10 298 M 5 . Energy Energy consump-tion for the study area was calculated based on the following standa,rd consumption 'rates . Electricity r Industrial/Commercial 32 .3 kwh/sq.ft./yr. ' Commercial/retail 47 .8 kwh/sq .ft./yr. High density residential 5280 kwh/DU/yr. Low density residential 10800 kwh/DU/yr. Natural Gas Indus tri,a-1,/commercial 39 .6 cu.ft./sq .ft./yr , Commercial/retail 120.0 cu.ft./sq .ft./yr High density residential 63,960 cu.ft./unit/yr. 'Low density residential 109,600 cu.ft./unit/yr. G Gasoline 15 miles per gallon (10 miles per trip) r Calculated energy consumption for each alternative land use scheme -is summarized in the following tables (5A, 58, 50 . As shown in the tables, buildout according to the Orange County General Plan would result in the highest consumption of natural gas and gasoline . . However, development under the Newport Beach General' Plan would result r in the highest amount of electricity consumption due to the large amount of electricity consumption due to the large amount of industrial , development permitted under this alternative . Environmental Significance ' Prior to the approval of General Plan Amendment No . 80-2 by the City, Staff will prepare Environmental Documentation on the proposed project , in accordance with City Policy and C. E.Q.A. 299 T0 : Planning Commisfon 11 • ' Recommendation ' If the Planning Commission desires , select one of the development alternatives for further staff study and preparation of the Environ- mental Documentation and continue the hearing to the next Commission meeting of August 7, 1980 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES 0. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By / Cra g Blue for Planner S CB/39 Attachments 1 TABLE 1 COUNTY 'TRIANGLE' DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 1. 2. 3. 4. Land Use Existing county Newport Such County General County General Modified Canty county general County Cenral Desfgnaaionip Land Use " Baildout General Plan Plan/City Intensity Plan/Mobila Naas General P1aN Plan/Trend Plao/Mobile� Preservation/City Mobile Growth Home Prettrva- Intensity Preservation/ Lion/trend City-Intensity Growth Single 2.27 acres/ Family 9 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Multi- Family 3.523/ 37.348/� 9.805 acres/ 37.349 acres/ 25.048 acres/ 29.743 acres/ 37.348 acres/ 25.048 acres/ Condo's 40 DU's 903 DU's 147 DU'i SW DO'S 375 DU's 446 DU's- 747 DU's 497 DU's Multi- Family 12.579 acres/ ` Apt.'s 418 DU's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile 15.081 acres/ Homes 213 OU's 0 0 0 15.081 acres/ 15.081 acres/ 15.081 acres/ M s 213 DU's 213 DU' 0 213 DU's Medical 1.543 acres/ Offices 9700 sq.ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office 2.08 acres/ 7.34 acres/ 3.8 acres/ 7.34 acres/ 5.64 acres/ 5.04 acres/ 7.34 acres/ 5.64 acres/ 104,000 sq.ft. 639,46D sq.ft. 331,056 sq.ft. 639.460 sq.ft. 491,356 sq.ft. 439,084 iq.ft. 639,46D sq.ft. 491,356 sq.ft. General 5.095 acres/ 3.64 acres/ 3.64 acres/ 3.64 acres/ 3.65 acres/ 3.64 acres/ 3.64 acres/ 3.64 acres/ Commercial 161,100 sq.ft. 202,976 sq.ft. 202,976 sq.ft. 202.976 sq.ft. 202,976 sq.ft. 202.976 sq.ft. 202,976 sq.ft. 202,976 sq.ft. • Industrial 6.853 acres/ 4.1 acres/ 36.072/ 4.1 acres/ 4.1 acres/ 4.1 acres/- 4.1 acres/ 80.000 sq.ft. 178,596 sq.ft. 1.571,296 sq.ft. 178,596 sq.ft. 178,596 sq.ft. 0 178.596 sq.ft. 178,596 sq.ft. Church 32 acres/ .32 acres/ 32 acres/ 32 acres/ 32 acres/ .32 acres/ .32 acres/ 32 acres/ 2500 sq.ft. 2500 sq.ft. 25W sq.ft. 2500 sq.ft. 2500 sq.ft. 2500 sq.ft. 25M sq.ft. 25W sq.ft. Private 1.0 acres/ 1.0 acres/ 1.0 acres/ 1.0 acres/ 1.0 acres/ 1.0 acres/ 1.0-acres/ 1.0 acres School 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students Vacant 4.644 acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 2 COUNTY TRIANGLE" DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - TRAFFIC GENERATION _ (expressed in avers daily trips-ADT) 1. 2. 3,_ 4. 5. 6. .. 7. Land Use Existing County Newport Such County General County General Modified County County General County General " Designations Land Use Buildout General Plan Plan/City Intensity Plan/Mobile Home General Plan/ Plan/Trend Plan/Mobile Preservation/City 'Mobile Home Growth Home Preserva- Intensity Preservation/ tton/trend City Intensity ro t Single 99 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 Family • Multi- 340 7,676 1,250 4,761 31188 3.792 6,350 4,225 Family Condo's - Multi- 2,718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s Mobile 1,276 0 0 0 1,278 1,278 0 1,278 Homes 0 m Medical 437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offices Office 1,352 8,313 4,3D4 8,313 6,388 5,708 8,313 6,388 General 564 7,104 7,104 7,104 7,104 7,104 7,104 7,104 Commercial • Industrial 274 164 1,443 164 164 0 164 164 Church 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 Private 800 800 BOO 800 ODD 80D ODD 800 School Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL ADT 7,925 24,120 14,964 21,205 '18.985 18,745 22,794 20,022 COUNTY-"T WGLE' DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - COSTIBENEFIT TABLE 3 VEEN1 1. 2. 3. {. 5: 6. - 7. ' Land Use Existing county Newport Beach County General County Central 14odifled County County General County Generic Designations Land Use Buildout General Plan PTan/ci$y Intensity "ran/'obile How General Plan/ Plin/Trend Plan/Mobile peiervatioNCity Mobile Nomie Growth Moore Presei-va- Intensity , CP sEi atieN tionf-trend growth Single 1,962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family • Multi- 5,800 130,935 21.315 a]sm 54,375 64,670 108,315 72.065 Family Condo's - Muiti- 60,610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s - Mobile 30,885 0 0 0 30,885 30,885 0 30,885 Homes N O Medical Offices 1,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office 11.440 70.340 36.416 70.340 54.049 48,299 70,340 54.049 General 17.721 22,327 22.327 22,327 22.327 22,327 22,327 22,327 Commercial . Industrial 4,800 10.716 94,277 10.716 10.716 0 10,716 10,716 . Church 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 134.285 234.318 174.335 184,583 172,352 166,181 211,698 190,042 DOLLARS . l I ti - TABLE 4 COUKIY "TRIANGW.DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - SEWAGE GENERATION in llons Rer 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ' 8. Land Use Existing County Newport leach County General County General Modified County County General County General Designations Land Use Buildout General Plan Plan/City Intensity Plan/Mobile Hone General Plan/ Plan/Trend Plan/Mobile Preservation/City Mobile Home Growth Home Preserva- Intensity Preservation/ tion/Trend city Intensity Growth Single 2.475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family . Multi- 19.950 189,630 30,870 117,600 78,750 93,660 156,870 104.370 Family Condo's Multi- 62,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s Mobile 34,080 0 0 0 - 34.080 34,080 0 34,080 Homes M O M Medical 4.987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offices Office 6.723 23,723 12.282 23.723 18,228 16.289 23,723 18,228 General 16,467 11,764 11,764 11,764 11.764 11,764 11,764 11,764 Commercial Industrial 26.590 15,908 139.959 15.908 15.908 0 15,908 15,908 Church SOO Soo 506 500 Soo 500 500 500 Private 10,000 10,000 10,0D0 10,000 10.000 10,000 70,000 10,000 School Vacant TOTAL 184,472 257;525 205,375 179.495 169,230 T66,293 218,765 194,850 •i = M M M M M = M M M M r M M r m m m COUNTY -TRIANGLE- DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Mil TABLE 5A (expressed in,1000 kilowatt hours peryear) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. _ .. 5. 7. ' Land Use Existing County Newport Sauk County General County General Modified County Cowry General County Generic Oesignations Land Use Duildout General Plan flan/City Intensity ►lan/Mobile tome General Plan/ Plan/Trend Plan/Mobile preservation/City Mobile Now Growth Tome-Preserva- Intensity Presirvation/ tion/Trend City I tendty Growth Single 97.2 0 0 0 0 0 Family- • Multi- 501.6 4.767.8 776.2 2.956.8 1.980.0 2,354.9 3,944.2 2.624.2 Family Condo's Multi- 2,207.0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s Mobile 2.300.4 0 0 0 - 2.300.4 2,300.4 0 2.300.4 Homes 0 0 0 0 m Medical 313.3 0 0 0 0 Offices Office 3,359.2 20.654.6 to.693.1 20,654.6 15,870.8 14.182.4 20,654.E 15,870.8 General 7,700.6 9.702.3_ 9,702.3 9,702.3 9.702.3 9,702.3 9,702.3 9,702.3 commercial Industrial 2,584.0 5,768.7 50,752.9 5,768.7 5,768.7 0 5,768.7 5,768.7 • Church 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Private 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 School Vaunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 19,123.8 40,953.8 71,984.9 39,142.8 35.682.6 28,600.4 40,130.3 36,326.8 r • r +1- 1 TABLE 66 COUNTY "TRIANGLE" DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION (expressed in 1000 cubic feet per year) I. 2. 3. •. 5. .6. 7.'. Land Use Existing County Newport Beach County General County General Modified County County General County General Designations Land Use Buildout General Plan Plan/City Intensity Plan/Mobile Home General Plan/ Plan/Trend Plan/Mobile Preservation/City Mobile None Growth Home Preserva- Intensity Preservation/, tion/Trend City Intend tntensfjX Growth Single 986.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family • Multi- 6.076.2 57.755.9 9.402.1 35.817.6 23,985.0 28,526.2 Family 47,778.1 31,788.1 Condo's Multi- 26,735.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s _ Mobile 23.344.8 0 0 0 23,344.8 23,344.8 0 23,344.8 Homes LO m Medical 384.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offices Office 4.118.4 25.322.6 13.109.8 25.322.6 19.457.7 17,387.7 25,322.6 19,457.7 General 19,332.0 24,357.1 24.357.1 24.357.1 24,357.1 24,357.1 24,357.1 24,357.1 Commercial • Industrial 3,168.0 7,072.4 62,223.3 7,072.4 7,072.4 0 7,072.4 7,072.4 Church 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.6 75.0 Private 780,0 180,0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 School Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $4.400.2 114,763.0 109,347.4 92,824.7 98,472.0 93,870.8 104,785.2 106.275.1 TABLE SC COUKiT OTRIANGLE' DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - GASOLIIiE MjW MPTION (gallons per day at 15 mpg and 10 ad]es per AOi) I. 2. 3. 4. 5: 7 76. 7. 8. Land Use Existing County W"m bud Coaity General County General Modified Count$ County General County Generil Designations Land Use Uuildout General Plan Plan/City Intensity Plan/Mobtle Nora General Plan/ Plan/Trend Plan/Mobile Praser-Ation/City Mobile Nome Growth None Preserva- Intensity Preservation/ tion/trend 'City Intensity ..Gltowth Single 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Family 227 5,117 >!33 3,174 2,125 2.528 4,233 2,817 Condo's Multi- 1,812 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Apt.'s Mobile Homes 852 0 0 0 852 852 0 852 u, Medical Cl) Offices 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office 901 5,542 2.869 5,542 4,259 3,805 5,542 4,259 General 376 4,736 4,736 4,736 4.736 4,736 4.736 4,736 Commercial Industrial 183 109 962 109 109 0 109 109 • Church 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 Private 533 533 633 533 533 533 533 533 School Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 TOTAL 5,283 16,079 9.975 14,136 12,656 12,496 15.195 13.348 GALLONS . t H�d38 l�OdM3N Y a r' NOMINNVld BONVACIV sons ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ///% H��/�8 1.aOdM3N • ' s r ;. r Y Y y 1 �a ,1 Y Y LL aaY :YiY YYiiY` [ / . .. . Y . , . . . .......... ................................. . a l Y Y / F y . . . . . . . . . . a [ a F l a Y a a Y a . a • Y Y .`a1`.':::::::.1 . . . . . . a . . . a Y Y . . Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y .................................. ::::::�:�:: I Y / a .............. ................•............................................... ............................................................................... . Y t Y a Y1+Y Y Y [1 Y Y111(1 ............................................................................... \ . [ Yt[ [ • . \ Y . . • • ........................................................................ .................................................:::::::......::::::: ..................................................... ..... Y`Y/ a`:•1t�� [a,Faa YY11t a ....................................................................... ............................................................................... ....................................................................... H�ti38 la0• dM3NNOIGIATO 0o Ap � e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 •tiL':'tii�j�i':�.�'aS�1� H�d�B laOdM�N . ' • 1 � :r:." iiii?°:? i? SSSEE E': i � i�i .'•�E ':E�':ii EiEi6: S'XLLY�acr r:ccc:e:: :. r, :.� ■�� . ?????! •' : ????: . . r . . ■ . [ . a • . . ■ r . • a . ................... .......................::::::::::.......................... a . • . . . . 1a ............................................................................... ...................... . `: �: 4■c . 1.� a c� : . . . .r:S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................................... ............................................................................... ........ ........................