The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21.04 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* 21.04 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ap. 0� .. TtF,�' DY:P.T.Oit TTO. 71.-Gh Or 9M, MCAL AGM:GY FORflAT:COIT GOiTi'I'1',.,..70iT OF On.:.,G: COU'ii7.3.,21 UB57GLI..�.ILU C.i,J..u;?,,i.q r 7 •'�' BIS �p PF,r,TCIi..L,:,., 7:0„;=,i:• r. r U1:;]) :i,.�,,1 12 •�, , T 1r , n a i;JP�'t�t,?^.�7:0., OTC P.iA7`O�.�Tti.�:., 4' 4 June 9, 1.971 COPY) �. On motion of Commissioner Northrup, coon�deed Una carried, 611 tho following ilesolution t,'as adopted: 6 iIIM11MAS, pursuant to Section 54790 of the Governiacnt Code, 7 this Commission has made a study of critoxia and principles to be used 8 in thoPevaluation of proposals affecting the cities of Orange Co-ant';�*-. 0 NOZ•I, T1=1 — !ORE, IT IS I';:;UREBY RESOLVED in order for the Local 10 Asency Foxmation Commission to accomplish its purposes of discouraging 11 urban sprain and encouraging the orderly formation and, development of 12• local. governmental agencies, this —Commission does hereby adopt the 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 following program for establishing .Spheres of Influence for Orange County- cities. This program is for the use in detejm rJ.ns the losieal and., -reasonable expansion of each city in•OranGe County and to shape the development of each city so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of Orange County and its communities.: SPBIRD OF 11.117LUMITC-? Area: Those unincorporated areas adjacent to a city or community which are of concern in long-range planning, growth and development of such areas. Rr"Do_so 1. To insure orderly urban growth in the areas adjacent to a city or community and in particular those areas which might reasonably beco:.ne a part of such entities at some time in the future. 2. To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various cities, County and districts, to insure proper effectuation of their respective general. plano. 3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely urbcnization with pro- visions for adequate and essential sercrices '14 15 '16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31' 32 j such as sewor, wator, fire and police protection. 4. To assist other governmental districts and agenniac in pla uLing*the logical and economical extension of all governmental facilities and services, thus avoiding unnecessary duplications. 5.. To assist property owners to plan comprehensiveljy" for the ultimate use and development of their land. Cxiteria•: In establishing a Sphere of Influence, which city or entity is logically the governmexital agency most capable of providing the necessary public facilities and services essential for proper development? Has the city or district domonstrated'an ability and willinrmess to•provide these. services as anne:�ations' in the Nhere of Influence occur? The following services and factors should be considered in determining the most feasible city where the Sphere of Influence is established: 1. Provision of water transmission mains. 2. •Ample sewerage facilities. 3. Adequate police and fire protection. '4. Waste disposal 5. Parrs and recreation. 6. Compatible street circulation. •7. Economic and social relationships 8. Hatur�l topographic'features such as rivers, ridge lines, ravines, etc. 9. Man -nude barriers such as freeways, major streets, railroa.ds,etc. 10. Recognition of formal general plans adopted by -•--__: public agencies. In addition to the above listed, the following additional criteria May be considered in detoxminations for a city's r 71-64 Rc.,oluticn No.- _ 4 ei.o.a 2. ' •,CAI. 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Sphere of Influence: 11. Ixi.sting school, postal and judicial districts -and other, special districts urbich give municipal type services. 12. Consideration of property owners statements indicating preference of his choice of juris- diction. 13. The tax base needs of cities. The determination of a Sphere of Inf luence. shall not be predicated upon any single factor as listed above"' but shall include,Trhere applicable, a composite consideration of all'the factors. F7 ocedure: 1. Each city 'should define and determine its i boundaries of the areas in the County which, in its judgment, bears a relationship to its V r fixture planning. 2. Consideration of the previously mentioned criteria factors should guide each city in its =_•= 'determination of its proposed Sphere of Influence. � 3. If two or more cities feel that a certain area in the County relates to their planning program such studies'should be conducted jointly by the appropriate representatives of the cities involved and the local Agency Formation Commission in order-_ to establish areas of agreement for all concerned. 4. At such time as agreement is'established batTicen all of the affected agencies, a map should be ;Y prepared which delineates the areas of agreement. 5. Copies should be filed with and revi.ewod by the Local'Agency Formation Co*m:ission 6. That the fSphores of Influonce of other public entities should be defined where appropriate. Resolution ITo. 71-V+ 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 z7 is 19 20 21 22 .....23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 '�. if the cities; or otbe.o •Covernmen,tal entities ll bwmot agree on the boundnr:ies or conditions of a Sphere of Influence the collected ififoMa•tioII and paints of vi.eii ney be filed with 'the 1JkFC ; • by any affected agoncy with a request that the LAVC make the final determination. BE IT FURTI CIZ RDSOLVED that this Co -,;.mission does hereby reserve the pol-rer to periodically review and up -date this program and 0 any of the criteria thereof. A'y.I'µ.: COIuYISSI01771?S STAIT 'NORTHRUP, RALPH B. CL. K, RONALD l;T. CAST'IR,, CIUS. A. ^i1iS0i1, -WUIS R. REDTTARDT : NOES, ff.-,UTISSIO31ERS . NORID . ABSE'riT: COMTSSIOIi"iRS ITOI7E ,STIATE OF 0111IFO1'. M ss. COUITTT OF 0?APTM I, RICIMED T. TIMTER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission•of Orange County, California hereby certify that the above and foreiroing Resolution was duly and ro6qilarly adopted by said'Commi.ssion at a regular meeting thereof, held on. the 9th day of June, 1971. 111 1IIT2TBS^ S•=OF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of June,. 1971. Resolution ITo. 71-64 RICBARD T. TURNER* Executive Officer of the local Agency Foy:nation COMT-issibn of Orange County, California By .ecrciaxy 4. a, 1 RE '0LTJTTON, M. 71-cri Y • T CU;2i9T£:1:7.0'I O:u On'.4eM ' is T-.. . ,. i fTo. ]i]S AA:O 'L•' i�C1T.f. FILE COPY ; 0] lUri 1 T fl' Y" .PE •1" f ' 00WI Y; ])I''.>iTGLl..�.I:i:G Gi,J..U.], �:• •�_ T TNE' ,r. rl" d` � ''' l TJS)1 U�il]) . ;; a,,l:, 7;�JP�Zt1.,,�u.0 f 0'1 7 a.0.�'0 .tT >1 D3 411 ... June 9: 1971 I On rsotion of Corinissioner Northrup, duly seconded and carried, 5 tho following- ilasolution was adopted: 6 idIiGiiEAS, pursuant to Section 54790 of the Government -Code, . 7 this Commission has made a study of criteria and principles to be used "8 in thetevaluation of proposals affecting the cities of Orange Coiin:t� . 0 2701•1, TIILPMFOPM; IT 1, JUMBBY RESOLVED in order for the ISO eal 10 Agenc;� Fox-mation Commission to accomplish its purposes of discouraging 11 urban •sprawl and encouraging the orderly formation and development of 12 local govern -mental *'.goncies, this -Commission does hereby adopt the 13• '.14 15 16 .17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 folloewinG program for establishing Spheres of Influence for Orange Count, - cities. This program is for the use in de•tea:mi.rUng the logical and: reasonable expansion of each city in,Orange County and to shape the development of each city so as to advantageously provide for the.presen•t and future needs of Orange County and its communities-: ST' IERE OE,, :CPTILU NC , Area: Those unincorporated areas adjacent to G city or eomm,..ini•ty which are of concern in long—rrazge planning, growth and development of such areas. Titrna e: 1. To insure orderly urban growth in the areas adjacent to a city or community and in particular those areas which might reasonably become a part of such entities at some time in the -future. 2. To promote cooperative planning effortn betz:een the -various cities, County end districts, to insure proper effectuation of their respective general. plans. 3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage t:imaly uroanirlation with pro- visions for adCouate and essential ser7ices '14 15 •16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4: -Tr 29 30 31. 32 such as cover, vater, fire and police protection. 4. To assist other govcrniaen'tal districts and ag'enrias in p1=1in;;'the logical and economical extension of all governmental facilities and services, thus avoiding unnecessary duplications. 5. To assist propexty owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use and development of their land. Criteria: In establishing a Sphere of influence, which city or entity is logically the bovernmerital agency most capable of providing the necessary public'iacili'ties and services essential for proper development? Has the city or e,isstrict domonstruted an ability and `• willinrmess to•provide•these.services as annexations' in the :-here of Influence occur? �. The folio*•ling services and factors should be eons i dered in deterxaining the most feasible city where the Sphere of Influence is established: 1. Provision of water transmission mains. 2. i imple sewbrage facilities. 3. Adequate police and fire protection. '4. Waste disposal 5. Paris and recreation. 6. Compatible street circulation. ?. Economic and social*.elationships 8. Hatural topographic' features such as rivers, ridge lines, ravines, etc. g. IT, -nade barriers such as freeti:ays, major -- •• - streets,, railroods,etc. 10. RecoG Zition of forJaDl gener l plans adopted by -• .... -_. public agencies: In addition to the above listed, the -following additional criteria May be considered in dcterinations for a city's Sic.,olution No.-71_64 .. 2. rot xx 12• 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Procedure: O Sphere of Influcnce: 11. 1 xiotinG school, postal and judicial did-bricts -and other special districts which give municipal type cervices. 12. Consideration of property owners statements indicating; preference of his•choice of juris-- -diction, 13. The tax base needs of cities. The determination of a Sphere of Influence.shall not be predicated upon, any single factor as listed above"-- bu't shall include,yhere applicable, a composite consideration of•all'the factors.. 1. Eaeh•cil:y 'should "define and deter6iine i•Ls•- boundaries of the areas in the County which, in its judgment, bears a relationship to its Y future planning. 2. Consideration of the previously mentioned . criteria factors should guide each city in its === *determination of its proposed Sphere of Influence. 3. If two or more cities feel that a certain area in the. County relates to their planning pro�r m such studies*should be conducted jointly by the appropriate representatives of'the cities involved. and -the Local Agency Fornation Commission in order- -to establish areas of agreement for all concerned. 4..fit such time as agreement is•established between all of the affected amercies, a map should be prepared which delineates the areas of agxcc.�ent. 5. Copies should be filed with and reviewed by the . local'A.gency Formation Commission 6. That the Spheres of influence of other public entities should be defined wliere ppropriate. Resolution I?o. 71•-64 ,5 1 2i 4 .5 6 7 . 8 9 zo xl 12 ' ].3 14 15 16 x7 xs x9 20 21 22 .�.. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 I r.ne.0 '�. If tho ci•tion or cnti•tic , li cannot agree on the boitndarios or conditions II of a Sphere of Influence the collected :iAf0x7aa• :L0 and points of V�.eSi noy be filcd with :the T.AFC � • by any r_ffected agency with a request that the : IJ:VC malze the final dete=iination. BD IT FURTIMP, I'11.>502, ED that this Co.211nission does hereby reserve the power to periodically review and uIi-date this program. and 0 any of tlic criteria thereof. XYr,Z: COi1111ISSIO!MMS ST.AN 1:ORT,TIRUP, RAL?7i B. CLARK, RONALD W. CASI'9 S, CMIS. A. F!IrLSOiI, MOUIS R. REINUARDT NOES;. .-COiu1TSSIox.ERS . MIME lilt ilT: COMNISS-101T RS " NORD. ss. COUI i-.� Or OR.I NGE T, RICiRD T. 1'Uaa3iR, h'.cecutive Officer of the Local"A6cx Formation Commission_of Orange Cour_ty, California hereby certify that the above and. foregoing Resolution ryas duly axid rogularly•adopted by said' -Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held cn the 9th day of June, 1971- 11T WITY;ySS I.=1 , EOF, I have hereunto set ray hand t'.ais 9th day of June,. 1971. RICHARD T. TIMM' Executive Officer of the Iocal Agency Foznslaticn Commission of Orange County, California • ter' lil•eG]:'e'GL'.1'�'' � Resolution Pfio. 71-64 1 1 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 September 25, 1974 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Oc�o8o 9 r��s�orr19� On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, on May 8, 1914, the Commission directed staff to provide the Commission.with alternatives regarding whether the Commission should make the ultimate determination on spheres of influence or should the Commission determine spheres of influence based on a more.reasonable extension of the local governmental agency's boundaries; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 1974, the Commission further directed staff to bring back a short term sphere of influence policy to the Commission with specific recommendations as to policies which should be implemented within short term spheres of influence; and 15 WHEREAS; on September 25, 1974, the -Commission discussed 18 staff's specific recommendations.as to policies which should be imple- 17 merited within short term•spheres of influence;. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission hereby' 19 adopts the following policies for implementation of short term spheres 20 of influence for cities in Orange County: 21 A short term sphere of influence is intended to define an area within 22 a city's adopted sphere of influence which may desire city services 2311 within the next five years. Such spheres of influence shall be perio- 24 dically reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission and updated 25 - 'when warranted by a change'in local conditions or circumstances. 26 The establishment of a short term sphere of influence boundary shall 27 be established for each city in Orange County and shall be based on 28 but not limited to the following factors: 29 1. Ability of affected city to provide municipal services. 30 2. Zoning and land use in the area. 31 3. General plan of the city and the County of Orange 32 Resolution No. 74-131 2I 1 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '7 J 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4. Specific plans, i.e. water, sewer, open space, etc,, adopted by the city, the County of Orange and other public agencies. 5. Capital improvement plans adopted by the affected city. 6. Existence of unincorporated "islands" in the area. 7. Existence of agricultural preserves in the area. Upon establishment of short term spheres of influence for cities in Orange County, the following policies shall apply: A. Formation of independent special districts -should be dis couraged within a city's short term sphere"of influence. U Annexations of territory to independent special districts within a•city's•short.•term sphere of influence should be discouraged when it is found that the affected city can pro - vide identical services to -the property.. ' 1. If'it is found that the city cannot provide the, service offeted`by the special district to the propert, and the subject property. is contiguous,to•the city's boundaries, the Commission should require that approval of special district annexation'be subject to the con-, dition that the property lie annexed to the city. All property within a city's short term sphere of influence is by definition urbanized or urbanizing and shall be subject) to annexation: Recognizing that the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must consider development and, rezoning proposals in the unincorporated area on a case by case basis,-LAFCO requests the County of Orange to consider: • , Not approve proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications. and major development proposals which are within a city` (1) short term sphere of influence, and can be legally annexed. Resolution No. 74-131 2. 1 2 J j 3' 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 " 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 (2) To recommend to applicants in"the above cases that they annex their property to.the City and develop it under the city's jurisdiction. E. LAFCO will request the County to refer all proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications and major development proposals which are within.a ci-ty's short term sphere of influence to the city for review and comment. AYES: C0T•IT'BSSIONL ERS D0ITALD J. SALTARELLI, ALICi J. FRA MM-WICH, ROBERT W. BATTIN, START NORTHRUP-AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES:,. 0011T'Ii SSIO.NERS is ONE SENT.. : COT11iISSIOM.-S . ".NOgyTy ° STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) :. ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T.-Tu-RPTER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certif y':thkt the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting•thereof,:held on the 25th day of September, 1974= IN GIITDTESS «EMIMF, I have hereunto set" my hand this 25th day of September, 1974." RICHARD T. TUE2 M Executive Officer of the. Local. Agency Formation Commission of Orange County-, California --. By 74 • k(GL�u��.' ecretary . Resolution No. 74-131 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 13, 1973 COUNCIL AGENDA NO. G-6 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. TO: •MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City -Manager . SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: If desired, adopt the Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach and authorize the Mayor to transmit.the report to the - Local Agency Formation Commission. - DISCUSSION: On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) notified the City that LAFCO was beginning a series of public hearings to officially determine the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the County. In June, 1973, Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence was reviewed by LAFCO and it was noted that there were a number of conflicts with Newport Beach's. LAFCO took no action on the areas in dispute - the airport and Banning Property, but requested their staff to schedule a hear- ing on the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City has now been noti- fied that the hearing date will be September 12, 1973,.and that the City's submittal should be received by August 15, 1973. Attached is a Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City. It is hoped that the material is adequate to permit the Council's review, modi- fication if necessary, and approval for submittal to LAFCO. G' RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNV Attachment J 'r August 13, 1973 Mr. Richard T. Turner,.Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission County of Orange Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach.. i•. Dear Mr. Turner: Attached you will find material being submitted in support of the Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach. It is the City's understanding that this material will be considered. at a hearing on September 12; 1973, and at that time the City will be happy to clarify the material and -answer questions of your Commission. We appreciate this opportunity to relay our concern for those areas that have a physical, social, and eco- nomic relationship to Newport Beach. • It is our belief.that the major benefit both to the City and the property owners in these areas, is that planning for over- all comprehensive and coordinated development can be commenced. The continued high quality living environment for the City and the areas that are physically or•economically a part of Newport Beach can be maintained. Very -truly yours, DONALD A. McINNIS Mayor DAMc:mm r Attachment i PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Background On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested the City to review the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence map submitted to LAFCO on August 20, 1970. On July 17, 1973, Richard Turner, Executive Officer, LAFCO;.hotified the City that a public hearing is set for September 12, 1973, to "review and determine a sphere of influence for the City of Newport 'Beach". Mr. Turner requested the City to review and submit material in support of its proposed sphere of influence. On August 13, 1973, the City Council approved the Sphere of Influence report and map for the City of Newport Beach. Sphere of Ihfluence Map The attached Sphere of Influence map identifies the City of Newport Beach sphere of influence as the present City boundaries and the following unincor- porated areas: 1. From the existing City limits to the center line of the Santa Ana River, and from the westerly extension of 19th Street to the three mile limit (Area "A"); 2. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B"); 3. "The County Triangle" adjacent to Superior Avenue (Area "C"); 4. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D"); r 5. Orange County Airport (Area "E"); 6. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F"); 7. Irvine Coast (Area "G"). Santa Ana River Center Line (Area "A" on attached map) In 1970 ft was suggested by LAFCO that the four cities bordering the Santa Ana River from Harbor Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean consider the possibility of annexing adjacent portions of the flood control channel right-of-way to eliminate the existing strip of unincorporated territory comprising the river channel. Representatives from the four cities bordering this portion of the Santa Ana River have reached tentative agreement that annexation of this unincorporated strip would be desirable in the interests of providing clear lines of juris- dictional responsibility, particularly with respect to public safety and emergency services, and the center -line of the river channel would represent the most logical boundary line. LAFCO.was notified by the four cities of this agreement on February 10, 1971. 0 Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B" on attached map) The Banning property is a "County island" located in West Newport Beach and is presently leased for petroleum production. Due to the close interrelationship of this property to the incorporated West Newport Beach area, the City has been working with the property owner to plan for the ultimate use of this area, future City services, and the incorporation of the area into Newport Beach. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, states the following major proposals for the Beeco, - 2 - Ltd. (Banning) property: This -area, north of "Newport Shores" and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on #e Land Use Plan. This will permit the development of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. (This Feasibility Study is currently being conducted by Moffat and Nichol, engineers under contract,to the City.) Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking.area is proposed as part of the County -wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element", modified, if necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, in- cluding residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. The property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan. The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan states the following proposals for the area: In this area, it is proposed that the Residential Growth Limit be equal to the number of dwelling units that would result if the entire area were zoned for single-family units at a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves feasible, the same . number of units would be permitted, but the housing type and density would change. However, no individual development would be permitted to exceed 15.dwelling units per gross acre. MIE Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical_ Area Al Since all of this area, except the City -owned parcels, is unincorporated, no City action is possible at this time to assure maintenance of the Residential Growth Limit. However, this Residential Growth Element indicates the City's intent and the zoning at the time of annexation will reflect this adopted limit. This entire area has been designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that Specific Area Plan. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Al (Banning Area) Based on the Residential Zoning Policy — Total No. Estimated Housing Type Breakdown of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as --- --- --- --- "- -'- of 1-1-73) Residential Growth Limit based on the Residential Zoning Policy 2,994 1,497 --- 1,497 --- 60886 The City of Newport Beach contracted with the consulting firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. to perform a Traffic Study leading to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The consultant has submitted a report entitled ,"Newport Beach Traffic Study Phase II Summary Report - Alternative Plan Development", and recommendations are included for the area. The City of Newport Beach is a full -service city, providing all of the major municipal services, i.e., water and sewer, fire and police protection, - 4 - 1 - . u¢� ^4 library service and park and recreations service to residents of the City. Existing services in the area are minimal due to lack of development; however, the City has planned for the extension of services to this area as development and incorporation take place. A report entitled, "Engineering Report on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for West Newport Area - City of Newport", was prepared by Boyle Engineering in July of 1972. It was the desire of the City to investigate needs for domestic water supply system for the West Newport area including the Banning property. The report includes recommendations for facilities to satisfy water demands in the entire area. It would also be logical to extend all other municipal services into this area. The entire area is within County Sanitation District No. 6 and the Newport - Mesa Unified School District. County Triangle (Area "C" on -attached map) This area is a County island within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach. This area lies principally west of Superior Avenue, in the vicinity of 15th Street. It contains a mixture of commercial, industrial and resi- dential (apartment and mobilehome park) development and zoning. In 1970 the City annexed adjacent property to the south designated Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74. In recommending approval of Annexation No. 74, the staff report to LAFCO dated November 6, 1970, stated that: I "This proposal (Annexation No. 74) is a part of a large unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. Although it is creating a smaller island of unincorporated territory immediately to the south of the subject property, it is felt that annexation is a logical extension of City boundaries and is a step toward eventual inclusion of all unincorporated properties in this area into the adjoining city." The City is prepared to provide all municipal services to this area. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D" on attached map) In June, 1969, the Local Agency formation Commission engaged in a study with the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to determine the most logical future boundaries between the two cities, particularly in the Santa Ana Heights area. The result of this study was that the common boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa shall be Irvine/Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street; provided, however, that area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street, now designated the "clear zone", south of the Orange County Airport, should be excluded from future annexations to either City (see "Area P below). Orange County Airport (Area "E" on'attached map) This area comprises the Orange County Airport property, between Bristol Street on the south and the San Diego Freeway on the north. Orange County has not yet chosen to annex the County Airport to any of the existing cities in the vicinity. However, on July 20, 1970, the City Council of Newport Beach took the position that if and when the Orange County Airport and the adjacent clear zone south of Bristol Street is annexed to any city, that city should be Newport Beach. The airport terminal and the principal buildings are located along the east side of the field, adjacent to the present City limit, and Newport Beach would be in the best position to provide municipal services to the airport. Furthermore, the normal flight pattern on take -off extends directly over Newport Beach; therefore, the City receives the major impact from airport operations. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F" on attached map) This "uninhabited" County island•consists of developed and undeveloped ceme- tery property owned by Pacific View Memorial Park, a California cemetery corporation. The cemetery presently receives both water and sewer service from the City of Newport Beach. An existing agreement (City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 7265, adopted August 24, 1970) provides that: "Pacific View agrees to commence proceedings by January 1, 1973, for the annexation'to the City of Newport Beach of the balance of the cemetery property consisting of 126.68 acres and to diligently pursue said annexation and to cooperate in all respects with the City to the end that the annexation shall be completed expeditiously." - 7 - I Annexation of this County island is currently being processed. Irvine Coast (Area "G" on attached map) The coastal area between the present city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is currently under study by several public agencies and The Irvine Company, which owns all of the land in question. The recommendations of this study are expected to include general plan elements for future develop- ment of the area and future jurisdictional responsibilities and city boundaries. Under these circumstances it would be premature to attempt precise and permanent boundaries between municipalities at this time. However, the City of Newport Beach has established a general Sphere of'Influence boundary for this area pending future studies and support data for establishing logical service areas. The boundary is as follows: From the existing City limits at the San Joaquin Reservoir following in an easterly direction along and including the top of the San Joaquin Hills to and including Signal Peak;,then preceding. in a southerly direction along the easterly ridge of Los Trancos Canyon to and including Crystal Cove. The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Fill leasehold is expected to accommodate not more• than seven years of future dumping before its capacity is exhausted. After this it can become a highly -desirable golf course or park. However, the extremely deep fills in the canyons cannot be expected to support streets or utility lines. For this reason, and because the sanitary fill lies immediately north of the crest of the San Joaquin Hills, it could form a logical future municipal boundary. The proposed Irvine Company General Plan for this area indicates that San Joaquin Hills Road will be the center and focus of a series of hilltop villages. In this vicinity the hilltop has the character of a mesa rather than a ridge. It would be a mistake to divide these villages and the mesa on which they are located -in to two municipalities. The natural physical features of the downcoast area (including the beaches, coastal cliffs, hillsides and coastal canyons) and the several major vista points naturally tie the area to the ocean and in part to Newport Bay and the City of Newport Beach. Los Trancos Canyon topographically seems to be a transition area between the more gradual hills oriented towards Newport Bay and the steeper hills of Laguna Beach. Los Trancos Canyon is proposed as a major state park that would form a logical future municipal boundary. Both the Irvine Company (land owner) and the City of Laguna Beach have given indication that they favor this boundary. Part of the area within the proposed sphere of influence is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District. However, an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Ranch Water District executed in September, 1972, (copy attached) states in part: "It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, _g_ City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit 'A' to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question." The area could be served by I-RWD or the City of Newport Beach and,if properly planned in advance, would eliminate any possible duplication of services or overlap in taxation to the future residents. The whole purpose of the agree- ment with IRWD is to assure coordination of planning to eliminate duplication of services and taxation. Representatives of the Irvine Company participated in the preparation of the subject agreement and, therefore, approve the conditions imposed by it. If annexed to Newport Beach, the area would be served by City water services in conformance with current City policy. The present Newport Beach water system is fully adequate and capable of being extended to serve the area. The City has had engineering studies prepared to determine the water system expansion needed to serve the area; and the administrative and funding vehicles to provide for such expansion have been• established. Although no major sewer improvements are presently provided within the area, a portion of the area now lies within Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, the district which encompasses most of Newport Beach. - 10 - I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M B is AREA E''.„\•X\:ct�i' 1 ,` `1A` ,d �iy `i ..;�i:!10 �. 1`\ 3\\�\\.'y�?C�y �v i`+ryi „'!w,`,.. t♦• -_•j\ � // AR ,. ,�,t `,' ;.•S lam: �-� T��1� �,�i )tt:c-:'1! Cf _ '�.8�_ 'x ' y � �1i ,.. <i �s/ `� ,1{ , ii r _ !/(•- ..'S,•y k\'�. ro�\, -.+''� .:.;: � "�3i Fiiq t' = �:� �' r ..- c. _ � � ii S`�ITAA APjA HEIG); .T �.�.a :l fs a 1 S IGNAL PEAK •\` \ / ' "� i\\'r 1'Dt^� Ili^ "•vl,� C p / t • 4 , n' G `:r_l . .-.r •tea.\'��c�'+`, i \ ... ,r� ��. i �.- �` i r.1.i4 't, �t? �`___- � Q .. .. :i Via. �%' ��:;•�t �Y `!r"��/�j :� �.-, - �'��'�•'ll • t@� AAB ., �i `COYOTECANYO•f•D�REI•.�EU��c`'JITEQ+.V9Z .t...\�.�__,1?�,Ar• '` :!\�',.. `, ,\„,�t_:_`L�c-; tx� ,;. .,_ ;. ,:pAe1 Gf O `Lu r. �,. :'� `� 8 .� ::' ,�Jsi. ,`/ i-...�;�T ,:- .�. 'S..�\?,{�,{�•J.F. ''•- .T -tom 8glp° Zg I LT _ a6 ;` \�• '� PP "�� \,� � - % �� " - Sao s 5� Ids' 1Q f/,.'•'� fi •, J,� �,`. �� .`!li Lam: •l�^Sd' •'=: ,, id�I •tt �:.� 11 %, `4_ w tt. `'ti \ `/ �`Y•� °f_, - TL �� 46t19 1, •'�.. _S- � ar\ '�+(�_. ; •�. '��,=•l'd`y', =^± ` ' t�\_... jf.�..• t �-c .::;�'rt�b� 4 -' �y ,. �,. ,iW- `•\•=•• '1'C�>_.^. ,Vi �. 't✓ "1� -�4�•� E•L� \.-: A'�ty� l`t;..,is _ AREA A AREA G o p .'•/• .,,- - ,`' / _• '""� - �___ • I RV I N E COAST yt„ARE- -. _^ �•y®. '�• b' :4c� :' '1.•1 r'ni"!"�(.' LF(•�i^ `, -0 x .Jtl ,4`--1`.+• ' a `•,'. Q.AP •l`* 4G.'i� r+ . r.'•='.i' ,is.,r`'-F.i.. , ,,,, �-.._ x�..L/ / t...„. SANTA ArIA o yas i ,, _, .:,, f_ �. \ ti . , �{• �;'" ;. ;,/ - : evIlk 9 � _ RIVER - iF q r. ��)i:,�'1,11,^ r. ��7i (- lh: .':1.'i :,i �•. `{, �_.-::.':YJl � '8"t %U'. `rf . ''�'i ui,:i"_"-\.ty -•�.. ` �' '-; s ,\ f�: .'�'., V••a;' .l:fl.i� J •\ ® _ :4 �i_ __`..>'i s•fe�iixj')•jO:F:.<"•p"i<j<°•, \\Y w�4a,;�_�'-Iwssi v j .m••:`�l .... .... 4- 4_ci:VV •<` \\\` "_ 7i rt _>_] J O it iii ,-_-.-C�� :�:o- ,,',,�^G�,`�"U16a,�;�r o-,•r;,1 tom, 4 S.� " ,'1 ,.. f�`� ,G:,>-+:1,I�C�•�)1: �, as 'I II',11'._ :7-�,�`. �:h9� L .w�`, /�'!P!.1; t.-i�_3__ I .•i .,=:=r�:i`•,1.r �''•'_ i, O i I ��' :; ••.. 4� : t .fl J ,'. •a; .., , � .Yid:'-.... _ � '•.• :..•.. �. ,.: •' e, %� _1 �. ;ter �. `'�' �"`-... _ ARE C ,.:::>`j;= r•:`'+ 1r - '.� - - • • : •!: ,: •Ayy ' —� �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �' - --- _ , - - -- CRYSTAL COVE + • "%i-f^ \ I COUNTY , •' B 0 • .l:- TRIANGLE c - _ -•-• __ Cl � Y OF INJE-jWPORT BEACH November 11, 1974 CALIFORNIA 920 City RaII 3300 iiewpert3Ixd, (714)673 211D The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California' 92660 Attention: Mr. Lawrence B. Moore, Coordinator TICMAP Program Sbbject: TICMAP CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES Gentlemen: The policies attributed to the City of Newport Beach In your policy survey letter dated -September 30, 1974, have been reviewed by the City Council.'. The policies have been extracted from your letter and are attached. Each of them, formal or informal, is representative of the policies of the City with the single exception of your Policy C1.12 under Transportation which should read: L:NB C1.12 Any access roads to the coast should be north -south and connect with the extension of -the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon rather than being parallel to the coast and connecting to the Coast High- way: Very truly yours, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DONALD A. McINNIS t Mayor N DAM/kk t Attachments L: NB A1.6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER -ORIENTED RECREATION FACILITIES ALONG WATERFRONT AREAS ADJOINING BUT OUTSIDE NEWPORT BAY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED IN A MANNER WHICH MAY BEST SERVE TO DISTRI- BUTE THE INCREASING LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE-WIDE NEED FOR SUCH FACILITIES TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. L: NB A2.2 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, PREFERABLY RESIDENTIAL DE- VELOPMENT OF LOW INTENSITY SHOULD OCCUR IN THE AREA GENERALLY BETWEEN LOS TRANCOS CANYON AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, WHICH IS PRESENTLY DESIGNATED AS "URBAN AREAS" IN THE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT. L: NB B2.1 NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE SHORELINE, INCLUDING HARBOR AND OCEAN WATERS, NATURAL BEACHES AND BLUFFS, FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES, TIDEPOOL POPULATIONS, NATURAL WATERWAYS, AND NATURAL AND SCENIC LAND FEATURES, SHOULD BE CONSERVED AND ENHANCED IN A MANNER THAT WILL ENSURE THEIR AVAILABILITY FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT, AND FOR EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. . L: NB C1.1 The Pacific Coast Highway, as presently aligned, should be eliminated as a through route. L: NB C1.8 TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, NO FURTHER DEVELOP- MENT OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SHOULD OCCUR WITHIN THE COASTAL CORRIDOR OF NEWPORT BEACH. NB' C1.12 L: NB C1.15 L: NB C1.17 Any access road to the coast should be lateral, rather than north -south. THE CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY SHOULD BE ALIGNED TO CONTINUE DOWN COAST THROUGH BONITA/COYOTE CANYON. Any roadway proposed to be aligned along the beach should be designated for public transit use only. - 2 - NB C3.1 IN PLANNING AND DESIGNING THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM FOR ANY NEW DEVELOP- MENT IN THE STUDY AREA, TRANSIT SERVICE SHOULD BE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT A SCALE AND LEVEL THAT IT CAN REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE ON THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND HENCE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT. L: NB D.1 CONTIGUOUS, UNINCORPORATED LANDS INCLUDING THE DOWNCOAS.T AREA SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN AREA OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND PLANNING DESIGN CRITERIA SHALL BE DEVELOPED FOR THE AREA, to enable the City to control the character of development located therein; ANY ANNEXATION ISSUE -SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNTIL AFTER THE NECESSARY ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL RESEARCH HAS, BEEN COMPLETED AND DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE AS TO THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF. ANNEXATION. DOWNCOAST ANNEXATION ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION ITEM 5 (b) September 11, 1972 t INTRODUCTION Adopted City Council policy establishes several guidelines regarding annexation which are utilized in determining the feasibility and suitability of a prospec- tive area•becoming an incorporated part of the City of Newport Beach. This re--: port attempts to evaluate the downcoast area between•Newport Beach and Laguna Beach and its proposed development in relation to adopted,annexation'criteria. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES 1. Public Reaction - Attitude of public agencies and private organizations in and around the area that may be affected by the annexation. Findings:— Since the City is still investigating the possibility of annexation or non -annexation and has filed no formal intent or application with the Local Agency Formation Commission, we have not'solicited responses from adjacent public agencies or private organizations: 2. Over -Lapping Taxation - Degree of double taxation resulting from annexation and what may be done to eliminate any such condition. 3. Duplication - Extent• to which duplication of•services would exist or could be eliminated as a result of the annexation. Findings: Any duplication of services or overlap in taxation will depend in part upon the methods chosen for.providing future water and•sewer services.• Water Service No major domestic water services are presently provided within the area; however, the Irvine Ranch Water District has requested that the area be annexed_to their district in'order to serve future service needs. A recent consultant report.prepared'by Lowry and Associates for IRWD, has claimed that annexation to Irvine Ranch Water District would in fact be the most logical, economic and efficient means of.supplying future water services.to the area. An earlier study performed by the firm of Brown and Caldwell, in June of 1969, analyzed five separate alternative plans for•pro- viding water services to the area utilizing the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Laguna.Beach County Water District and the Cjty of Newport Beach. No appreciable differences in the cost of providing water services could be found among any of the five alternatives. The area could be served by IRWD or the City of Newport Beach and if properly planned in advance, would eliminate -any possible duplication of services or overlap in taxation to the future resi- dents. If annexed to Newport Beach, the area would be served by City water services in conformance with current City policy. The present Newport Beach water system is fully adequate and capable of being extended to serve the area. Sewer Service Although no major sewer improvements are presently provided within the area, a significant portion of the area now lies within Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. With the intent of the Irvine Ranch Water District to provide sewer services to the area, the possibility exists that both a duplication of services and double (2) t taxation could occur for future residents within the present Sanitation District No. 5 boundary. Representatives of Sanitation District No. 5 and IRIdD have assured the Directors of Sanitation 'S District No. 5 that future trunk line sewer services could be planned and coordinated in such away as to eliminate any such i conditions. If the area were annexed to Newport Beach, the City would have further control in insuring the proper planning and development of sewer services within the area. The local sewer system would be provided by the City of Newport Beach in conformance with current City policy. The Sanitation District boundaries. could be expanded to coincide with any future "City boundaries in the downcoast area to -further insure the orderly development of the trunk line sewer system. Findings, Duplication of services to the area could also occur with regard to fire and police services. Fire_ Service The Ci•ty's Fire Department informally assists other local munici- palities and the County in responding to various emergency calls at their request. The City is likely to be called upon in the ' future'either informally or through a joint powers agreement to render fire protection assistance to the neighboring downcoast area. This service could prove to be a cost to the City whether or not the downcoast area was annexed to the City of Newport Beach. (3) Complimentary assistance would be provided by the .County in other areas of the City to help compensate Newport Beach residents; however, City fire services can generally be provided more.economi- cally and efficiently than County fire services. If annexed to Newport Beach, the City would have the controlling position.to'recover any future costs for fire protection services and guarantee against the duplication.of such costs or services to the area. Police Service As with the operation of the Newport Beach Fire Department, the City also provides mutual aid or assistance to outlying areas through its police services. The services are rendered, in emergency situ- ations for such events as major automobile accidents or major thefts - where the City's forces will make the initial response and stand by for either highway patrol or sheriff's units proceeding to the area. With the 'downcoast area to begin development adjacent to Newport Beach, the City may be called upon in the future to respond either formally or informally to calls within the area, whether or not the area is annexed to Newport Beach. If the City chooses only to render such assistance to the area by way of a joint powers agreement to insure some compensation to Newport Beads taxpayers, the future residents of the downcoast area could be faced with paying additional fees •for police protection. Annexation of the area could help to alleviate the possibility of such condition. (4) if the area is not annexed to Newport Beach, the City Council - should give careful consideration to possible future policies regulating the level of fire and police services provided to the neighboring downcoast area and other areas.whi.ch lie outside 'the existing City limits. 4. City Standards = Ability of the City to require annexed areas• to be raised to City standards; i.e., by assessment districts. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has the ability to require any annexed area to install necessary improvement's to meet City standards. Since the Jnajgrity of the area is now unimproved, annexation would insure that all proposed developments and new construction be developed to existing City standards. (Whether -or not the area is apnexed to Newport Beach, the County can be expected to submit the proposed Irvine district regulations and development plans for the downcoas t area to the City for review and comment.) 5. Tax Base - Ability to broaden the tax base by annexation of land with existing or potential high revenue producing -improvements. Findings: Annexation of the downcoast area could broaden the City's tax base. Anticipated revenues could be expected to exceed the costs of providing muni- cipal public facilities and services as outlined in detail under the cost/benefit analysis -- page 14.- A more detailed independent analysis by an economic con- sultant would be recommended if the City chooses to proceed with the annexation. 6. Planning - Ability to continue an orderly program of City development based upon general plan implementation projections. (5) Findin s: An orderly program of City development and redevelopment requires a bglanced mixture of land uses and a broad tax base•from which to provide• adq uate public support facilities and services. Annexation of the downcoast •ared could be expected to net additional tax revenues for the City and in turn prgyide a high revenue base for implementing various general plan proposals . and capital improvement programs. Future public library,'fire and park improve- menps•within existing areas of the City, for example, could be financed in part by •he•additional revenues -generated from various downcoast developments. Thepe same revenues should be adequate to cover the future costs of library, part, fire and public works improvements needed within the downcoast area. 7. Transportation - Ability to correct inter -area street circulation deficiencies and inadequacies, thus promoting a more efficient flow of people and goods. Findings: The only existing inter -area street withip the downcoast area is the Pacific Coast hJighway. On the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, the Pacific, Coast Highway is classified as a "primary" highway (four lanes divided).' In studies done.for the Division of Highways, the existing daily traffic yo1Nme in this area reaches 48,000 during peak periods and is projec•ted'to reach volpmes of 64,000 to 65,000 by 1990. The traffic studies would indicate the need for upgrading the status of Pacific Coast Highway through this area from a "primary" to a "major"' -highway classification. The Irvine plan does envision the upgrading and realignment (6) of the Pacific Coast Highway to handle increased speeds and volumes by li�iting access and local road intersections that have been planned along its route. The Irvine. plan 'has also provided for an easterly extension of Sari Joaquin Hills Road, ,to continue as a major arterial highway from the present Newport Beach City limits to the proposed Laguna Freeway and El Toro'Road. Such extension is in conformance with the Orange County Plaster Plan of Arterial Highways. Culver Drive is planned as a modified thruway extension of the existing Culver Drive that runs through the Irvine Central Valley area and beyond the. University of Irvine. The plan proposes a modification to the Orange•County Master Plan by eliminating the adopted Coyote Canyon alignment and redirecting the extension of Culver Drive through the downcoast area adjacent to'Pelican Hill ridgeline, and thence to Crystal Cove. The Irvine plan also•depicts the previously adopted Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) as it extended between the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. The plan calls for the realignment of the freeway in a northerly direction through the downcoast area, ,yet maintains the previously adopted portions of the freeway which terminated .just north of the Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and south of El Toro Road in Laguna.• Beach. Adopted City Policy calls for the restudy of the previous extended alignment through Corona del Mar to a possible alternative alignment near or adjacent to Bonita Canyon - Coyote Canyon Road. With the official dissolvement of the Pacific Coast Freeway through the downcoast and other areas (SB 1087), several (7) alternative plans will now be studied in concert with State, County and City agencies to -find the most efficient and desirable solutions to future trans- portation' needs. .•If the downcoast area were annexed to Newport Beach, the City would have some additional control in insuring the proper planning and development of future transportation facilities within the area. Necessary coordination between the City and other public agencies may be better achieved through annexation to insure the most desirable location and development of all future inter -area highway and freeway systems which by their very nature would transcend the limits of the downcoast area. 8. Boundaries - Opportunity to realign boundaries that more closely approximate logical man-made or natural physical barriers. Findings: Present City boundaries at the southerly and easterly ends of the City generally align either natural or man-made physical barriers with the exception of the Cameo Highlands and Cameo Shores.areas in Corona del Mar. The present City boundary extending south from Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road is generally divided from areas to the east by the San Joaquin Reservoir and the proposed major open space areas which are,planned to encompass the reservoir. The City boundary proceeding south from San Joaquin Hills Road to approximately Fifth Avenue, generally follows'the natural alignment of Buck Gully which is now being studied for continued use as a natural/recreational open space area•.. The two areas most immediately adjoining the Irvine coastal property to the east are the Cameo Highlands and Cameo Shores communities. The City boundary encom- passing both areas is physically divided from the Irvine coastal lands only by (8) simple grade separations which occur along the southerly limits of Cameo Highlands and Cameo Shores.• Because of the close proximity of these two . communities to any future development to the south, it would be desirable to have similar uses of a compatible design and character to the single- family homes which now exist. This same objective, however, will tend to mask any district boundary separation between the present City limits and future downcoast developments. Even at the present time, there is a strong visual relationship which exists between the "Cameo" communities and the undeveloped coastal lands which pro- gress in'similar fashion from low rolling hillsides'to•adjoining coastal shelf areas. .The first major natural land forms to interrupt such terrain are Los Trancos Canyon an& Crystal Cove. As proposed by the Irvine Plan, there will be certain man-made features also, such as the golf course near Pelican Point and the secondary roadway ,lust south of the present City boundary which could provide more logical yet less distinct or dramatic boundary and land use separations. 9. Safety - Ability to better control fire, poli-ce, public 'health and safety - oriented problems which respect no municipal boundaries. Findings: Additional City fire and police services as mentioned previously, may be required to render assistance to the adjoining downcoast area whether or not the area is annexed.to the City of Newport Beach. 10. Service -'Ability to eliminate awkward and irregular boundaries causing difficulty and ineconomies in supplying utilities and City services. (9) Findings; At Present, there are no awkward or irregular boundaries causing any difficulties or ineconomies in supplying utilities or City services. The future planning and Provision of utilities and services will require success- ful cooperation between the City of Newport Beach, IRIM and Sanitation District No. 5 to alleviate any duplication of costs, facilities or services to the area. 11. 'Ilomogeneity - Ability to add residents who, in terms of their social, ethnic; cultural, economic and political interests and habits already are related to the City. Findings: Due to the increasing value of property within the coastal region and the higher costs which•are afforded in improving sites.situated in similar hillside terrains, it can be expected that the price of sales and rental housing units within.the downcoast area will at least be comparable to the present value and costs of housing within Newport Beach. The market to which such housing must appeal, will in turn, attract future residents of comparable social and economic class to the residents of Newport Beach. Also; the major underlying theme or concept of development in the downcoast area will be aimed at producing a major residential, recreational -resort community. The varied land and marine recreational features offered by the plan will tend to draw a similar composition of residents who not only can afford to live in the downcoast area, but who will be attracted by such residential/recreational features as pr_veall within the City of Newport Beach. 12. Control - Ability to protect City taxpayers against future costs incurred to prior improper land development. (10) Findings; Annexation would insure that all future developments and new construction be developed in accordance with existing City standards. 13. Public facilities - Ability to provide space for specialized public uses which are inappropriate in central locations. Findings: As a future residential/recreational community, the downcoast area would provide no sites for specialized public uses (such as sanitary landfills, airports, sewage treatment plants, etc.) which are inappropriate in central locations. 14. Elimination - Ability to eliminate existing or potential land uses and improvements considered a blighting or deteriorating influence. Findings: The private commercial recreation or resort uses (hotels, motels and specialty commercial) as well as the public recreational uses (public beaches, regional'parks, camp grounds and public parking) included by the Irvine coastal, plan, could have both a positive and negative impact upon the Newport Beach community. The resort -related commercial and recreational uses planned for the downcoast area will eventually relieve some of the various growth pressures for such uses within Newport Beach. The addition of such uses in neighboring areas can help to divert a portion of the growing County -wide and State-wide leisure/recreational demands and the increasing seasonal loads these demands are placing on Newport Beach's local recreational resources, transportation system, and public safety services. On the other hand, a redistribution and increase in resort commercial uses (hotels, motels and specialty commercial) to neighboring areas, will tend to lower recycling pressures and demands for such uses within certain older commercial sections of Newport Beach. The housing market for second homes and year-round and seasonal rental units will also be diverted in part by plans to increase the supply of such uses within the neighboring down coast area. The prospects for continuing or upgrading older properties or areas with recreational or specialty commercial uses and second home or second unit rental developments, will likely become less and less of a viable alternative for the future reuse of such properties within Newport Beach. A further possibility arises with respect to the existing and proposed hotels within the City of Newport Beach. local developers are basing a major portion of their•existing and proposed hotel/convention projects on the same business visitor and tourist markets as will be needed for the development of these same uses within the down coast area. The market demand is expected to generate less support for the total amount of hotel space or rooms now planned to be. developed by 1986 and 1990. The continual build out of these same uses in accordance with present development plans, could result in a general oversupply of hotel and convention facilities and an eventual lowering•of occupancy rates for hotel uses within Newport Beach. If the downcoast area were annexed to Mewport Beach, the City could exercise some control over the timing and pace of future development in the area, par- ticularly in regard to those uses which, by way of any premature development, could effect the quality or efficiency of similar existing and planned uses within the City of Newport Beach. 15. Preclusion - Probability of the elimination or opportunity for County areas to incorporate to the detriment of existing cities. 16 Findings.; The major benefits in annexing the downcoast area appear to be. three: _ - -. •-' ._.._ 1 (1) The annexation could net additional revenues for the City; j� (2) The annexation would help to guarantee that the planning !`4 and development of the area proceed in accordance with 1 f l� adopted City standards and policies; and (3) The annexation could help alleviate possible future con- ' flicts and costs in providing fire, police and sewer services to the area. It is possible that the downcoast area, as a.whole, could incorporate, and continue to'function as a separate entity -- in which case, these potential benefits would be given up in whole or in part by the City of Newport Beach. The possible loss of such benefits and/or the incorporation of the area as a. separate City would not, however, appear to be of major consequence or detri- ment to the existence or future of Newport Beach. Image - Ability to increase City stature by annexation of land and/or improve- ments with exceptional characteristics. Findings: The natural physcial features of the downcoast area (including the beaches, coastal cliffs, hillsides and coastal canyons) and the several major vista points which naturally tie the area,to the ocean and in part to Newport Bay, offer several unique chary-1-e.ristics in addition to thos,: found within Newport Beach. The Irvine plan, also, offers an array of both public and private land.uses (including the public swimming beaches, coastal walkways, :J canyon trail systems, private hilltown communities and recreational resort centers, etc.) which would add to the image of stature of Newport Beach. This image, however, would also/represent a major increase in the total size of Newport Beach, adding an additional 16,0o0 to 25,000 persons to the City's ultimate population and from 2,000 to 4,500 acres of. land to the physical or geographical limits of Newport Beach.* The ability of the City to effectively serve 25,000 additional residents, and the desire of its Council and Commission to fully represent the additional interests and demands created by these resi- dents, appears to be the more basic issue concerning annexation or non - annexation. With additional growth, the difficulties of communication between citizens and their representatives will likely increase, while the village - like atmosphere of the community will tend to decrease. 17. Cost/Benefit Analysis - Ability on the basis of cost/benefit analysis to produce excess revenue over cost of government services. Findings: The cost/henefit analysis is based on the application of a prelimi- nary system now being developed to test and analyze various land use alterna- tives for the General Plan. As such, the various cost and revenue figures shown on the following pages are to be considered tentative. Further testing and refinement of the system by the City's staff and economic consultant could result in several major changes to the cost/benefit outlook for the downcoast area. FOOTNOTE: Figures are based on two alternative annexation boundaries -- one extending to Culver Drive and the second to Sand Canyon Road as shown on the Irvine plan. (14) The preliminary cost/benefit analysis considers two alternative study boundaries the first of which generally follows the future extension of Culver Drive and the second, sand Canyon Road as shown on the Irvine coastal community plan (see attached map). Both boundaries include the Crystal Cove area south of Pacific Coast Highway. Based on the preliminary cost/revenue system being developed for the General Plan, residential uses on the average have generated a total demand or cost for municipal public services in excess of total revenues. The revenues from property taxes and various state per capita subvention apportionments, etc., generated.by residential uses, do not, on the average, offset the proportional costs for providing municipal public services to residential uses.. The figures shown in Tables 1 and 2, therefore, depict the net cost or net effect various types of residential'uses have after deducting total residential costs from revenues.. Commercial uses, on the other hand, generate excess revenues over or beyond the proportional costs of providing municipal public facilities and services to commercial development. The highest revenues in the case of retail commercial uses are generally derived from the sales tax, while in the case of resort commercial uses (which include hotels/motels), the higher revenues originate from the City's local transient occupanev tax. Based on the cost/revenue system and the proposed uses designated by the Iryine coastal community plan, either downcoast annexation area could be expac'ctu to net major additional revenues For the City. The net effect in terms of total revenues for either annexation area (as shown in Tables 1 and 2) do not include the costs for major new capital projects. 2 DOWNCOAST ANNEXATION TO CULVER DRIVE TABLE NO. 1 Residential Uses Single Family 2 D.U./Acre = 990 Acres (a) X (-) Multiple Family $ 1,000(b) = (-) $ 990,000/Yr. 15 D.U./Acre = 267 Acres X (-) 700 25 D.U./Acre = 87 Acres X (-) 200 {`) 186,900/Yr. {-) 17,400/Yr. Sub Total Commercial Uses Resort 206 Acres Retail � � = 37 Acres X {+� $10,000 =� (+) $2,060,000/Yr. X (+ 6,000 = (+) 222,000/Yr. Sub Total = {+) $2,282,000/Yr. Net Effect = (+) $1,087 700/Yr I Residential Uses Si ngl e Family =Ivor) bu,5 2 D.U./Acre 3 D.U./Acre , Multiple Family tc�C v' 15 D.U./Acre 20 D.U./Acre 30 D.U./Acre Commercial Uses Resort Retail DOwNCOAST ANNEXATION TO SAND CANYON! ROAD TABLE NO. 2 (a) 2,000 Acres = 244 Acres 70 Acres = 267 Acres = 87 Acres X (-) $ 1000 1,000{b) X (-) $ 650 X (-) 200 Sub Total (-) $2,000,000/Yr. (-) 244,000/Yr. (-) $ 45,500/Yr. (-) 186,900/Yr. (-) 17,400/Yr. (-) $2,493,800/Yr. 272 Acres (+) $2,720,000/•it•. 41 Acres Y. (+) 6,000 = (+) 246,000/Yr. 313 Sub Total = (F) $2,966,000/Yr. Net Effect(c) _ (+) $ 472,200/Yr. (a) Total acres to ultimately be developed for each use (b)' Average annual net cost (-) or net revenue (+) for each use based on preliminary cost/revenue system (c) Ultimate net annual effect -.excluding costs for major new capital projects. With some general estimates as to the overall timing of development in the downcoast area, the staff has also attempted to apply various new capital expen- ditures against the total net revenues for the annexation area which extends to Sand Canyon Road. 'Based on the estimates received from various City depart- ments, these capital projects and costs include: Major New Capital Projects for Downcoast Area to Sand Canyon Road 1 Additional Engine Company $ 350,000 1 Additional -Ladder Company 500,000 Additional Lifeguard Facilities 22,000 Local Public Park Improvements (50 ac.) 1,000,000 Paseo System Improvements (200 ac.) 1,400,000 1 Additional Branch Library 450,000 Major Street Improvements (includes Paving, Lighting & Landscaping) 2,502,000 Traffic Signalization 250,000 Main Line Water Extension 100,000 TOTAL COSTS $6,574,000 The Staff attempted to program each major new capital project utilizing various estimates with regard to the timing and magnitude of development in the downcoast area between the years••1974 and 1990. -The capital projects and expenditures . have been assigned to various ,years based upon projected future needs and the availability of future revenues. Certr: , capital nrojects, however, would be' needed at the outset of development at a time when expectant net revenues would be lowest. (See Table No. 3). The Staff intends to review all cost/revenue estimates in further detail at the Council study session on September 11. The preliminary cost/revenue system is to be completed by the end of September and following such time, will be introduced to the City Council for their review. U r COST RE`,'ENUE ANALYSIS�DOWNCOAST ANNEXATION TO SAND CANYON ROAD � TABLE NO. 3 Year Acres of Residential Net Cost -or Residential (a) (000) Acres of Commercial Net Kevenues la) from Commercial Net uverail Effect (b) (000) Nrojectea Capital Costs (000) Net uveraii Effect (c) (00,2 - Kevenues from Unnev. Land @ .06/S.F.Av(000) Annual Net Effect (d) (000) 1974 200 $ 190 0 $ -- (-) $ 190 $ 20 (-} $ 210 $ 94 (-) 116 1975 400 380 40 360 (-) 20 100 (-) 120 87 (-) 33 1976 600 570 80 _ 730 +j 160 100 (+)) 60 80 (+) 140 1977 800 760 115 . 1,090 +) 330 275 (+) 55 73 (+) 128 1978 1,000 950 150 1,460 (+) 510 460 (+) 50 66 (+) 116 1979 1,200 1,140 190 1,820 (+) 680 660 (+) 30 59 (+) 89 1980 1,400 1,330 230 2,180 (+) 850 760 (+) 90 51 (+) 141 1981 1,590 1,520 235 2,250 (+) 730 690 (+) 40 46 (+) 86 1982 1,790 1,700 245 2,320 (+) 620 6010 (+) 20 39 (+} 59 1983 1,980 1,890 250 2,390 (+ 500 P:00' -- 33 (+) 33 1984 2,170 2,070 260 2,460 (+) 390 380 (+) 10 27 (+) 37 1985 2,360 2,260 265 2,520 (+) 260 260 -- 22 (+) 22 . 1986 2,560 2,440 270 2,590 (+) ISO 12�13 (+) 30 15 (+) 45 1987 21600 2,480 280 2,650 (+) 170 120 (+} 50 14 (+) 64 1988 2,620 2,500 285 2,720 (+) 220 120 (+) 100 13 (+) 113 1989 2,650 2,510 290 2,790 (+) 280 120 (+) 140 12 (+) 152 1990 2,670 2,530 300 2,850 (+} 320 120 (+) 200 11 (+) 211 (a) Average annual Net Cost (-) for residential uses and annual Net Revenues, (+) from commercial users based on preliminary Cost/Revenue system (b) Net annual overall effect -- excluding costs for major new capital projects (c) Net annual overall effect -- applying annual costs for major new capital ro'ectI (d) Net annual overall effect applyingestimate revenues rrom city property axes on vacant land and golf courses All [WIMP MAC.T-Ai rnimmINITY PI AN RESIDENTIAL iT eiu Hilt AND CANYON AREAS C: CANYON ESTATES :•: EAW DENSITY . MEONV. DENSITY MEDI•JN HIGH DENSITY A1C'• HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL LOCALRETAIL-SERVICE RESORT COMMERCIAL PUSUC AND OJASI-PJSLIC ✓:YJ =� WATER POWER (t•C>" COMMONICATIONS OELEMENTARY SCHOOL f� -R HIGH SCHOOL GHIGH SCHOOL -{=S:i• PARKS. BEACH. AID OPEN SPACE DLO PARKING GROVES WATER MARINE PRESERVE' INDUSTRIAL MANUTACNRING-CESEARCH SPECIAL .'. ^: DOLT AOYRSF YAAPRI COASTAL WALK ........ TRAILS BICYCLE AND PCCESTAIAN iF SCENIC TURNOUTS AND VISTA POINTS CO PEDESTRIAN VISTA POINT HRDIC 0 1 2 3000' Figure Nab ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION STUDY BOUNDARIES rvz:cL Y/o/ia ,p. oil AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE FUTURE ADJUSTMENT OF SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES F ILE ' C®Ply, THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into thistr� of , 1972, by and between the IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "District", and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City"; W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District has heretofore undertaken investigations relative to how and in what manner the area now situated within District and area immediately adjacent thereto, southerly of the existing southerly boundary line of District, might be provided with water and sewer facilities in a timely, efficient, and economic manner, and WHEREAS, a proposal relative to Annexation No. 16 to District has been submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion of Orange County for consideration, and WHEREAS, accomplishment of such annexation at this time is necessary in order to permit District to establish and commence implementation of a program for financing and constructing the necessary facilities for the area depicted in,Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, and WHEREAS, it has been determined by District and City that it would be in the best interests of both parties to execute an agreement relative to certain matters of mutual interest and benefit to both District and City, which matters are hereinafter specifically set forth; r- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties to this Agreement do agree as follows: 1. District agrees that as to the area designated in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, which document is by this refer- ence made a part hereof, it will initiate annexation proceedings upon approval of the proposed annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and thereafter initiate and diligently pursue to completion annexation proceedings as well as proceedings to establish an authorization of bonds to be issued, if, as and when needed. The proceeds of the bonds so authorized shall be used to construct facilities for transmission, storage, and dis- tribution of water, as well as collection, treatment, reclamation, or disposal of sewage and waste water, which proceedings shall include the area designated on the portion of Exhibit "A" as the area of possible service boundary adjustments between City and District. It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question. The determination as to which water and sewer facilities or the extent of the capacity in such water and sewer facilities to be conveyed to City by District -2- shall be determined on the basis of sound engineering practices as well as existing practices of good utility management. It is acknowledged that in such instances a facility may be conveyed in its entirety or that only capacity in an existing facility may be conveyed. It is the intent of both parties that sufficient water and sewer facilities, or capacity in water and sewer facilities will be maintained by District to serve any adjacent property or portion of the area described in Exhibit "A" which are not annexed to City. The foregoing proviso is subject to and in furtherance of the authority of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County or its successor to make such a decision as part of any such proceedings referred to hereinabove pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code and any other applicable provisions of law. It is acknowledged and agreed that such may occur either as one annexation or as a series of annexations. It is further acknowledged and agreed that said boundary adjustments may require detachment of territory from District. District agrees that in such event it shall execute and deliver to City such docu- ments as are reasonably necessary to convey the above described water and sewer facilities or capacity in the above described water and sewer facilities to City. Further, District, at the request of City, shall execute and deliver to City such documents as are reason- ably necessary to undertake detachment proceedings relative to detachment of territory from District to the extent necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. Such areas of possible detachment from District shall be only to the extent described on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. It is agreed as a condition of any such requisite boundary adjustment and transfer of water and sewer n -3- r- facilities or capacity in water and sewer facilities that pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code a portion of the District Reorganization Act of 1965 there shall be an appor- tionment of liability for payment of an appropriate portion of the principal and interest on bonds that have been issued, the proceeds of which have been used to construct water and sewer facilities affected by this Agreement. As an alternative means of accomplish- ing this purpose, City may pay to District an annual amount equal to what the territory in question would have paid in tax assess- ments or other charges had it remained part of the District to the extent that such are required for debt service on outstanding bonds issued pursuant to the proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of this Agreement. 2. Interconnection of Facilities. It is agreed by District and City that a system of interconnections between the water facili- ties of City and District shall be established consistent with sound utility management principals to provide safeguards against the possible failure of either the system of City or District. It is the intent of this provision that each of the entities agree to provide water in such instances at its cost in the event of a failure on the part of the facilities of either City or,District. 3. In regard to the eighteen (18") inch water transmission line initially constructed to provide service to the commercial development in City known as Newport Center, City agrees that Dis- trict may utilize existing surplus capacity therein as an initial interim transmission line to the areas described in Exhibit "A" as the area of possible future service area adjustments, provided that District shall furnish all water, transmitted for use by District. -4- This, as well as the other rights of District set forth herein, is in consideration of the commitments and obligations hereinabove set forth of District. It is agreed, however, that use of the eighteen (18") inch water transmission line by District, to the extent here- inabove referred to is subject to the requirement that an emergency alternative means of transmission be established simultaneously with the connection of District's facilities to the hereinabove described facilities of City. It is acknowledged that such surplus capacity was previously constructed at no cost to City. Such initial use by District shall be terminated by District upon receipt of twelve (12) months' prior written notice from City. 4. It is further agreed that in the event at a future date City determines that it does not need capacity that it now owns in a certain water transmission facility located within the public highway known as Pacific Coast Highway, it agrees to extend to District the opportunity to purchase such facility based on the replacement costs less depreciation or such other terms and condi- tions as are mutually agreed upon. It is contemplated that District, in such event, may acquire such facility with bond proceeds proposed to be issued by District. In the event that City makes such deter- mination, it shall give notice of such determination to District, and District, upon receipt of such notice shall within ninety (90) days thereafter advise City of its election to purchase the facility in question. The notice of District shall specify the purchase price together with sufficient information to verify the manner in which the purchase price is determined. 5. It is further agreed that City, in consideration of the matters hereinabove set forth, shall not oppose proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District and shall cooperate in any reasonable manner -5- u necessary in order that District might accomplish proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District at the earliest possible date. 6. District hereby acknowledges that based on Section 4730 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California it is not entitled by reason of the accomplishment of proposed Annexation No. 16 to District to have representation on the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5. 7. Notice. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the addresses of the parties hereto as follows: TO DISTRICT: Irvine Ranch Water District P.O, Box D-I Irvine, California 92664 TO CITY; City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660, and shall be deemed to have been received by the party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 8. It is further agreed by City and District that in the event Annexation No. 16 to District is not completed on or before October 1, 1972, this Agreement, without further act of either party, shall terminate and be of no further effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT By Zf("�4L'- Presfdent- By -7- t j % NATUg�4. DkAJNAGe'.,.-BOUN0ARY.--. ,N - z 4 OSSJBLE Nr=.WPOR --AREAr-OP POSSIS eta _BOUND 4". CiTY' BO UNDARY BOUNDARY - SfRVICE BOUNJD ADUSTMEN X. • I ni MV ri LF, - IR, -RAN, ClIp" 00 W47eR-' Pr,,T W.4rEe: #,Te400 000 800, gFwEe: S. 400 coo 7 x: SN ---- -- _tom O.C.S.D. Ng 5 EXIST. IBOUNDARY- LOIkRY.S, ASSOCIATES. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POTENTIAL FUTURE SERVICE M67k 6110,WNAeZ_AvAWX1oWr4_ COS,-10V,'y71 -BOUNDMIE.S. FOR COASTAL AREAS 11 .0% pov � n d 9lI Purposes; powers, sphere of influence; r U0 1q0T MOMS 54?74. financial assistance formation commission are the a local agency ement of the orderly the purposes of the encourag agencies based upon local Among emedt of urban sprawl and governmental agency disco�zrag d development of loprie of ty1e objects of andhe furnish formation an d circumstances. d to obtain an condi.tionsc Id is to make studies an logical and reasonable dement°£ formation which will contribute to the and to shape the develop to advantageously Provide for the information whiovernments in each county ment of local g encies so as and its communities. local governmental ag d future needs of each COS Y formation commission present an powers the local ageovernmental agencieso other p such In addition to its capacities. shall initiate and make studies of l 1sSerg1,e area and service cap use informa- ning their maximum ion may ask for land Cities? Such studies shaeT�nclude but shall sst be limited to'cts n agencies and dsuch studies, the comma and distri lads o£ cities, counties, nest o£ the commission for In conducting and P with the rsq its studies available ° tion,,studies, the commission counties, and districhehcommission shall make studies, such information and landing commissions. cities, counties, and districts. In making may cooperate with the county p d responsibilities for planning and carry out its pur o Ses el went and coordination oordifor the present f local In order to 1ca1 and orderly develop rovide for agency the log to advantageously P, the local shaping encies so as and its communities, here of influence governmental ag the county determine the sPPI As used in this and future needs of agency within the county•robable ultimate formation commission ental agent p and. for the P ency. °£ each local governmental ag means p e PTO, governmental ag of eat "sphere of influence" a°flalocal g here of influence of the factors considered in determining the a physical boundaries and serviCeth a commission shall con sider: aahlocal governmental agency the agency based upon ce capabilities of the agency (a) The maxi -mom possible service area o present and possible Serv7 is pr°ceding or could provide. (b) The range of Services the agency population growth of the area. (�) The projected suture P lamed for the area, or and went occurring idential, commercial, (d) The type of developres including, but not limited to, industrial development. the area. (e) The present and Probable future service needs of i � d Page 2 Section 54774 (f) Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of services provided by such existing local governmental agencies. (g) The existence of social and economic interdependence and interaction between the area within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and which could be con- sidered within the agency's sphere of influence. The commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by them. The spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the commission as a factor in making regular decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction. The commission may recommend governmental reorganization to particular agenices in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for such recommendations. Such recommendations shall be made avail- able, upon request, to other governmental agencies or to the public. The commission, or the board of supervisors on behalf of the is authorized to apply for or accept, or both, any financial and grants-in-aid from public or private agencces or from the federal government or from a local government. . commission, assistance state or �.,...�..-. - .f _ _ � � { _ _ `_" -- els:ct y/0/it ai 0� AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE FUTURE ADJUSTMENT OF SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE G 6 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1972, by and between the IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "District", and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City"; W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District has heretofore undertaken investigations relative to how and in what manner the area now situated within District and area immediately adjacent thereto, southerly of the existing southerly boundary line of District, might be provided with water and sewer facilities in a timely, efficient, and economic manner, and WHEREAS, a proposal relative to Annexation No. 16 to District has been submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion of Orange -County for consideration, and WHEREAS, accomplishment of such annexation at this time is necessary in order to permit District to establish and commence implementation of a program for financing and constructing the necessary facilities for the area depicted in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, and WHEREAS, it has been determined by District and City that it would be in the best interests of both parties to execute an agreement relative to certain matters of mutual interest and benefit to both District and City, which matters are hereinafter specifically set forth; / f NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties to this Agreement do agree as follows: 1. District agrees that as to the area designated in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, which document is by this refer- ence made a part hereof, it will initiate annexation proceedings upon approval of the proposed annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and thereafter initiate and diligently pursue to completion annexation proceedings as well as proceedings to establish an authorization of bonds to be issued, if, as and when needed. The proceeds of the bonds so authorized shall be used to construct facilities for transmission, storage, and dis- tribution of water, as well as collection, treatment, reclamation, or disposal of sewage and waste water, which proceedings shall include the area designated on the portion of Exhibit "A" as the area of possible service boundary adjustments between City and District. It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question. The determination as to which water and sewer facilities or the extent of the capacity in such water and sewer facilities to be conveyed to City by District -2- shall be determined on the basis of sound engineering practices as well as existing practices of good.utility management. It is acknowledged that in such instances a facility may be conveyed in its entirety or that only capacity in an existing facility may be conveyed. It is the intent of both parties that sufficient water and sewer facilities, or capacity in water and sewer facilities will be maintained by District to serve any adjacent property or portion of the area described in Exhibit "A" which are not annexed to City. The foregoing proviso is subject to and in furtherance of the authority of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County or its successor to make such a decision as part of any such proceedings referred to hereinabove pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code and any other applicable provisions of law. It is acknowledged and agreed that such may occur either as one annexation or as a series of annexations. It is further acknowledged and agreed that said boundary adjustments may require detachment of territory from District. District agrees that in such event it shall execute and deliver to City such docu- ments as are reasonably necessary to convey the above described water and sewer facilities or capacity in the above described water and sewer facilities to City. Further, District, at the request of City, shall execute and deliver to City such documents as are reason- ably necessary to undertake detachment proceedings relative to detachment of territory from District to the extent necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. Such areas of possible detachment from District shall be only to the extent described on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. It is agreed as a condition of any such requisite boundary adjustment and transfer of water and sewer -3- facilities or capacity in water and sewer facilities that pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code a portion of the District Reorganization Act of 1965 there shall be an appor- tionment of liability for payment of an appropriate portion of the principal and interest on bonds that have been issued, the proceeds of which have been used to construct water and sewer facilities affected by this Agreement. As an alternative means of accomplish- ing this purpose, City may pay to District an annual amount equal to what the territory in question would have paid in tax assess - meets or other charges had it remained part of the District to the extent that such are required for debt service on outstanding bonds issued pursuant to the proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of this Agreement. 2. Interconnection of Facilities. It is agreed by District and City that a system of interconnections between the water facili- ties of City and District shall be established consistent with sound utility management principals to provide safeguards against the possible failure of either the system of City or District. It is the intent of this provision that each of the entities agree to provide water in such instances at its cost in the event of a failure on the part of the facilities of either City or,District. 3. In regard to the eighteen (18") inch1water transmission line initially constructed to provide service'to the commercial development in City known as Newport Center, City agrees that Dis- trict may utilize existing surplus capacity therein as an initial interim transmission line to the areas described in Exhibit "A" as the area of possible future service area adjustments, provided that District shall furnish all water, transmitted for use by District. -4- This, as well as the other rights of District set forth herein, is in consideration of the commitments and obligations hereinabove set forth of District. It is agreed, however, that use of the eighteen (18") inch water transmission line by District, to the extent here- inabove referred to is subject to the requirement that an emergency alternative means of transmission be established simultaneously with the connection of District's facilities to the hereinabove described facilities of City. It is acknowledged that such surplus capacity was previously constructed at no cost to City. Such initial use by District shall be terminated by District upon receipt of twelve (12) months' prior written notice from City. 4. It is further agreed that in the event at a future date City determines that it does not need capacity that it now owns in a certain water transmission facility located within the public highway known as Pacific Coast Highway, it agrees to extend to District the opportunity to purchase such facility based on the replacement costs less depreciation or such other terms and condi- tions as are mutually agreed upon. It is contemplated that District, in such event, may acquire such facility with bond proceeds proposed to be issued by District. In the event that City makes such deter- mination, it shall give notice of such determination to District, and District, upon receipt of such notice shall within ninety (90) days thereafter advise City of its election to purchase the facility in question. The notice of District shall specify the purchase price together with sufficient information to verify the manner in which the purchase price is determined. 5. It is further agreed that City, in consideration of the matters hereinabove set forth, shall not oppose proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District and shall cooperate in any reasonable manner -5- V necessary in order that District might accomplish proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District at the earliest possible date. 6. District hereby acknowledges that based on Section 4730 of the Health and.Safety Code of the State of California it is not entitled by reason of the accomplishment of proposed Annexation No. 16 to District to have representation on the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5. 7. Notice. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the addresses of the parties hereto as follows: TO DISTRICT: Irvine Ranch Water District P.O, Box D-I Irvine, California 92664 TO CITY: City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660, and shall be deemed to have been received by the party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 8. It is further agreed by City and District that in the event Annexation No. 16 to District is not completed on or before October 1, 1972, this Agreement, without further act of either party, shall terminate and be of no further effect. -6- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor By U IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT - 7.. • • / I lit " � � C _.3x ram•" - . �'-4�•� e1 NATUR�Iw;ORMNAOE_:BOUNOAR :-.• `.l:'�•.a: p .:—► eft:%- . :.� ... � •, 1, A�IEA OP POSSIB�. �° T 055JBLE.NEWPORT�, `` RV10E BOUNDARY =CITY BOUND�i�Y �ADUSTMENT S'�• ::F�V t. :� '<: pi AT 3800,MWEe A'JO "' �3,6001000 =� s - _ • '{ �•' �:•: , i000 SEfYER fT 3�900,000 .c NQ 5 EXIST. BOUNDARY• ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [Ya67k C057-/N /97/ �( �•�''.aA"�Y� w {�Y�r r•� -mot'' �� LOWRY do ASSOCIATE POTENTIAL FUTURE S SERVICE BOUNDARIES, FOR COASTAL AREAS CHAIRMAN CLIFTON C. MILLER MAYOR CITY OF TUBTIN VICE-CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT I STAN NO RTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC I LOUIS R. REINHARDT COUNCILMAN .'7Y OF FULLERTON 1 ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT I' ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC I ALTERNATE ROBERT J. NEVIL COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA RICHARD T. TURNER EIt ECUTIVE OFFICER Date: To: From: Subject: ' RECEIVED Community �C Development Dept JUN Z 21973b- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF, I /D LOCAL AGEN May 30, 1973 COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 034-2239 AREA CODE 714 FILE COPYkI, Do NOT REPA09Z ' Local Agency Formation Commission . Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa. Section 54774 of the Government Code states that in order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its com- munities, the Local Agency Formation Commission shall develop and determine the spheres of influence of each local govern- mental agency within the County. On January 23, 19732 LAFCO sent to the City of Costa Mesa a copy of the Local Agency Formation Commission's adopted Program for Establishing Spheres of Influence for Cities and a copy of Government Code Section 547742 pointing out the Commission must develop and determine the spheres of influence of each local governmental agency within the County. It was also requested that the City of Costa Mesa submit material that staff could use to prepare a report for a sphere of influence: On April 11, 19732 LAFCO staff recommended a hearing date of June 13, 1973 for the Commission to review and determine a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa. Page 2 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa At this time, the City of Costa Mesa has submitted the following materials for Commission review: 1. City of Costa Mesa General Plan 2. City of Costa Mesa base map 3. City of Costa Mesa Master Drainage Plan The following sections of this report contain information re- garding staff's proposal for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa, range of services, type of development occurring or planned for the area and plans adopted in the area. PROPOSED SPBERE OF INFLUENCE AREA Areas proposed by staff to be included within a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa are: Area 1 - Corridor Area - a portion of`•the "county corridor" situated between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the east Costa Mesa area; located northwest of Tustin Avenue, northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street however, to exclude that area northwesterly of Tustin Avenue also named Irvine Avenue at its intersection with Bristol Street) and southerly of Bristol Street designated as the "Clear Zone", south of the Orange County Airport. Area 2 - Bristol Street - San Diego Freeway Area - an L-shaped portion of an"unincorporated island", located east and west of Bristol Street, north and south of the San Diego Freeway and in the vicinity of the Newport Freeway and San Diego Freeway Interchange in the northeast Costa Mesa area. Area 3 - Victoria Street - Canyon Drive - an "unincorporated island" located partially adjacent to the Sant Ana River and north of Victoria Street in the southwest Costa Mesa area. Area 4 - Santa Ana River Centerline Area - area consisting of unincorporated territory easterly of the centerline of the Page 3 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa Santa Ana River from Talbert Avenue on the north to the southernmost boundary of the.City of Costa Mesa on the south. BACKGROUND In this section, staff will review past LAFCO proposals and actions that have occurred to form the configuration of present city boundaries and "unincorporated islands" in the Costa Mesa area. 'In the past, the "Corridor Area" (Area 1) has been the subject of controversy over annexations initiated by the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In June, 1969 three such annexations were before LAFCO: Back Bay Annexation No. 1 to the City of' Costa Mesa (40 acres), La Canada Annexation No. 67 (23 acres) and West Santa Ana Heights No. 63 (89 acres)to the City of Newport Beach. These three annexations were located generally south of Bristol Street between Santa Ana Avenue on -%the west and Birch Street on the east. The Orange County Airport is located directly north of the subject annexations. The City of Newport Beach's La Canada Annexation No. 67 overlapped the City of Costa Mesa's Back Bay Annexation No. 1 proposal on its eastern half, west of Tustin Avenue. The third annexation proposal, Newport Beach's West Santa Ana Heights No. 63 was an 89 acre annexation generally bounded•by Bristol Street on the north, Orchard and Mesa Drives on the.south, Santa Ana Avenue on the west -and Acacia Street on the east. In order to resolve the boundary'disputes in this area, the Commission suggested that representatives of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa meet with.the Commission's staff and attempt to come to an agreement on boundaries in Santa Ana Heights area to avoid future overlapping and controversial annexations. Such meetings were held with representatives of the two cities. LAFCO staff supported Tustin Avenue as the most logical dividing line between the two cities. Staff based its position on a Page 4 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence -for the City of Costa Mesa combination of man-made and natural features that exist in t e area and what would be considered good planning area boundaries based on the existing land uses. To further substantiate the reasoning for establishing the boundary along Tustin Avenue, staff initiated research to study the previous annexations by both cities in this area. Such data revealed that Tustin Avenue had been used as an annexation boundary by both cities on ten separate occasions. On -June 25, 1969, LAFCO determined that the common boundary between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa shall be Tustin. Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street, except for that area located northwesterly of Tustin Avenue and southerlr,,-of Bristol Street designated as the "Clear Zone", south of.the Orange County Airport. Consistent with this determination, the Commission then took action on the three annexations, denying the two Newport Beach annexations lying west of Tustin Avenue and approving the City of Costa Mesa's Back Bay Annexation No. 1. Back Bay Annexation No. 1 was later turned down by inhabitants at an -election within the annexation area. The "Corridor Area" was also subject to an attempt.by the Santa Ana Heights Water Company for the formation of a county water district in August, 1968. The formation proposal was to form a district to serve water to approximately 1200 acres of the Santa Ana Heights area. The properties within the proposed district were under three major political jurisdictions: the ,City of Newport Beach (185 acres); the City of Costa Mesa (365 acres); and the County of Orange (650 acres). The proposal for forming.the new district was•basea on fears that the Costa Mesa Water District would encroach further into the service area of the Santa .Ana Heights Water Company, the private water company serving the area. Staff reccMended that the new district not be formed due to possible ovei•:.3pping of jurisdictions, sale of bonds and possible increase of the tax rate in the area. On September 11, 1968s LAFCO granted the request of the proponent that the proposed formation be with- drawn. Page 5 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa Area 2, an L-shaped "unincorporated island", was created by annexations to the City of Costa Mesa. To the north, Costa Mesa completed Sunflower.Annexation No. 2; to the west Sun- flower Annexation No. 1; and to the south Palarino No. 1. All of the preceding annexationswere completed in 1960 prior to the formation of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Area 3, the Victoria Street -Canyon Drive area, an "unincorporated island" surrounded by the City of Costa Mesa, was also created by a series of annexations by Costa Mesa.. To the east, Republic Annexations Nos. 3 and 4 were completed in 1960. South of the island, the Williams Annexation was completed in 1970. To the west and north River Annexation No. 3, annexed in December, 1962, completed the creation of the island. The most recent attempt to annex this entire "unincorporated island" occurred in July, 1970. The annexation, designated the Marina View Annexation, was approved by IAFCO to encompass the entire 78 acres of the "island". Residents of the area,however, turned down the annexation at a subsequent election. -Area 41) the centerline of the Santa Ana River, constitutes a logical boundary which was tentatively agreed upon by the four cities, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley, bordering the Santa Ana River from Harbor Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean. The tentative agreement was based on the fact that annexation to the center line of the Santa Ana River by the four cities would be desirable in the interests of.providing clear lines of jurisdictional responsibility2 particularly with respect to public safety and emergency services. ADOPTED PLANS IN THE AREA City of Costa Mesa General Plan The City of Costa Mesa General Plan was adopted by the City' Council in April, 1971. The General Plan includes a Land Use Element, a Housing Element and Circulation Element as well as a Plan Summary and Implementation Section. Page 6 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa Areas included within a proposed sphere of influence are also included within the Land Use Element of the Costa Mesa General Plan and are designated on this Land Use Element for the following land usages: Area 1 (Corridor Area) - Low density residential with some medium density residential south of Mesa Drive, west of Orange Avenue. Area 2 (Bristol St. - San Diego Frwy Area) - Low density residential, west of Bristol St.; small area east of Bristol designated for general commercial: Area 3 (Victoria Street - Canyon Drive) - Designated for high density and medium density residential development. City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Drainage The City Council of Costa Mesa adopted a "Master Plan of Drainage" in 1970. This drainage master plan basically divides the City of Costa Mesa into thirteen primary drainage areas, identifies 'areas requiring drainage facilities and recommends a con- struction priorty list for such facilities. Areas 2 and 3 of staff's proposal for a sphere of influence are included within these drainage areas and the master plan delineates how these areas are served or will be served in the future. Staff's proposal of Area 1, the Corridor Area, is not included within the area of the master plan of drainage. -Master Plan of Arterial Highways The Master Plan of Arterial Highways, as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, delineates the freeways and major, primary and secondary arterial highways in the City of Costa Mesa. The master plan is virtually identical to the City of Costa Mesa'General Plan Circulation Element. There are no proposed arterial highways designated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for areas proposed by staff for inclusion within a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa. Page 7 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa Existing arterial highways in Area 1 include Tustin Avenue (north -south) and Del Mar Avenue (east -west). A portion of Area 2, east of Bristol Street consists largely of the San Diego Freeway right-of-way, extending through the area in an east -west direction. Bristol Street, designated a major arterial on the master plan, bisects Area 2 in a north -south direction. Area 3 is served by Victoria Street, located on the south side of the area. RANGE OF SERVICES Other than police and fire protection services, the majority of municipal services provided to residents of the City of Costa Mesa are furnished through either dependent or inde- pendent special districts. Dependent special districts include the Costa Mesa City Lighting District No. 1 and the Costa Mesa Recreation and Park District. City Council members govern the districts as ex-officio directors, however, each district maintains a separate tax rate apart from the city general fund tax rate. Independent districts, providing water and sewer service to the City of Costa Mesa, are the Costa Mesa County Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The board of directors of these districts consists of -five members elected to serve four year terms. Again, as with the dependent district, these districts maintain separate tax rates apart from the City tax rate. Library service to the City of Costa Mesa is pro- vided -by the Orange County Library District via a tax rate of .2231/$100. assessed valuation. Services to the unincorporated areas included within staff's proposed sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa are provided through•a combination of County, special district and private agencies. Police protection is providedby the Orange County Sheriff, while fire protection is provided by the Orange County Fire Department. The fire protection services are financed throughra county structural fire protection tax rate (.3905/$100. assessed value) applied to properties in the unincorporated areas of Orange•County. Residents in the unincorporated areas, designated by staff to be included within a Costa Mesa sphere of influence, obtain library services through the Orange County Library District. The majority of unincorporated territory included within staff's ;proposed sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa is included within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Exceptions to this include the Santa Ana Country Club property in Area 1; the western portion of the L-shaped island, east of Bear Street, north and south of Paularino Avenue, in Area 2; a portion of the Victorid Street right- of-way adjacent to the Santa Ana River in Area 3; and the entire Santa Ana River center line Area 4. The Costa Mesa County Water District also serves portions of staff's proposed sphere of influence area. Area 3, the "Victoria Street - Canyon Drive'Area", is entirely within the bounds:, of the District? while only a small portion of Area 2 near Olympia Avenue is included within the District's jurisdiction. Area 1, the "Corridor Area" obtains its primary water supply from the Santa Ana Heights Water Company, however, a portion of the area, south of 23rd Street iss rued by the Costa Mesa,Water District. Lighting services to the "unincorporated islands" in staff's proposed sphere of influence are provided by Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12. The unincorpo- rated islands" are not included within the boundaries of the Costa Mesa Recreation and Park District, since the District's boundaries.are limited to territory included within the City of Costa Mesa. • TYPE OF 1E=10=NT OCCURRING OR PLANNED IN TEE AREA The City of Costa Mesa aside 2,620 net acres f ment and 505 net acres Another 845 net acres a meat development. The Element are expected to General Plan Land Use Element sets or•low-density residential develop - for medium -density residential use. re allocated for high -density apart - residential areas of the Land Use, accommodate a population of between Page 9 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence"for the City of Costa Mesa 114,500 and 120,000 by 1990. The largest allocation of commercial land within the City of Costa Mesa Land Use Element is contained in extensive developments extending along major traffic carriers. The three major commercial centers serving local and regional needs in the Costa Mesa area are: 1)'The South Coast Plaza shopping center; 2) the older commercial center focused on the Harbor Boulevard -Newport Boulevard intersection; and 3) the developing shopping area located at Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Three industrial areas; containing a total of 935 acres, are proposed on the City of Costa Mesa Land Use Element. Two industrial park areas are proposed. The first is located on a portion of the Segerstrom properties on the north side of the San Diego Freeway at Harbor Boulevard.The second area is part of the Irvine Industrial Complex situated on the east side of the Newport Freeway between the proposed Corona Del Mar Freeway and the San Diego Freeway, adjacent to the Orange County Airport. The third industrial area would consist of light industrial lands concentrated in the older, industrial section of the City lying generally south of 18th Street and west of Newport Boulevard. The area presently is occupied by manufacturing and service industries located on relatively small sites. Recent annexations of unincorporated territory included within staff•'s proposed sphere of influence to the -City of Costa Mesa have been"on a piecemeal basis in the Corridor Area (Area 1) and the Victoria Street -Canyon Drive (Area 3) Most of the territory in these two areas is currently developed and will retain its residential character. Annex- ation proposals in these areas have generally been submitted to facilitate the development of small apartment or con- dominium projects in medium or high density residential areas. The Bristol Street -San Diego Freeway Area (Area 2) is desi- gnated on the City of Costa Mesa Land Use Element for low density residential use, west of Brisol Street. the portion Page 10 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa of the area east of Bristol consists primarily of the San Diego Freeway right-of-way and interchange with the Newport Freeway. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Costa Mesa is another example of a city in Orange County that is virtually surrounded by other in- corporated cities. Future .expansion of city boundaries is going to be limited to "unincorporated islands" either surrounded by or on the fringe of the City. The establishment of Tustin Avenue -Irvine Avenue, generally from Twentieth Street on the south to Bristol Street on the north except to exclude the "Clear Zone" of the Orange County Airport, clearly set a common boundary between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach.- The effect of this LAYCO determination in 1969 was to end the annexation disputes between the two cities in this area and to designate to each city future areas of expansion. Staff's proposal for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa as it relates to the "Corriaob Area 1", is based upon the 1969 LAFCO determination. The Bristol Street -San Diego Freeway Area 2 is surrounded by the City of Costa Mesa except where the City of Irvine abuts:- the San Diego Freeway -Newport Freeway interchange on its northeastern edge. Territory within this area, other than the San Diego Freeway -Newport Freeway interchange logically should be served by Costa Mesa because of circulation and service factors. Portions of the San Diego Freeway -Newport Freeway interchange are presently within the City of Costa Mesa and eventually the remainder of the interchange should be annexed to Costa Mesa. Victoria Street -Canyon Drive Area 3 is surrounded by the City of Costa Mesa with the exception of a small parcel adjoining the Santa Ana River. Water and sewer service is Page 11 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa provided to the area by the Costa Mesa County Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, the same districts providing such services to the City. Staff's proposal to set the western boundary of the City of Costa Mesa at the centerline,; of the Santa Ana River is based on the tentative agreement reached by the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Fountain Valley that the centerline would be a desirable boundary ' in the interests of providing clear lines of jurisdictional responsibility. Staff notes,however, the City of Costa Mesa would have to detach a small portion of territory west of the centerline -of the Santa Ana River at the southwest corner of the City to fully comply, with the centerline concept. Staff's recommendation for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa, in addition to territory presently within the city limits, consists of the following: 1. Corridor Area (Area 1) - includes the unincorporated islands located north of Twentieth Street, west of Tustin Avenue -Irvine Avenue and extending northerly to Bristol Street, however, to exclude that area northwesterly of Tustin Avenue -Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street designated as the ,"Clear Zone" of the Orange County Airport. 2. Bristol Street -San Diego Freeway Area (Area 2) - includes the L-shaped unincorporated island, located east and west of Bristol Street, north and south of the San Diego Freeway, extending easterly to Red Hill Avenue; also includes small parcel east of Red Hill Avenue, south of the San Diego Freeway, adjacent to the Orange County Airport. 3. Victoria Street -Canyon Drive Area (Area 3) - includes- the •"unincorporated island", located partially adjacent to the Santa Ana River and north of Victoria Street in the southwest Costa Mesa area. 4. Santa Ana River Centerline Area (Area 4) - area con- sisting of unincorporated territory easterly of the center- line of*the Santa Ana River from Talbert Avenue on the.north Page 12 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa to the southernmost boundary of the City of Costa Mesa on the south. Section 54774 of the Government Code states: "The spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the Commission as a factor in making regular decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction. The Commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using spheres of influence as the basis for such recommendations." Staff would recommend that the City of Costa Mesa study the feasibility of incorporating the functions of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Costa Mesa County Water District into the City structure. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District is governed by an elected board, however, the District is administered by the City of Costa Mesa. The .City Finance Director is also finance director of the District. One problem, the overlapping of the -District's boundaries with the City of Newport Beach Wright be worked out by permitting the City of Newport Beach to assume sewer service for areas within their City. The Costa Mesa County Water District basically consists of territory within the City of Costa Mesa, however, like the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, the CMCWD boundaries also overlaps into the City of Newport Beach. The areas of overlap generally consists of: 1) territory east and west of Superior Avenue and north of Pacific Coast Highway and; 2) territory south of 22nd Street between Irvine Avenue -and Tustin Avenue. Staff notes that the Costa Mesa County Water District has completed three detachments in and around Tustin Avenue which have.made the District's boundaries more coterminus to the boundaries of the City of Costa Mesa. Such detachments should be encouraged, where possible, so that City can assume, at some future date, the functions of the water district. Alternatives to the proposed sphere of 'influence for the City of Costa Mesa could occur in two areas. The Commission may Page 13 In Re: Staff report for a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa want to review the Tustin Avenue -Irvine Avenue determination between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in the Corridor Area 1. The second area would involve the San Diego Freeway -Newport Freeway interchange; in the Bristol Street-San likely allocate way Area 2salternative uld a portionof theinter interchange mostthe City of Irvine. Staff would note, however, that no portion of the interchange was included within the sphere of influence of the City of Irvine, as adopted on July 262 1972. cc: City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine City of Huntington Beach City of Newport Beach City of Fountain Valley City of Santa Ana Planning Department Attn: I. Schatzman CITY of \ FOUNTAIN VALLEY ,Ceend. SANTA�N �� IVER --- - _ CITY of COSTA MESA ` CENTE LINE/�"'""rvFe SPHERE of INFLUENCE PIALIC GRADE SCHOOL RIBLIC INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL AR xrrrxa. CITY BOUNDARY T!.•.�, �W� f �+• r -y — PROPOSED STREET .. ♦/ tt i - FIRE STATION 'y4. n t W? 0 ^ ^ ♦ ,.f` ` 4'FV 0 .' PUBLIC RARK � +O ••' � .'�° ` • t !F yv yP•V •` INDUSTRY {W +OQ� to/ ^.`(.> <>,p•±' ,� pa sa'^, �.. ♦ t°« ♦3v ! O CONDOMINIUM CITY o`� /•' / « " 9' Ni HUNTINGTO t, VICTORIA S: ». p CANON DR.1 . ` CI Y of ... ,• AR SANTA ANA alnt %� A�' ♦r♦ '.q * "! ry '. '� _ .. \ '` > r ♦ to �p� ' _ ,>..� `♦�> BRIS QL ST. '� o� r ` AREA V � 4 y,4 . �a •{ ' '�, �q sr df^Br L` t P Crt, o ! [A. t °t/r ♦V V u� � 96 � E � • 4 ' .v,,� re e vl �� CY tS"4N TA � N_µ• TUSTIN _ i L 9i l 5 oR"- p4 x �C'j� mkt■rl $ y !, r ! a•� T Iv V�1\ S � �•a•�•c uw 9r:�.'aCo��> rf' s`� �1 � 11'�L, Y S..Ir'• 's,� �'!t. ��ea �'�.� 1 ` / ' ... ,,'•,mil + � F i .. .•.° ' 11. • J4RNGE,CDu�7Y �z� _ -AN40>72Y ` CRYN /°r• Y3�D t� I August 9, 1973 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Gentlemen: REC� un ant Y "^ pave oPm pept puG 131973r Fri oty BEpCH� FILE Copy] N�*Po j Attached herewith, please find copy of map of Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Laguna Beach. This is being sent to you for your general information and records. Sincerely, Wayn Moody Director of Planning and Development jr attachment 606 FOREST AVE. LAGUNA BEACH, CAL. 92651 TEL. (7141 4%.1124, 546 4856 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 13, 1973 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: �4 1�4Q 4Q �` �/v COUNCIL AGENDA NO. G-6 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO FILE C®py IM tMar namz If desired, adopt the Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach and authorize -the Mayor to transmit the report to the Local Agency Formation Commission. DISCUSSION: On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) notified the City that LAFCO was beginning a series of public hearings to officially determine the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the County. In June, 1973, Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence was reviewed by LAFCO and it was noted that there were a number of conflicts with Newport Beach's. LAFCO took no action on the areas in dispute - the airport and Banning Property, but requested their staff to schedule a hear- ing on the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City has now been noti- fied that the hearing date will be September 12, 1973, and that the City's submittal should be received by August 15, 1973. Attached is a Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City. It is hoped that the material is adequate to permit the Council's review, modi- fication if necessary, and approval for submittal to LAFCO. RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment August 13, 1973 Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission County of Orange Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Turner: Attached you will find material being submitted in support of the Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach. It is the City's understanding that this material will be considered at a hearing on September 12, 1973, and at that time the City will be happy to clarify the material and answer questions of your Commission. We appreciate this opportunity to relay our concern for those areas that have a physical, social, and eco- nomic relationship to Newport Beach. It is our belief.that the major benefit both to the City and the property owners in these areas, is that planning for over- all comprehensive and coordinated development can be commenced. The continued high quality living environment for the City and the areas that are physically or economically a part of Newport Beach can be maintained. Very truly yours, DONALD A. McINNIS Mayor DAMc:mm Attachment 3 PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Background On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested the City to review the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence map submitted to LAFCO on August 20, 1970. On July 17, 1973, Richard Turner, Executive Officer, LAFCO,�notified the City that a public hearing is set for September 12, 1973, to "review and determine a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach". Mr. Turner requested the City to review and submit material in support of its proposed sphere of influence. On August 13, 1973, the City Council approved the Sphere of Influence report and map for the City of Newport Beach. Sphere of Influence Map The attached Sphere of Influence map identifies the City of Newport Beach sphere of influence as the present City boundaries and the following unincor- porated areas: 1. From the existing City limits to the center line of the Santa Ana River, and from the westerly extension of 19th Street to the three mile limit (Area "A"); 2. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B"); 3. "The County Triangle" adjacent to Superior Avenue (Area "C"); 4. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D"); C 5. Orange County Airport (Area "E"); 6. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F"); 7. Irvine Coast (Area "G" Santa Ana River Center Line (Area "A" on attached map) In 1970 it was suggested by LAFCO that the four cities bordering the Santa Ana River from Harbor Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean consider the possibility of annexing adjacent portions of the flood control channel right-of-way to eliminate the existing strip of unincorporated territory comprising the river channel. Representatives from the four cities bordering this portion of the Santa Ana River have reached tentative agreement that annexation of this unincorporated strip would be desirable in the interests of providing clear lines of juris- dictional responsibility, particularly with respect to public safety and emergency services, and the center line of the river channel would represent the most logical boundary line. LAFCO was notified by the four cities of this agreement on February 10, 1971. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B" on attached map) The Banning property is a "County island" located in West Newport Beach and is presently leased for petroleum production. Due to the close interrelationship of this property to the incorporated West Newport Beach area, the City has been working with the property owner to plan for the ultimate use of this area, future City services, and the incorporation of the area into Newport Beach. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, states the following major proposals for the Beeco, - 2 - Ltd. (Banning) property: This area, north of "Newport Shores" and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a "S ecific'Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan. This will permit the development of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. (This Feasibility Study is currently being conducted by Moffat and Nichol, engineers under contract to the City.) Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the County -wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element", modified, if necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, in- cluding residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. The property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan. The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan states the following proposals for the area: In this area, it is proposed that the Residential Growth Limit be equal to the number of dwelling units that would result if the entire area were zoned for single-family units at a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves feasible, the same number of units would be permitted, but the housing type and density would change. However, no individual development would be permitted to exceed 15 dwelling units per gross acre. - 3 - 0 a Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area Al Since all of this area, except the City -owned parcels, is unincorporated, no City action is possible at this time to assure maintenance of the Residential Growth Limit. However, this Residential Growth Element indicates the City's intent and the zoning at the time of annexation will reflect this adopted limit. This entire area has been designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that Specific Area Plan. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Al (Banning Area) Based on the Residential Zoning Policy Total No. Estimated Housing Type Breakdown of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as --- --- --- --- --- of 1-1-73) Residential Growth Limit based on the Residential Zoning Policy 2,994 1,497 --- 1,497 --- 6,886 The City of Newport Beach contracted with the consulting firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. to perform a Traffic Study leading to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The consultant has submitted a report entitled, "Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase II Summary Report - Alternative Plan Development", and recommendations are included for the area. The City of Newport Beach is a full -service city, providing all of the major municipal services, i.e., water and sewer, fire and police protection, - 4 - library service and park and recreations service to residents of the City. Existing services in the area are minimal due to lack of development; however, the City has planned for the extension of services to this area as development and incorporation take place. A report entitled, "Engineering Report on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for West Newport Area - City of Newport", was prepared by Boyle Engineering in July of 1972. It was the desire of the City to investigate needs for domestic water supply system for the West Newport area including the Banning property. The report includes recommendations for facilities to satisfy water demands in the entire area. It would also be logical to extend all other municipal services into this area. The entire area is within County Sanitation District No. 6 and the Newport - Mesa Unified School District. County Triangle (Area "C" on'attached map) This area is a County island within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach. This area lies principally west of Superior Avenue, in the vicinity of 15th Street. It contains a mixture of commercial, industrial and resi- dential (apartment and mobilehome park) development and zoning. In 1970 the City annexed adjacent property to the south designated Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74. In recommending approval of Annexation No. 74, the staff report to LAFCO dated November 6, 1970, stated that: - 5 - 0 "This proposal (Annexation No. 74) is a part of a large unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. Although it is creating a smaller island of unincorporated territory immediately to the south of the subject property, it is felt that annexation is a logical extension of City boundaries and is a step toward eventual inclusion of all unincorporated properties in this area into the adjoining city." The City is prepared to provide all municipal services to this area. Santa Ana Heights (Area"D" on attached map) In June, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission engaged in a study with the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to determine the most logical future boundaries between the two cities, particularly in the Santa Ana Heights area. The result of this study was that the common boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa shall be Irvine/Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street; provided, however, that area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street, now designated the "clear zone", south of the Orange County , Airport, should be excluded from future annexations to either City (see "Area P below). - 6 - Orange County Airport (Area "E" on attached map) This area comprises the Orange County Airport property, between Bristol Street on the south and the San Diego Freeway on the north. Orange County has not yet chosen to annex the County Airport to any of the existing cities in the vicinity. However, on July 20, 1970, the City Council of Newport Beach took the position that if and when the Orange County Airport and the adjacent clear zone south of Bristol Street is annexed to any city, that city should be Newport Beach. The airport terminal and the principal buildings are located along the east side of the field, adjacent to the present City limit, and Newport Beach would be in the best position to provide municipal services to the airport. Furthermore, the normal flight pattern on take -off extends directly over Newport Beach; therefore, the City receives the major impact from airport operations. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F" on attached map) This "uninhabited" County island consists of developed and undeveloped ceme- tery property owned by Pacific View Memorial Park, a California cemetery corporation. The cemetery presently receives both water and sewer service from the City of Newport Beach. An existing agreement (City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 7265, adopted August 24, 1970) provides that: "Pacific View agrees to commence proceedings by January 1, 1973, for the annexation to the City of Newport Beach of the balance of the cemetery property consisting of 126.68 acres . . . and to diligently pursue said annexation and to cooperate in all respects with the City to the end that the annexation shall be completed expeditiously." - 7 - Annexation of this County island is currently being processed. Irvine Coast (Area "G" on attached map) The coastal area between the present city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is currently under study by several public agencies and The Irvine Company, which owns all of the land in question. The recommendations of this study are expected to include general plan elements for future develop- ment of the area and future jurisdictional responsibilities and city boundaries. Under these circumstances it would be premature to attempt precise and permanent boundaries between municipalities at this time. However, the City of Newport Beach has established a general Sphere of Influence boundary for this area pending future studies and support data for establishing logical service areas. The boundary is as follows: From the existing City limits at the San Joaquin Reservoir following in an easterly direction along and including the top•of the San Joaquin Hills to and including Signal Peak; then preceding in a southerly direction along the easterly ridge of Los Trancos Canyon to and including Crystal Cove. The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Fill leasehold is expected to accommodate not more than seven years of future dumping before its capacity is exhausted. After this it can become a highly -desirable golf course or park. However, the extremely deep fills in the canyons cannot be expected to support streets or utility lines. For this reason, and because the sanitary fill lies immediately north of the crest of the San Joaquin Hills, it could form a logical future municipal boundary. The proposed Irvine Company General Plan for this area indicates that San Joaquin Hills Road will be the center and focus of a series of hilltop villages. In this vicinity the hilltop has the character of a mesa rather than a ridge. It would be a mistake to divide these villages and the mesa on which they are located in to two municipalities. The natural physical features of the downcoast area (including the beaches, coastal cliffs, hillsides and coastal canyons) and the several major vista points naturally tie the area to the ocean and in part to Newport Bay and the City of Newport Beach. Los Trancos Canyon topographically seems to be a transition area between the more gradual hills oriented towards Newport Bay and the steeper hills of Laguna Beach. Los Trancos Canyon is proposed as a major state park that would form a logical future municipal boundary. Both the Irvine Company (land owner) and the City of Laguna Beach have given indication that they favor this boundary. Part of the area within the proposed sphere of influence is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District. However, an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Ranch Water District executed in September, 1972, (copy attached) states in part: "It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, ME City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit 'A' to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question." The area could be served by IRWD or the City of Newport Beach and,if properly planned in advance, would eliminate any possible duplication of services or overlap in taxation to the future residents. The whole purpose of the agree- ment with IRWD is to assure coordination of planning to eliminate duplication of services and taxation. Representatives of the Irvine Company participated in the preparation of the subject agreement and, therefore, approve the conditions imposed by it. If annexed to Newport Beach, the area would be served by City water services in conformance with current City policy. The present Newport Beach water system is fully adequate and capable of being extended to serve the area. The City has had engineering studies prepared to determine the water system expansion needed to serve the area; and the administrative and funding vehicles to provide for such expansion have been established. Although no major sewer improvements are presently provided within the area, a portion of the area now lies within Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, the district which encompasses most of Newport Beach. - 10 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AREA E ,.'.- - GRAM .}1g1IT,In 1 �e��'r?J;If/,= ;'a^W'\U;'' c\• !ice` ��'`a�'�,/� • „�`� ��-�! .,AREA, D\'i � Ya A Ate: EIG fT L... _ • ./i�'� ��' \\\\�t �� u � F`3 ice. � s � %-�i�4,-'�''� � \!�'.j•�%�3 'fit^Y_1 9 % ? vW AREA �'`:�-'��` _.:h '�s'At ` t' o o.� z BECCO LT AREA A -tt� SARNTARANA f — — �- —Q .. -mil — ;Z.^F_ 1 N 1, %1111:• t •` c�c :i ,: tee;. ,.ARE ... tC;; COUNTY F TRIANGLE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP ' � -,� F-••. 11 n ' -z.�_ t g1, ,a i-a'� a' iK•�i� p3SS 'v _� v�:z.> , ..., ,ar._ 1 t4t'. �',T"`�--ter•,: `"i 1[•C - - CITY of NEWMT SM" SIGNAL PEAK �y Q •AREA ul OU G IRVINE COAST Q -- CRYSTAL COVE COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL T v Pa w �� Pm August 13, 1973 INDEX DO NOT REMOVE Suzanne Rudd, representing the Newport Shores I Board of Directors, addressed the Council and asked that the request for rehearing be denied. Ayes x \ x x A vote was taken on Mayor McInnis' motion, which Noes x x x motion carried. A report was presented from the Public Works Storm Director regarding street and storm drain improve- Drain ents for Lafayette Avenue, Lido Park Drive, 31st Impry St et, 29th Street and Villa Way Combined Project, C-141 Resolution o. 8066, authorizing the execution of an R-8066 agreement be ween the City of Newport Beach and Swan Construct s, Inc, for the cost of design and construction of ce ain street and storm drain improvements of por Ions of Lafayette Avenue, Lido Motion x Park Drive and 31st Str t, was adopted; the plans Ayes xxxxxxx and specifications were ap oved; and the City Clerk was authorized to adve ise for bids to be opened at 10:00 A.M. , August •L 1973. 5. A report was presented from the Co unity Devel- UP 1134 opment Department regarding a propos revocation Revocatio3 of Use Permit Application No. lh14 of Exx Com- pany which allows the operation of a service tation at 6400 West Coast Highway located on the corn of Cedar Street and West Coasc Highway, zones C-1-rl, property owned by Leonard A. Faas. Motion x The proposed revocation of Use Permit No. 1134 Ayes x x x x x x x was set for public hearing on September 10, 1973. 6. A report was presented trom the City Manager Sphere of regarding a proposed Sphere of Influence for cqe Influence City of Newport Beach. Motion x Tne proposed Sphere of Influence report. was �� v t/ _( Ayes x x x x x x x approvea, and the-Mayorva s authorized to._submit it to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County._ CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x g items were approved by one m n Ayes x x x x x x x actions on cne Consent C ndar: NCES FOR INT UCTION: igE: lowin finance was introduced and set for . ing on August 27, 1973: d Ordinance No. 1509, being, AN ORDI- Com'1 OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Nurseries 0-1509 Volume 27 - Page 194 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 13, 1973 COUNCIL AGENDA NO. G-6 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 10 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager , SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: If desired, adopt the Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach and authorize the Mayor iitransmit the report to the Local Agency Formation Commission. DISCUSSION: On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) notified the City that LAFCO was beginning a series of public hearings to officially determine the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the County. In June, 1973, Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence was reviewed by LAFCO and it was noted that there were a number of conflicts with Newport Beach's. LAFCO took no action on the areas in dispute - the airport and Banning Property, but requested their staff to schedule a hear- ing on the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City has now been noti- fied that the hearing date will be September 12, 1973, and that the City's submittal should be received by August 15, 1973. Attached is a Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City. It is hoped that the material is adequate to permit the Council's review, modi- fication if necessary, and approval for submittal to LAFCO. RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment '► 1 ;II' 1 ► '1; PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Background On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested the City to review the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence map submitted to LAFCO on August 20, 1970. On July 17, 1973, Richard Turner, Executive Officer, LAFCO,,notified the City that a public hearing is set for September 12, 1973, to "review and determine a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach". Mr. Turner requested the City to review and submit material in support of its proposed sphere of influence. On August 13, 1973, the City Council approved the Sphere of Influence report and map for the City of Newport Beach. Sphere of Influence Map The attached Sphere of Influence map identifies the City of Newport Beach sphere of influence as the present City boundaries and the following unincor- porated areas: 1. From the existing City limits to the center line of the Santa Ana River, and from the westerly extension of 19th Street to the three mile limit (Area "A"); 2. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area 'B"); 3. "The County Triangle" adjacent to Superior Avenue (Area "C"); 4. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D"); 5. Orange County Airport (Area "E"); 6. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F"); 7. Irvine Coast (Area "G"). Santa Ana River Center Line (Area "A" on attached map) In 1970 it was suggested by LAFCO that the four cities bordering the Santa Ana River from Harbor Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean consider the possibility of annexing adjacent portions of the flood control channel right-of-way to eliminate the existing strip of unincorporated territory comprising the river channel. Representatives from the four cities bordering this portion of the Santa Ana River have reached tentative agreement that annexation of this unincorporated strip would be desirable in the interests of providing clear lines of juris- dictional responsibility, particularly with respect to public safety and emergency services, and the center line of the river channel would represent the most logical boundary line. LAFCO was notified by the four cities of this agreement on February 10, 1971. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B" on attached map) The Banning property is a "County island" located in West Newport Beach and is presently leased for petroleum production. Due to the close interrelationship of this property to the incorporated West Newport Beach area, the City has been working with the property owner to plan for the ultimate use of this area, future City services, and the incorporation of the area into Newport Beach. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan., adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, states the following major proposals for the Beeco, - 2 - Ltd. (Banning) property: This area, north of "Newport Shores" and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan. This will permit t�velopment of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. (This Feasibility Study is currently being conducted by Moffat and Nichol, engineers under contract to the City.) Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the County -wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element", modified, if necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, in- cluding residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. The property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan. The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan states the following proposals for the area: In this area, it is proposed that the Residential Growth Limit be equal to the number of dwelling units that would result if the entire area were zoned for single-family units at a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves feasible, the same number of units would be permitted, but 'the housing type and density would change. However, no individual development would be permitted to exceed 15 dwelling units per gross acre. - 3 - Residential Zoning Policy'for Statistical Area Al Since all of this area, except the City -owned parcels, is unincorporated, no City action is possible at this time to assure maintenance of the Residential Growth Limit. However, this Residential Growth Element indicates the City's intent and the zoning at the time of annexation will reflect this adopted limit. This entire area has been designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that Specific Area Plan. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Al (Banning Area) Based on the Residential Zoning Policy Total No. Estimated Housing Type Breakdown of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as --- --- --- --- --- --- of 1-1-73) Residential Growth Limit based on the Residential Zoning Policy 2,994 1,497 --- 1,497 --- 6,886 The City of Newport Beach contracted with the consulting firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. to perform a Traffic Study leading to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The consultant has submitted a report entitled, "Newport Beach Traffic Study Phase II Summary Report - Alternative Plan Development", and recommendations are included for the area. The City of Newport Beach is a full -service city, providing all of the major municipal services, i.e., water and sewer, fire and police protection, - 4 - library service and park and recreations service to residents of the City. Existing services in the area are minimal due to lack of development; however, the City has planned for the extension of services to this area as development and incorporation take place. A report entitled, "Engineering Report on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for West Newport Area - City of Newport", was prepared by Boyle Engineering in July of 1972. It was the desire of the City to investigate needs for domestic water supply system for the West Newport area including the Banning property. The report includes recommendations for facilities to satisfy water demands in the entire area. It would also be logical to extend all other municipal services into this area. The entire area is within County Sanitation District No. 6 and the Newport - Mesa Unified School District. County Triangle (Area "C" on,attached map) This area is a County island within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach. This area lies principally west of Superior Avenue, in the vicinity of 15th Street. It contains a mixture of commercial, industrial and resi- dential (apartment and mobilehome park) development and zoning. In 1970 the City annexed adjacent property to the south designated Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74. In recommending approval of Annexation No. 74, the staff report to LAFCO dated November 6, 1970, stated that: - 5 - "This proposal (Annexation No. 74) is a part of a large unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. Although it is creating a smaller island of unincorporated territory immediately to the south of the subject property, it is felt that annexation is a logical extension of City boundaries and is a step toward eventual inclusion of all unincorporated properties in this area into the adjoining city." The City is prepared to provide all municipal services to this area. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D" on attached map) In June, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission engaged in a study with the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to determine the most logical future boundaries between the two cities, particularly in the Santa Ana Heights area. The result of this study was that the common boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa shall be Irvine/Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street; provided, however, that area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street, now designated the "clear zone", south of the Orange County Airport, should be excluded from future annexations to either City (see "Area P below). Orange County Airport (Area "E" on'attadhed map) This area comprises the Orange County Airport property, between Bristol Street on the south and the San Diego Freeway on the north. Orange County has not yet chosen to annex the County Airport to any of the existing cities in the vicinity. However, on'July 20, 1970, the City Council of Newport Beach took the position that if and when the Orange County Airport and the adjacent clear zone south of Bristol Street is annexed to any city, that 'city should be Newport Beach. The airport terminal and the principal buildings are located along the east side of the field, adjacent to the present City limit, and Newport Beach would be in the best position to provide municipal services to the airport. Furthermore, the normal flight pattern on take -off extends directly over Newport Beach; therefore, the City receives the major impact from airport operations. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F" on attached map) This "uninhabited" County island consists of developed and undeveloped ceme- tery property owned by Pacific View Memorial Park, a California cemetery corporation. The cemetery presently receives both water and sewer service from the City of Newport Beach. An existing agreement (City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 7265, adopted August 24, 1970) provides that: "Pacific View agrees to commence proceedings by January 1, 1973, for the annexation to the City of Newport Beach of the balance of the cemetery property consisting of 126.68 acres . . . and to diligently pursue said annexation and to cooperate in all respects with the City to the end that the annexation shall be completed expeditiously." - 7 - Annexation of this County island is currently being processed. Irvine Coast (Area "G" on attached map) The coastal area between the present city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is currently under study by several public agencies and The Irvine Company, which owns all of the land in question. The recommendations of this study are expected to include general plan elements for future develop- ment of the area and future jurisdictional responsibilities and city boundaries. Under these circumstances it would be premature to attempt precise and permanent boundaries between municipalities at this time. However, the City of Newport Beach has established a general Sphere of Influence boundary for this area pending future studies and support data for establishing logical service areas. The boundary is as follows: From the existing City limits at the San Joaquin Reservoir following in an easterly direction along and including the top.of the San Joaquin Hills to and including Signal Peak; then preceding . in a southerly direction along the easterly ridge of Los Trancos Canyon to and including Crystal Cove. The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Fill leasehold is expected to accommodate not more than seven years of future dumping before its capacity is exhausted. After this it can become a highly -desirable golf course or park. However, the 9 M. 77 extremely deep fills in the canyons cannot be expected to support streets or utility lines. For this reason, and because the sanitary fill lies immediately north of the crest of the San Joaquin Hills, it could form a logical future municipal boundary. The proposed Irvine Company General Plan for this area indicates that San Joaquin Hills Road will be the center and focus of a series of hilltop villages. In this vicinity the hilltop has the character of a mesa rather than a ridge. It would be a mistake to divide these villages and the mesa on which they are located in to two municipalities. The natural physical features of the downcoast area (including the beaches, coastal cliffs, hillsides and coastal canyons) and the several major vista points naturally tie the area to the ocean and in part to Newport Bay and the City of Newport Beach. Los Trancos Canyon topographically seems to be a transition area between the more gradual hills oriented towards Newport Bay and the steeper hills of Laguna Beach. Los Trancos Canyon is proposed as a major state park that would form a logical future municipal boundary. Both the Irvine Company (land owner) and the City of Laguna Beach have given indication that they favor this boundary. Part of the area within the proposed sphere of influence i.s within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District. However, an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Ranch Water District executed in September, 1972, (copy attached) states in part: "It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit 'A' to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question." The area could be served by IRWD or the City of Newport Beach and,if properly planned in advance, would eliminate any possible duplication of services or overlap in taxation to the future residents. The whole purpose of the agree- ment with IRWD is to assure coordination of planning to eliminate duplication of services and taxation. Representatives of the Irvine Company participated in the preparation of the subject agreement and, therefore, approve the conditions imposed by it. If annexed to Newport Beach, the area would be served by City water services in conformance with current City policy. The present Newport Beach water system is fully adequate and capable of being extended to serve the area. The City has had engineering studies prepared to determine the water system expansion needed to serve the area; and the administrative and funding vehicles to provide for such expansion have been established. Although no major sewer improvements are presently provided within the area, a portion of the area now lies within Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, the district which encompasses most of Newport Beach. - 10 - i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH — I � .. � \ -,.�,•_ man AREA E ORAN � i>2 \\1' '• i it"- �i,�3�\s; :� �../�� _Ei�¢�!*SI`I"` �'y •-,.. �� . I f •.t't{lr,;:'. ,•.,5'{Tk At�,A�, ElG� (r �Lt:;� �.}.rcl .�-�: �`�i,:.i. 'y SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP rr + c ��,• - SIGNAL PEAK • i_!^\i - : r�, �tg'�e�� A 'r--`�41je?rC9L_1^ ,�: i _..- � i �j`, •V �� `rsi l�il' + �1t"/•w• 1�f.;..�� a ; n .1' EVE s }. \'. A ) �i J__. .l � •! � i.:: � . s' Asa t"/' \: t rv\'�j \!.Y' 1 �CL••a1 y•�< - RSA r �L . � '� ,` •-,E .;, t �' _-� ' �, _ � �� -� -� .�• �. - ` - i t� � .ti , wv �s!S•-�v'j�,-i : ,`1`�`.^ t�— �� -i�� s xe'=-?, � d i %�E� AREA B ECCO LT '0��.� j ya j' -_'-�'"�.".' l/ } r_�;�^ �- i� Y_•,..� - I .t. iE",. ,; :.-j\� `yFte_�_.. ij"'. AREA A vs: a n'144° SANTA Ar1A°1 �►.:''� r !,,t ,r,fl%le irt�, r�r, IY ! it 'Y „/y]•y ! � �4 W• _v. 1.v RIVER � � �s% �;��1•�',i.�i'(�_tJtJ,_�-��':-n-+°'rr,;..��,�:-- :.s,�,, ��; �.�� X-aoaIV a ti]]'f}I �:- �;z�,74 ��.!-lp,�tl`.£:+;.,�-- I ,r•,+,,_ =r /. ,, v �•I [a �� }y� ��' -:.+ J�t— ARE C r .i +.; :tom S; -�. �•;,�; •` I,N-. - i� CITY OF NEWPORT OEACN COUNTY TRIANGLE RN - Vwj+ •iz_.( to Y _. AREA G OU IRVINE COAST Q 1 1 tN it "—' -- CRYSTAL COVE 11% 1 FILE C®PY 00 No W.M August 13, 1973 Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission County of Orange Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Turner: Attached you will find material being submitted in support of the Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach. It is the City's understanding that this material will be considered at a hearing on September 12, 1973, and at that time the City will be happy to clarify the material and answer questions of your Commission. We appreciate this opportunity to relay our concern for those areas that have a physical, social, and eco- nomic relationship to Newport Beach. It is our belief.that the major benefit both to the City and the property owners in these areas, is that planning for over- all comprehensive and coordinated development can be commenced. The continued high quality living environment for the City and the areas that are physically or economically a part of Newport Beach can be maintained. Very truly yours, DONALD A. MCINNIS Mayor DAMc:mn Attachment (;vm_-4wUs) - IRVINE COASTAL COMMUNITY PLAN BouNDARY OF LARlm RN1JEisP�T1o11 AREA - FIZE OUsul- b-tuvt i7 SOUNQAM OF 5MA1.4ER ANNExA'CION PREA pR vvousvf %[upIEO P(OF06E0 NEWPORT 5Plien- OF WFLUEN ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION STUDY BOUNDARIES GOWPAK(SON OF 6100-f ARRAS " ��-iLRlt[01.F PODIT RESIDENTIAL HILL AND CANYON AREAS CANYON ESTATES ..... is LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL LOCALRETAIL-SERVICE .....� : RESORT COMMERCIAL RINICAND OUAM-PUBLIC -�V 71 WATER POWER COMMUNICATIONS OELEMENTARY SCHOOL OJ HIGH SCHOOL GHIGHSCHOOL ZW!'r,- PARKS, BEACH, AND OPEN SPACE SaDMV PARKING GROVES WATER.MARINE PRESERVE) INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING -RESEARCH SPECIAL GOLF COURSE PAPPAM COASTAL WALK ........ TRAILS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN) i SCENIC TURNOUTS AND VISTA POINTS Ge PEDESTRIAN VISTA POINT 4a sKDb 0 j 'j 0000' O Figure Nag 1i U� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF.THE CITY MANAGER STUDY SESSION NO. 9 September`24, 1973 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ALE 'COPY Be.Nor N 'E FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: LAFCO MEETING On Wednesday, September 12, 1973, Joe Devlin and I attended the Local Agency Formation Commission meeting in which the partial Sphere of Influence for Newport Beach was discussed. The area discussed was the north- west portion of the City between the Santa Ana River and the Orange County Airport. Attached you will find a copy of the report from the staff of LAFCO. Present at the meeting were Commissioners Nevil, Battin, Diedrich, Reinhardt, and Northrup. The hearing started as a review of three areas. 1) The Santa Ana Heights area; 2) the County triangle north of Hoag Hospital; and 3) the Banning property. 1. With respect to the Santa Ana Heights area, the Commission ap- proved of a motion placing property south and east of Tustin Avenue in Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence, and the Commission reopened the area north and west of Tustin Avenue for public hearing on November 28th. At the present time this latter area,is in the Sphere of Influence of Costa Mesa. The resi- dents of the area, however, strongly protested Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influ- ence and requested a rehearing to consider placement in the Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence. 2. With respect to•the County triangle north of the hospital, LAFCO placed this in Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence. 3. With respect to the Banning property, LAFCO scheduled the matter for a hearing on November 28, and requested officials from Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to meet and discuss this area with the hope of reaching a com- promise acceptable to both cities. With respect to 3 above, it was pointed out to the Commission that the Banning property was a County island within the City of Newport.Beach, and that it was extremely doubtful that the City would compromise in this area. Commissioner Northrup moved to place the Banning property in Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence. This motion failed for lack of a second. Page.-2- With respect to the Down Coast area, Newport Beach representatives and Laguna Beach representatives requested a hearing as soon as convenient to make a determination. LAFCO directed the Executive Officer to place this area for hearing as soon as convenient with the Executive Officer. Laguna Beach's Sphere of Influence is tentatively scheduled for February 20, 1974. It would be my estimate that the Down Coast area may be considered, therefore, on February 20th. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: As a result of LAFCO's action concerning Council may want to request the Inter -City Relation Costa Mesa officials prior to November 28th when th heard by LAFCO. In any e formal presentation on No RLW:mm Attachment the Banning property, the s Committee to meet with is matter again will be c ( 1 1h ' =i CHAIRMAN CLIFTON C. MILLER . MAYOR CITY OF TUSTIN VICE-C IAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR , POST DlIIISTRICT STAN HORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC LOUIS R. REINHARDT COUNCILMAN CITY OF FULLERTON I• ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE ROBERT J. HE VIL COUNCILMAN • CITY OF ILA HABRA RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Date: To: From: Subject: Gentlemen: August 24, 1973 Local Agency Formation Commission ORAN'GC COUNTY ADIAINI5TRATION DUILDING P. O. DUX 687 SANTA ANA, CAL4�FORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 634-2230 AREA CODE 714 Richard T. Turner, Executive.Officer Staff report for a partial Sphere of Influence .for the City of Newport Beach involving• territory in the north and west Neuport Beach. area. The Local Agency Formation Commission -derives authority to' establish spheres of influence from Government Code Section 54774 which states that IIAFCO shall develop and determine the sphere of -influence of each local governmental agency . within •the county. The procedure for determining spheres of influence' -in Orange County has,been for the Commission to set a ]=earing'date for various local governmental.agencies; primarily cities, based upon staff recommendation, to conduct'a public hearing and to make a decision based upon input -from staff, the subject local agency and surrounding agencies Paid various'"citizen' groups. The Commission has generally set these hearing.dates 45 to 60 days in advance. BACK.GROURD On January 23, 1973, the local Agency Formation Commission requested the City of Newport Beach to review the proposed sphere of influence as submitted by the City in August, 1970- This reauest was initiated to determine if the City's position in regard to their sphere of influence hPd changed or if there was additional information to support a sphere of influence for the City of Piewoort Beach. In addition to the sphere of influence rec•«est the Cor=iission also requested that Newport Beach submit any up -dated general plans to -the Commission by July 1, 1973• in Re: Staff report FO" i pi r'i:' ?1 :P:` "": p; .!'.?I.!.i!i^. lCe Ior the (i, ty of P�lei:1)-o t ,?,ocll in:'oly—j i:-, t�3rr7.'i;pry in the north and west Tie::•tport "Iriach area On February 71 1973, tho City Manager of Newport Peach responded to IAFCO's request, suiting that the Ci'ty's position in regard to its sphere of influence had not .changed with the exception that the incorporation of the City of Irvine included territory shown in the 1970 Newport Beach sphere of irflueIce proposal. The City Manager also stated the city, was working on a comprehensive revision of the General Plan and would submit a copy to IAFCO upon adoption by the City Council. Presently, the Commission has adopted spheres of influence fbr the three cities 2 i.e. Irvine (July 26, 1973);Huntington Beach (June 13, 19731; and Costa Mesa (June 13, 1973),. surrounding the City of Newport Beach. Generally, the only conflict with the proposed Newport Beach sphere of.influence has been with the City of Costa Mesa. Prior to the Costa Mesa sphere of influence hearing of June 13, the City Council of Costa Mesa submitted a proposed, sphere of influence to the Commission. On August 13, 1973Y the City of Newport Beach also submitted a sphere of influence proposal; delineating areas the city felt to be within its sphere of influence. The submittals of the two cities differ only in two .areas, the Orange County Airport and the Banning property. The difference between the two cities regarding the Banning property, located east of the Santa Ana River in the [lest Newport Beach area, -is that the City of Costa Mesh feels that Costa -Mesa boundaries should extend southerly.to the extension'of 16th Street. The Costa Mesa sphere of influence.• also proposes to include incorporated territory within Newport Beach, located east of the Banning property. ,This territory includes the former Newport Beach dump site south to the extension of 16th Street. The second area of conflict between the two cities is the Orange County Airport. The City of Newport Beach has.stated that they are in the best position to provide municipal . . services to the airport facility, while the City of Costa Mesa feels that inclusion of the airport in their sphere of influence is critical to the planning and development of the City of Costa Hesa. •T)'"�L3 � , In Re: Staff report fo- a pr:rt L: 1 Spl—re of Influence for the City of I-T(,wport Be, c1.t iUVol .L7:j torri.tory in the north and crest Flewpo.rt Bench %rerl An area of agreement bPt:•reen the two cities' submittals lies in the Santa Ana Heights area. In recent years, this area has been the subject of controversy between the cities.. of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In 1969, after meetings between the two cities'and IAFCO staff, the Commission - determined that the c#mon boundary between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa !less shall be Tustin Avenue beginr_ing at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street, except for the area designated as the "Clear Zone", south of the Orange County rUrport. In reviewing the 1973 Costa Mesa and Newport Beach'submittals, staff finds that the two cities agree that Tustin Avenue should remain as the common boundary betireen the two cities. Because the City of Costa Mesa submittal of June 13, 1973 did not permit adequate time for staff or Commission review. prior to the meeting of June 13, 1973, the Commission decided to consider the proposed inclusion of certain areas in a Costa Mesa sphere of influence at such time as the Commission reviewed the City of Newport Beach sphere of. influence. In addition, at the meeting of August 8, 1973, the Commission decided to delay the.consideration of territory between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach to include the"Coastal Area" until such time as the Irvine Company, the single landowner,' further developed plans for the area. A. SPHERE OF INFLUENOE AREA As it concerns the north and west area of Newport Beach, staff proposes the following unincorporated areas be included within a sphere of influence for the City'of Newport Beach. . 1. Centerline of the Santa Ana River - Area consisting of unincorporated territory easterly of the center- line of the Santa 'na River from the Pacific Ocean on the south, to the northernmost extension of Newport Beach along the Santa Ana River. 2. Banning Area - An "unincorporated island" located easterly of the Santa Ana River, southwesterly of 19th Street and northerly of Pacific Coast Highway in the 'West 1Te:•rport Beach area. 1.11 Re: :i't :.�f r,'^OT't ion: a o� rt ;il Sph^.'a' o of ?1flaen(:e for the City of _Ge :pox't Bench invol:ang territory in the .north and west ?'<ewport Beach =rea 3. Superior Avenue-15'th Street Aroa - An "unincorporated island" located on the rorthrJest side of Superior Avenue, north and south of 15t!l Street in the west Newport Beach area. 4. Santa Ana Heir ts-Tustin Avenue Area - All unincorpo- rated areas east of Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and -extending northerly to Bristol Street. B. RANGE OF SERVICES The City of Neirport Beach provides all of the essential, municipal services to residents of the City. These include, police and fire protection, water and sewer service, park and recreation facilities and programs, library services, street lighting and street sweeping. Portions of the City of Newport Beach are also served by various special districts. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District serves an area of Newport Beach, located generally between Irvine and Tustin Avenues, north of 21st Street to Santa Isabel Avenue.- The CMSD also serves a small area on the . east side of Irvine Avenue, southerly of Mesa Drive in the vicinity of Anniversary Lane.. The Costa Mesa Water 'District overlaps the City of Newport Beach in two areas: 1) Area west of Newport Boulevard and north of Pacific Coast Highway.; includes also the Superior Avenue-15th Street area. 2) Area west of Irvine Avenue and south of 22Ad Street. The Irvine Ranch Water District also includes portions of ' the City of Newport Beach within its boundaries. Overlapping areas include: 1) Territory located south of Campus Drive, between MacArthur and Jamboree Boulevards; 2) territory generally between MacArthur and. Jamboree Boulevards, south of Bristol Street and north of Bison Avenue in the northeast Newport Beach area. In Re: St ff. _enort J.'02:- a »: .r t!.=1 '31)S!e'CC Of In Ille27ce for the City of Newport Dcoch ixttolvi. i; territory :in.the north and west iic•;port Beach oroE: The City of Newport Beach is also located within Orange County Sanitation District Numbers 5, 6 and 7. These districts construct and maintain major sewer trunk lines for the treatment and disposal of waste water effluent. The effluent is collected through a system of gravity flow trunk: lines, lift stations and pumpsstations for treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 2 and eventual discharge into the ocean through Ocean Outfall No. 1. The Costa Mesa bighting District, governed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, provides lighting to a small - area of NewT)ort Beach in the vicinity of Twenty -First Street between Tustin and Irvine Avenue. In addition a portion of Newport Beach, located south of Fifteenth Street and east of kerroort Boulevard, is also located within the Costa Mesa Lighting District. This area does not receive lighting services from the Costa Mesa bighting District. Since the City of Newport Beach provides lighting services through its general fund •tax rate, the inclusion of City of Newport Beach territory within the Costa Mesa bighting District has created a doable taxation situation which staff will discus's• later in this report. Services to the unincorporated areas proposed by staff for inclusion in the Newport Beach sphere of influence are provided by special districts, county agencies and a private water company. Unincorporated areas within staffs proposed sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach are all included within Airport County Service Area No. 11. This county service area performs no function and has no tax rate. Staff will also discuss this county service area in a sub- sequent section of this report. Police protection is provided by the Orange County Sheriff while fire protection is,provided by the Orange County Fire Department through a structural fire tax_ rate of .3905/,5100 assessed - value. In the unincorporated Santa Ana Heights area, east of Tustin.. Avenue, water service is urovided by the Santa Ina Heights Mutual Water Company, while sewer service is provided by the Costa. Mesa Sanitary District. Water service to the Superior Avenue-15th Street area is provided by the Costa Mesa Water District, while sewer service is once again maintained by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. P' ;c 6 In Re: Staff report for r p<:rti<.l SPb.c:rc or lnflu :r ce for the City o.0 id,x•;rort Bcacl: crritory in the north and west uee,-por't Beach area The "Bannir_g Area" consists of tcrritory primarily utilized for oil production and does not generally require municipal services at this time. r C. FUTURE POPULATIOY'GROWTH OF THE AREA On May 29, 1973, the City Council of Newport Beach adopted the Residential Growth Element as a part of the City s General Plan. The Residential Growth Element addresses the question of, "How many people are to live in PFewport Beach, and in what kind of housing," and includes "Residential Zoning Policies" and the "Residential Growth Limits" resulting from these policies. This element indicates that the present population of the City is 575355 as of January 12 1973• It further indicates a projected optimum population range of between 992347 and 111,891 persons. The Residential Zoning Policies establish estimated population for various parts of the City and unincorporated areas surrounded by or on the fringe of the City of Newport Beach. Population projections for unincorporated areas included , within the He-vrport Beach sphere of influence have been included with areas currently within the City. The Banning Area is included within Statistical Division Al.'. along with the former city dump site property. It is esti mated that the estimated population of this area will rise from 0 to 6,886 persons upon development.".. The Santa Ana Heights area is within Statistical Division J along with the incorporated territory of the +hetcliff7Santa Ana, Dover Shores and Baycrest areas. Concerning Heights area, the Residential Growth Elements that: "Further intensification of the residential develop— ment in the 'Santa Ana Heights' area shall be discouraged." In Re: S't2.ff roport Vor F. 'o.ir 1.^l �Sohoret o t.C1L:"!:. fox - the' Cit�j of T_\e!7riort Zr�;ich 'irnrolvinj� te,.-ritory rin the north and ueut Newport Beach area The "Superior Avenue-15th Street Area" is located in Statistical Division A3. The Residential Growth Element estimates that this a:ree will increase from its present population of 640 persons•to an estimated 1,055 persons. is D. TYPE OF DEVELOPi'GNT PLQDP:r.D OR OCCURRING IN _THE_AP.EA The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General' Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973• Essenti- ally, this element divides the use and development of all.--. lands into four major categories: 1. Residential 2.' Commercial 3. Industrial 4. Public, Semi -Public and Institutional Based on the Land Use Element, the proposed ultimate land•, usage will be distributed as follows: 1. Residential --------------- 65% 2. Commercial ---------------- 17°0 3. Industrial---------------- 6% 4. Institutional ------------- 12% The Land Use Element also proposes various land uses and • • alternatives for unincorporated areas contiguous to the.Cituy. The "Bannilig_Area" is designated as a "Specific Area; Plan" on the Land Use Plan. The City proposes to investigate the economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Nesa. If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, including residential with associated commercial service facilities, will be considered. In the Santa Ana Heights area, it is proposed that the large - lot, low. -density, single family uses in the majority of the area and the commercial uses on Bristol Street be continued. It is also proposed that no higher -density residential aevelopment be permitted in the area. �:1•r(.�j C �r .�l C Yt: 1"l� r' (:nco for InJ;Ze: :itoff re p i- COr .. •)!-rUJ 0 S'F)hU,. Of _.alli the City of +Hr—.TOrt .i^Ach tr.rritory in the north and West _'ies•:0O1't Beach orer- The Superior Avenue-15th Street area presently contains primarily a mixture of industrial and multi -family residential development. Regarding this area, the City states: "The Residential Growth Element proposes that residential deve]opmer_t at a maximum density of 15 dwelling unitelper gross acre be permitted, except for a strip along the north edge of the area and for the area east of Placentia Avenue.`'_, These areas should be reserved for industrial and commercial use.lt E. PLANS ADOPTED FOR T1E AREA City of Net:*oort Beach General Plan Currently, the City of Newport Beach is updating its General Plan in conformance with State requirements. As previously mentioned, a Land Use Element and Residential. Growth Element have been adopted by the City Council. These elements represent a pattern for growth -and the ' type of development planned for areas within the City of Newport Beach. The elements also propose land use patterns and alternatives for unincorporated areas'' included within staff's proposed sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach. Master Plan of Arterial Highways ' The Master Plan of Arterial Fdghways, as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, designates a system of arterial highways for the Newport Beach area. , To project the future transportation needs of the City of Newport Beach., the City is preparing a comprehensive transportation plan. This study has been divided into three phases of which two phases are complete. Phase I was completed in September, 1972 and included a data inventory, a public attitude survey, and 1980 and 1990 traffic volume projections on the major roads. 4, Q of:.-� o� 01. 1 .S•�i� �•'1'^ '_� i:f hii'i1Ce for .i=e. Staf.f ccpori; for P. _� ir. the City of111TV'port P)e:3cl: irvo]:. gin; .F:rr+tor, in th^ north end west IieWport l3r:ac?? ar<":a Phase II, completed in March, 1973, consists. of the investigation of alternate transportation plans which ban meet future demand while minimizing environmental disturbance- and receiving public acceptance. Phase III of the transportation plan will consist of selecting the best plan and developing a program of recommended improve- ments by priority. This study includes in its study area all unincorporated areas recommended by staff for inclusion within a sphere of influence for Newport Beach. Master Plan of Draina&e On July 18, 1973, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Master Plan of Drainage for the Irvine Industrial Area. The study area of the plan extends from the Marine Corps Air -Facility (Helicopter) south to Mesa Drive to include the orange County AirDOrt and the Santa Ana Heights - Tustin Avenue area. The plan also includes three unin- corporated islands; which include the Banning area and the Superior Avenue-15th Street area. Territory within the Santa Ana Heights -Tustin Avenue area is included within Sub -Drainage Areas F01-0, F-01-1•and F05-1 and generally drain either southeasterly into the Upper Newport Bay or northerly to Palisades Road. . Property within the Superior Avenue-15th Street Area is included within Major Drainage Area G00. _The area is all tributary to a drain that discharges into a gully southerly of Superior Avenue. The Banning area is within Major Drainage Area D03. Since the majority of the area is undeveloped, the master plan does not propose a drainage system or costs for a system at this.time. In Re: Si nf rrG-'Or� _r 1' ( P_':i;J ^1. .:P}'d'3'n �+ .[tit'hlorp for "t the Ci tT, of I!e'";;;o"fi teach i-nvoJ-v;.nE rrrt';.'I;ory in i n:: north and !rest Ne,•rport Beech area F. RECOfRUE 1IDBD GOVERMIE2,RAL RFCRG iNTZATI01,?S Section 54774 of the Government Code states in part: The spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the Commission fps a factor in making decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction. The Commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the County*, using spheres of influence as the basis for such recommendations. Stich -recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other govern— mental agencies or to the public. As it concerns the Newport Beach area, staff has, in, the past, submitted reports to LAFCO recommending: 1) The dissolution of County Service.Area No.'11 2) The detachment of properties within the city boundaries of Newport Beach from the Costa P1esa Lighting District to prevent double taxation. On October 61 1972, staff prepared a report concerning the . proposed dissolution -of certain county service areas. Staff pointed out that these service areas, including County Service Area No. 11, served no viable function and could be dissolved pursuant to the District Reorganization list.: This situation came about due to the implementation of a single tax rate for structural fire protection in the unincorporated area of the County. Since CSA rr11 provided only structural fire service, the need for the service area had ceased. Concerning County Service Area No. 11, staff has maintained contact with the Orange County Fire Department and the County Administrative Office. It is anticipated that CAO• staff will, in the near future, bring this matter to the Board of Supervisors, so that the Board may initiate dissolu— tion proceedings with LAFCO. On July 6, 1972, staff, at the direction of the Commission, sen-e a letter to the City of Newport Beach informing the City of a double taxation situation existing within its city boundaries with the Costa Mesa Lighting District. Since lighting services are provided to residents through the general fund tax rate of the city, the inclusion of city territory within the Costa Mese Lighting District creates a double taxation situation. 1.11 (,l, r•'.L".-1L f r •j.n-` ,'.rl a 'er Il'—Ce O1nf I, irl it cc for t}l�? ii11:jT Of i:f;'•.dltrJ',`t L�iC:;?�.�? :uivolvir- '-.r rit.ory in the north and west 6^.::port � each <ree Staff recommended thst the City take steps to.detach the territory from the Cost.RHesa Lighting District to prevent . the double taxation situation. The matter was brought before the•Ne,roort Beach city council at their July 24, 1972 meeting and was directed to staff for further study. At this time, no further Action has been taken by the City. - ig As mentioned earlier in this report, the boundaries of the.. Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Costa !Mesa County Water District overlap into the City of Newport Beach, . resulting in double taxation situations. Sewer service in the City of Newport Beach is financed•-, through the general tax rate of the City.and by funds generated from water service revenues. Since the sewer function is primarily financed by the property tax and not by a separate seller service charge, territory that is within both the city limits of Newport Beach and the boundaries of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District is being double —taxed.' The overlapping areas are located generally between Irvine and Tustin Avenues, north of 21st Street to Santa Isabel. Avenue. Staff has discussed with the Public Works Director of the'' City of Newport Beach the feasibility of the city assuming, sewer service in the overlapping area and detaching the appropriate area from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Public Works Director feels that Newport Beach may be able to assume sewer service in the area if and when'a • master planned sewer line is constructed along the west side of the Upper Newport Bad*. Staff would recommend that when - it is technically possible to assume such service that the._ City of Newport Beach do so•and take the necessary steps to initiate detachment of affected city territory from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Costa Mesa County Water District serves portions of west. Newport Beech and an area along Irvine Avenue, both areas' within the City of Newport Beach. These areas included within the District and the City are not double —taxed because, at present, the Costa Mesa Water District has no tax rate. Staff would recommend, ho::ever, that the City study the feasibility of serving these areas to avoid a potential future double taxation situation. Poor" 1? _ In tie: Staff rOPO.'c(: .,.as. = p^ .ial .L .u.' o :or the City Of C^';'�Ort Yi?71 �, �1 ].iivC�'�'i" ''iJ^?'rl.tery in tLi0 north and west i-fewport 'Bert__h nren As well as overlapping districts and double taxation situa- tions, staff is also cognizant of the attempts by the cities of Newport Beach and Costa I°Iesa to estpbiish guidelines for more logical city boundaries between the two cities. In June, 1969, at the,,reguest of the Orange County Local Agency Formation CorTwEssion, the Inter -City Relations Com- mittees of the'cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa submitted several proposals to their respective councils for the establishment of more logical city boundaries and for future annexations of adjacent unincorporated areas. These guide- lines were designed to determine a mutually satisfactory . solution to conflicting and overlapping annexation proposals which have strained relations between the two cities. (Attached for Commission information are the subject proposals.) Staff has reviewed these guidelines and is of the opinion that through mutual cooperation, the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa can accomplish more logical boundaries. Realistically, the primary area of possible boundary exchange mould be along 16th Street west of Superior Avenue and along 15th Street, east of Superior Avenue. The establishment of 16th Street, -west of Superior Avenue and 15th Street, east of Superior Avenue to Tustin Avenue as the boundary between the two cities would serve as a clear demarcation. This " could be accomplished by the -detachment of.two parcels by the City of Newport Beach (one located north of 16th Street and east of Plonrovia Avenue, the other parcel a school site located on.the north side of•15th Street'ana on the east side of Santa Ana Avenue) ar_d annexation of same to the City -of Costa Mesa. Detachment of property from the City of Costa . Mesa would also be necessary south of 16th Street between' the Placentia•and Pomona Avenues. - SU'121iARY AND P.ECOM EMATION The City of Newport Beach provides all major municipal services to residents of the City. These include police and fire protection, library service, parks and recreation, sewer and water service,•ligh ng,•trash collection and street sweeping. the City O � rri'iaJr,r in t'_ o north Lnd le'Ts't Ort F'' -och i!reil Double •t=txation situations presently exist in the City of Newport Beach. Instances o: these situations exist where special districts overlap city boundaries, duplicating a municipal service that is also supported by'the general tax rate. Another case is i,?here the special district's boundaries overlap with city boundaries, provide no service, yet still collect taxes from re,eidents of the City. As mentioned earlier in this report, these overlapping districts are the Costa Mesa SanitaryDistrict, the Costa Mesa Lighting District and the Costa !less County Water District. The city of Newport Beach is bordered by•other'cities, i.e. Huntington Beach to the :vest; Costa Mesa to the west and north; Irvine to the east and north; unincorporated territory 'to the east; and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The subject of this report has concentrated on territory in the north and west Newport Beach area. The determination of a. sphere of influence -for the territory southeasterly of Newport Beach will be made at a later date. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the Land Use Element and the Residential Growth Element for a revised General Plan. These elements provide projected development, groi'Tth plans and guidelines.for unincorporated fringe areas, as . well as for existing territory within the City. In addition to adopted plans, Newport Beach has'completed water facility studies as well as transportation studies for plans to serve the projected growth of existing city territory and unincorporated areas, such as the Banning area. As mentioned earlier in the report, the City of Costa Mesa submitted a proposed sphere of influence which conflicted with the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence in two ' areas, i.e. the Banning area and the Orange County Airport. The Banning area, as well as the incorporated territory known. as the former Newport Beach Dump Site has been -the subject of various planning studies by the City of Newport Beach. These include 1) The Lard Use Element and Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach. General Plan; 2) Engi- neering Report on -dater Supply and Distribution Facilities for )lest Neu ;port Area; 3) Newport Beach Traffic Study - Phase II. At present, the Banning area is still undeveloped and utilized primarily for oil production_. A portion of the former P:esport Beach du-mp site is presently being developed as 200 R-1 units under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. In Re: StnCf r4no:�-t for a pnrt—i-1 i gj!C.L'(' O._ Influence .:iOT }� C• I�P nr 'I the City of e_ -., port Be:: C:i? iintolvin territory in ,.Ze north end ti:est Newport roach area Staff is of the opinion that based on the planning studies and adopted plans completed by the City of Newport Beach that the -Banning area and the incorporated portion of Newport Beach (the former dump site) should be included in a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach. If at a later date, the cities of Carta Mesa and Newport Beach can agree to Pm exchange of territory or if future residents desire a . change in boundaries, staff would support such an alteration ,in the Newport Beach sphere of influence.. Both the cities of Newoort Beach and Costa Mesa feel that the Orange County Airport should logically belong in their respective spheres of influence. Staff disagrees and is of the opinion that, at this time, the airport facility should not be placed in any city's sphere of influence. Staff bases its reasoning for this opinion on a Commission general statement of policy on determining spheres of in- fluence adopted by the Commission on February 28, 1973 which states: Publicly owned open space, other than municipal, (parks and beaches, airports, marinas, etc.) should be analyzed on an individual basis before being included within a sphere of influence with consideration given to the type of services which will be required for such area and the short -and long-range capabilities of the adjoining city to provide such services. The common -boundary line of Tustin Avenue -Irvine Avenue between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street, has been agreed upon by the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Staff feels that Tustin Avenue will serve as a clear 'demarcation between the two cities and willl-orovide more efficient services for residents in the area. Staff's recommendation for a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach involving territory in the north and west Newport Beach area is as follows: p `0 15 In i'a: St:4ff 1-onort AJ.T. ..i D...L U.Lt ! r: _?F;? r o' i:__'1,1�,"C, :f r tho Cite of Newport i3^:_c?! :i_t.vol-v:i nq; :r. a.tor i;: L•ir• north and west Niz,...port De,,cil are,., 1) Territory presently within, the city limits of Newport Beach 2) Unincorporated areas described in Section A - "Sphere of Influence Area." as follows: a. CentLrline of the Santa Ana River b. Banning Area c. Superior Avenue-15th Street Area d. Santa :Ana Heights -Tustin Avenue Area. cc: City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach City of Irvine Planning Commission - Irvine Company COUNCILMEN \�\\\\\\\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' a�.aZI MINUTES m 22 OAoROLL v " vN FILECOPY, �� VrP CALL �� N v� October 29, 1973 INDEX OU NOT REMOVE ' 4. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: .,r �_' Let:ter from Charles Reed Smoot to Mayor McInnis Grand asking for information regarding the dredging of Grand Canal Canal, an copy of Mayor McInnis' reply. Copy of letter to Pu lic Works Director from West Balboa Newport Beach Improve ent Association endorsing Blvd the widening of Balboa Boule axF to 45th Street and Widening the plans for the intersection of CoastHighway. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. T. F. Young enc7•osing a letter bearing 21 signatures of neighboring residents opposing a duplex at 715 Poppy Avenue in Corona del Mar. Resolution of the Local Aged Formation Commission Sphere o: approving a partial sphere of influence for west and Influence north Newport Beach with the exception of the area designated the "Banning Area". Notices from Local Agency Formation Commission regarding hearings on October 10 in connection with the proposed annexations to the City of Costa Mesa and to the Costa Mesa Park and Recreation District, both designated Canyon Drive No. 2 Annexation, located northerly of Wilson Street and we6terl of Canyon Drive. Letter from R. M. Wolff endorsing ne spaper article which favors widening ther than the Coast Highway in CoronCopy ZdelMa of a letter addresntington Beach City Council from the County Water Dis- trict urging favorabl consideration to approving the expansion plans fo the Huntington Beach Generation Station. Resolution of the City of Seal Beach supporting the propexpansion of the Southern California Edison osy's CoHuntington Beach power generating plant. Excerpt from Minutes of the Board of Supervisors Npt Dune meeting of October 2, 1973 indicating that the pro- posed master plan of redevelopment for Newport / Dunes had been received from the Director of f Harbors, Beaches and Parka and ordered filed. Excerpt from Minutes of Board of Directors meeting Upper of October 17, 1973 indicating that consideration of a Npt Bay letter from the Resources Agency of California re- garding Upper Newport Bay had been set for October 31, 1973. Volume 27 - Page 263 2 y1;,\ 0.qOy rN 0 40 on motion of Commie. sione.r ,_. i ., diary seconded and carried., r 11 D:a, ,:Yi• -} 5 'he followin ' eVOIUtior :aas adopted: 6 T,vr_gB' . S. the Local. Agency _Foz-nut1.311 Commission Tea adopted n f "tee l i:n_liS3'- y ikv''.: °3 q 71rii.i.3+.Cw? +".+.Or �.:r I:pe C'.:2l3:irJ Cities; 7 �y-c r:3n ar a€� p' 8 is 9 ;dirT :3J vetn>.zn Co3e Section 54774 states that the Toca 10 ,,_,eroa�.J +• " "z T Slz»! ee el'C p €: 5.3 }_ 3i:ei^�i� at -tee Sph�:i'x: or 11 inf:1:LmCe of each !acas goi)er.nmantal oz�e _y wit.hin file County; and 12 .:sly 18, 1973, the s :r:'aI AZ'enoy I"Oraaatf-On 13 ! CTi.iti..aal Sr3F a:i3 :"IF' iGX i:� : �'i32A7 CiSJE? 14 =7 c: +r"slgF= ?1_i' <it •2 _'_:. . "d3`2r 03 i,l-.. i"^rr . :=C: '7C33t enc n. i4:2 i3EWpgit 15II Beach; aw! 16 : •?;.RFAS, tie Cor m&ssio'r. did reVietr p, matr, of a sphere of 17 +'.Y5.1`i-noa -and a '�'taa:J:�'�: 'ex prepti?:.''.G� by ,J%..5:.�i.377�."P;:'.i't� .TR.&tP.7.'iAD. as 18 submitted by the City of Newport Beach and d3'.d also consul-: r points Of 19 ',iiet4 O,_ i?43)Oiilin cities and other parties tll&t eXPress-a'i.. an interest in .a Ct t� L'::''?'�i>'i3.". 7Ei3"vita sph,zvo soi J.1I :±:.:1'.'.3:i.". t.?y Llld 20 t ti.G 1-I: y L• 21 ?? I i �S, the ,3; area xrgwn as the"Ban:,.inp Area" is continued 22 for heaF i-G) on l7:rrvamber 28, 1973, -0 all,:- the cit"s Of yetaport Teach 23 and Costa xiasa to Met and discuss the, a:en. 24 } q �DPXOvaz the ,'10-i, �A. "lti:v.`. '+ .:.} IL �T wvJ}s1.' �:' Is i.'v'TRS'.:>eS.'"tn a. 25 �3.'" ..3's ur;it.a E? fl:_ ."L'.: Li' .;. t _ LJ{ ;." a^t aCi4 r�i :; B,3!ac'1 with the 26 C:Ai ? pry' r l the area :: ?. i:1L6 d the `J `:.ad3tFin r zeaa.11 , as sii0&aLf on the 27 3:>.. ;S x ^n ;y"-t :.._ .... Pw iyai" Gj th-'a rt2`c-r ni,-e made a"a part hereof -.r 28 t,"(: ;�.5. _ t_, ,,•'f ''t::: :; _:. n._.. :�J.^:i"i [tit y-DBiLca W. 31 32 I .ii 31KT . Resolution No. 73-145� kU',.J tciU1$ ., ,..1973 I .... ruey (- paidie Work= Directoq From thy: Office of ,9„e..mg Dlreuun City Clerk 1 j J t..tter TODAY' 9 MAILI cwnc tmen; CL�{ Date: ///0' % ❑ Attn: 00;.t 1 1 It ul cZ n v `v Gaf�'IITGPN , (� t It Q Fr N I CENTERLINE OF SANTA ANA RIVER 2 BANNING AREA 3 SUPERIOR AVENUE — 15 STREET AREA SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA SPHERE OF INFI ( PARTIAL) FOR THE CITY NEWPORT DEA ADOPTED BY THE C0%,MS_;IC 5EPTLMPER 12, 191 +� y..� '` i �.�'y�t,.c,iL7l'� I .iGLv�/7'Zt 4"f^'L ./,�(f/�+� �/"A�/�j��^�-�-- T BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT y" OF ORGANIZATION AND NEL STATUS REPORT SWORN PERSONNEL CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT ® F NGP- LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION of Newport ,Beach Boulevard ., California 92660 ORANG= COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 634-2239 AREA CODE 714 November 19, FILE DO P Robert L. Wynn, City Manager LOUIS R. REINHARDT_. COUNCILMAN Gentlemen: CITY OF FULLERTON At its regular meeting of November 14, 1973, the Local ROEERT I. bATTIN Agency Formation Commission reviewed a letter from the SUPERVISOR City of Costa Mesa requesting a 60-day continuance of FIRST DISTRICT the hearing concerning the spheres of influence between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The request ROBERT J. NEVIL was made due to the fact that most of the City Council COUNCILMAN members of Costa Mesa will be out of town attending a CITY OFr LA HABRA LA National League of Cities Conference that week. S TANNIRTHRUP The Commission moved to maintain the original hearing REPRESENTATIVE OF date of November 28 for the sphere of influence hearing. C GENERAL PUBLIC The Commission's reasoning was that since LAFCO is going to hear a reconsideration of the sphere of influence of AL, ERNATC the City of Costa Mesa as it relates to the corridor area, DAVID L. BAKER it would be appropriate to also hear the "Banning Area" SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT relative to a sphere of influence at that time. n addition, it was felt that since residents of the County Corridor had demonstrated such a strong interest in the ALTERNATE sphere of influence question that the hearing should not be REE BURNAP continued at this time. The Commission stated, however, REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC that it would consider a continuance reo-uest at the November 28 meeting. ALTERNATE I£ there are questions regarding this matter, please give DONALD A. McINNi3 MAYOR me a call. CITY OF NE'WPORT BEACH Very trulyyours, RICHARD T. TURNER / . EXECUTIVE OFFICER gmw�') J Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih COUNCILMEN pn�<O \r?(� N.1�ocm�22pROLL CALL T v a v m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 26, 1973 MINUTES INDEX that the Christmas boat parade be discontinued, 5) keep heating down in public buildings, 6) encourage homeowners and businesses to eliminate outdoor Christmas lighting and to eliminate or reduce swimming pool heaters and unnecessary uses of wa and 7) direct the City Manager to disapprove Christmas reques rom community and business associations Decora- to install li ed Christmas decorations on City tions streets and righ -of -way; and it was directed that the staff regarding lighting for night recreation program , scheduling City Council and Commission meetings dur daylight hours and reducing intensity of street lights brought back with further staff reports on December Robert Allen addressed the Council and stated he would ask his neighbors to each turn off one of their Christmas lights so the traditional City Hall display could be lighted. 4. A report was presented from the City Manager Sphere of regarding partial Sphere of Influence for the north Influence and west areas of NewnortB3each. The position paper of the City of Newport Beach on the partial Sphere of Influence for the north and west areas, including the Banning (Beeco Ltd.) property, the Leadership Housing property (old dump site), the Motion x 16th Street boundary between Monrovia and Pomona, Ayes x x x x the Newport Heights School, the Irvine -Tustin Ave - Absent x x x nues and the Orange County Airport, was adopted. 5. A letter from the Balboa Angling Club requesting a Balboa 25-year extension of its lease agreement with the Angling City was presented. Club Motion x Mayor Pro Tern Rogers made a motion to directh'he Mayor to appoint a committee to meet and cordler with the Board of Directors of the Balboa//Angling Club and to report back to Council.yor McInnis asked that the motion be amended id include the Balboa appointment of Vice Mayor Rogers and City Manager Angling Robert Wynn as members of he Balboa Angling Club Club Lease Lease Committee, whic /amendment was accepted by Cmte Mayor Pro Tem Rog s. Ayes x x x x A vote was t9m on the amended motion, which Absent x x x motion carried. r Volume 27 - Page 302 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 4_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 12, 1973 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: PARTIAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE NORTH AND WEST AREAS OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDATION: Approve the partial sphere of influence report. DISCUSSION: On September 12, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) held a hearing to determine a partial sphere of influence for the west and north areas of the City of Newport Beach. At that hear- ing, LAFCO requested the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to meet and discuss the "Banning area" and other aspects of the north and west boundaries and to report back to LAFCO on November 28, 1973. The attached report is a draft of Newport Beach's position on this partial sphere of influence to be submitted to LAFCO for the November 28th hearing. ' 2A aw„, RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment DRAFT 11/12/73 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARTIAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE NORTH AND WEST AREAS November 12, 1973 During the review of the Newport Beach sphere of influence by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on September 12, 1973, LAFCO requested representatives from the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach meet to discuss and resolve the differences in policy regarding their mutual boundaries. Rep- resentatives from the City Councils of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have met and the revised Newport Beach policy on these areas is as follows: 1. Banning (Beeco Ltd.) Property The Banning property is a County island located in West Newport Beach and is presently used for petroleum production. It is totally surrounded by property within the incorporate limits of the City of Newport Beach. The annexation occurred in October, 1950, seven years prior to the 1957 State Statute prohibiting such annexations. It is the City of Newport Beach's position, in accordance with the sphere of influence reports adopted August 13, 1973, and May 3, 1971, that this property belongs With- in the City of Newport Beach. The City has included it within its General Plan and has conducted the necessary studies to determine the best means of providing water and other utilities to that area. In their August 24, 1973, report the LAFCO staff concur with Newport Beach that this area rightly belongs in Newport Beach's sphere of influence. Under the present law it would be impossible to annex any of this "County island" to Costa Mesa without approval of the City Council of Newport Beach. Article 4.5 of the Government Code, entitled "Transfer of Territory from One City to a Continguous City", states that an annexation cannot be Page -2- accomplished unless there is a "resolution of consent to transfer, ad- opted by the legislative body of the city in which the territory is situated" (Section 35271.C). Section 35273 of the Government Code states that "if the board desires to change the boundaries of the territory to be transferred, it shall first secure the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Section 54799.1 and the cities affected by the proposed transfer." (Underlining provided by author). The City Attorney for Newport Beach, and I believe the County Counsel will concur, unequivocally states that the strip annexation surrounding the "County island" cannot be violated without the consent of the Newport Beach City Council. The City Councilof Newport Beach does not intend to adopt a resolution changing its boundaries or will it consent to the City of Costa Mesa violating the area surrounding the "County island", which area has been legally annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Because of the current law as explained in the preceding paragraph, it would be entirely inconsistent with showing the "County island" in any sphere of influence other than the City of Newport Beach. Especially is this true when coupled with the statements made to LAFCO during the September 12th hearing. 2. Leadership Housing Property (old dump site) The 40 acre property being developed by Leadership Homes,situated to the west of 19th Street and north of the Banning property, is in the City of Newport Beach. It is three -fourths surrounded by Costa,Mesa and adjoins Newport Beach via the strip annexation around the Banning property. The City of Newport Beach would consider de -annexing this area if it is the desire of the landowner to annex to Costa Mesa and Costa Mesa concurs in annexing the area. This area could, therefore, logically show within Page -3- Costa Mesa's sphere of influence if all parties concur. 3. 16th Street Boundary The City of Newport Beach agrees that 16th Street between Monrovia and Pomona is an appropriate boundary between the two cities. The City of Newport Beach has no objections to de -annexing that portion south of 16th Street between Placentia and Pomona, nor does it object to annex- ing the area north of 16th Street between Monrovia and Babcock Street. It is the City's understanding that Costa Mesa is in accord with this exchange, however, it is this City's understanding that the property owners do not agree with the annexations. This City would have no ob- jections to designating 16th Street as an appropriate boundary for a sphere of influence. 4. Newport Heights School The City of Newport Beach is in agreement to designating 15th Street from Newport Blvd. to Tustin Avenue as a sphere of influence boundary between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The City, if consent of the property owner is obtained, has no objection to considering the de-annexation:of the Newport Heights School in order for it to be annexed to Costa Mesa. 5. Irvine -Tustin Avenues In June, 1969, the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa agreed that the Irvine -Tustin Avenues, beginning at a point northerly of 20th Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street, would be an appropriate bound- ary for the two cities. The two cities still agree on that boundary as does the LAFCO staff. Page -4- However, it should be noted that residents on the northwest side of Tustin Avenue who are within the Costa Mesa proposed sphere of influence area are desirous of annexing to Newport Beach. A petition of 90% of the homeowners has been presented to LAFCO requesting annexation to Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is aware of these people's desire to annex to Newport Beach, but the City is not encouraging or discouraging their annexation. 6. Orange County Airport The City of Newport Beach believes that the Orange County Airport should be within this City's sphere of influence for the following reasons: 1. The public entrance to the airport faces the City of Newport Beach. 2. The commercial area fronting Campus Drive within the City of Newport beach is compatible with the continguous airport property. 3. The overflights from departing aircraft, as well as arriving air- craft, are over the City of Newport Beach. 4. The City of Newport Beach is currently contracting with Orange County Airport for some services, such as street sweeping, which would tend to support this City's contention that it would be a logical extension of the City's services. For these reasons, the City of Newport Beach on September 12, 1973, petitioned the Local Agency Formation Commission to show the Orange County Airport within the sphere of influence within the City of Newport Beach. Costa Mesa has also petitioned LAFCO for the airport. As a compromise, it may be practical to show overlapping spheres of influence on the Orange County Airport property, including the cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. In the meantime, the cities could be directed by LAFCO to meet and determine a mutually acceptable boundary. If the Local Agency Formation Commission does not concur with the overlapping Page -5- spheres of influence, it is suggested -that the airport remain in no cities sphere of influence, but referred to either the adjacent cities or the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council for review and study to develop a mutually acceptable boundary. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY: The statements and official position of the City taken herein are com- plimentary to the position as expressed to LAFCO dated August 13, 1973, and presented during the hearing of September 12, 1973. The "position statement" of August 13, 1973, is hereby incorporated by reference as further justification for approving Newport Beach's request. It is sincerely hoped that this in- formation and other information developed during the hearing process will permit the Local Agency Formation Commission to make a decision in this matter. CITY OF NEWPORT EACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAf5 i -.ems"\� � ' \„�KGU � � �" � � \ �'• ; ZN fluesO �� O ,!, p :%•� tom' `=--" - •:p - a �' Tz!1!-31cp \� �. ,0\ �� r �� • 2 ., rf fir, .�.�� At �• �p/a �Q(1u9 A,�o� area, (1) Banning Property (2) Leadership Housing Proo. -' _ _ �� r'1Y ✓ -wee'', 1 1f ' - •' _" - f �e a ,�u,tiet ��• ` t iis,o - __ +�•g`gfl (3j 16th Street Boundary ( Ir tJiiil--� '^, °" ��z `tit' r >__ ,. i '0 1, . � . �n-• _ ^�`°u �� 4 Gewgort Heights' School -., Irvine -Tustin Avenues _ ' CITY OF MEWMW BEACK (6) Orange County Aireort Al wwc awm. cwwm, From -the Office of Lity�lerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: viAN 3 0 7O,.- A-ttn :0.1 0 ti W CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH . -.SUPERVISOR—,�—�--._ THIRD DISTRICT VICE-CHAIRMAN LOUIS R. REINHARDT COUNCILMAN CLTY OF rILLEP.TON ... ROBERT W. SATTIN SUPERVISOR _ FIRST DISTRICT ROBERT J. NEVIL COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA S TAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURHAP REPRSSEN'AIIVE 0 GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DONALD A. M<INNIS MAJOR CITY OF NEWPOPT BEACH RICHARD T. TURNER EAECUTIVE OFFICER C) F� J,t N 3 019 70- CITY • 17- c NEWPOR,T BEACH, C;i a iCALIF. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION NTY /,OG ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 637 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 634-22; % AREA CODE 7IA January 28, 1974 OA#, FILE COPY . 00 has M- Tfl'J,E City Council of 'the City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Council Members: I' '! 30 974 ((D1� Bte.j�..?....�.1.......q.......'.}...��.... Lti'7715 SENT TO: :ItuH18T—� •_—�--� t•uiJFr Works DizeeiX; !'Iunni.g Vireelet Other Q--1 OD®cJias El At=the.-Ilbcal-Ageno-y.-Formationr-Commission-meeting of-- --- January 23, 1974, the Commission discussed correspondence received from various cities regarding proper notification to all interested parties when'spheres of influence are to be considered by the Commission. The following procedures will be taken by the Commission on any hearings that involve spheres of influence for cities and special districts: _ At least 15 days prior to any hearing to adopt a sphere of influence for a local agency, the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice to the hearing to the affected agency and to the legislative body of each city immediately adjoining the proposed- sphere of influence. -Notice-of- _-- - - hearing shall be published by the Executive Officer in a newspaper of general circulation within the' area. Section 54774 of the Government Code states the Local Agency Formation Commission shall develop and determine the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the County. This Section further states the Commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by them. Very truly yours, /La?' ,. I % , � r✓y F- Richard T. Turner _ , ,7 Executive Officer RTT/ih COUNCILMEN \%� \rY 2 p o, NaROLL r.AI_I�PN Nof yC Pm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1i 0hriiArV 11 _ 1 Q74 FILE COPY, DO NOT REMOVE ' F►.F. spslagE CbF �mr-L•vlSNCG lee:t� iINDEX Referred to Pending Legislation Committee, reso- Regional lution of the City of Yorba Linda supporting a com- Trans- prehensive regional transportation study and plan for portation Orange County and its surrounding area. Plan 3. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: tter from Assessment & Treatment Services Center exp ssing appreciation for the attention given their presen tion on January 28. Letter addre ed to Mayor McInnis from Daniel S. Residen- Connelly protes ' the parking standards in the new tial building standards ' cussed on January 28. Developmt Standards League of California Cities islative Bulletin dated February 1, 1974. Copy of letter to Coastal Zone Conser tion Com- mission from Mrs. Howard S. Babb appe ing a dredging permit in Newport Harbor. Copy of letter to the Daily Pilot from Gary B. Lo 11 Animal in connection with the impoundment of animals. Impoundmt Letter from Orange County Sanitation Districts re- Wa r garding advanced wastewater treatment at Plant No. 2. Qualit Control Letter from Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO regarding procedures to be taken by the Commission on hearings involving s heres of influe_. ncg for cities and special districts. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors reaffirming its CdM y position of supporting the expeditious completion of the Corona del Mar Fre>wa Resolution of the City ofpo • g the OrCo improvements and ordentario Regional International Airport. Airport Excerpt from Minutes oisors meeting OrCo of January 29 in cone ion with appointment of study Regional task force regardi g the feasibility of using Ontario Airport International irport. Ex�- pt from Minutes of Board of Supervisors meeting St Park i January 29 showing resolution of City of Newport Beach Beach approving the proposed priority list of projects Priorities .r r Volume 28 - Page 47 J� DOva:apnleat U NTY O F Dept JAN.3 01970- 'T -� CITY OF / / RAN G E - i NEWPCA IF EACH, LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR _- THIRD DISTRICT City Council of the City of Newport VICE-CHAIRMAN 3300 West Newport Boulevard LOUIS R. REINHARDT Newport Beach, California 92660 COUNCILMAN CITY OF FULLERTON- .'�--•-..*�. ,{ •-��»�*;�-Attend:orr:°�Ro'be-r�Ja.�•Wynn;�Gty�'Ma ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 836-2239 AREA CODE January 28, 1974 It'a'e a"4104 Date ....................... COMES SENT 10: Beach 1=h.rne,• (� i•uSRr Works 111rectN.7 Planning Director Other Comeilmen ROBERT W. BATTIN Dear Council Members:' - Li SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT At -the Local -Agency-For-mation-Commission_meeting__of_._� January 23, 1974, the Commission discussed correspondence ROBERT J. NEVIL received from various cities regarding proper notification COUNCILMAN to _all interested parties trhen'spheres of influence are to CITY OF LA HABRA be-all by the Comm_ission. STAN NORTHRUP The following procedures will be taken by the Commission on REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC any hearings that involve spheres of influence for cities and special districts: _ ALTERNATE At least 15 days prior to any hearing to adopt a sphere DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR of influence for a local agency, the Executive Officer SU SECOND DISTRICT shall give mailed notice to the hearing to the affected agency and to the legislative body of each city immediately - adjoining the proposed -sphere of influence. --Notice of ALTERNATE REE DURNAP hearing shall be published by the Executive Officer in a � REPRESEN'AI IVE Or newspaper of general circulation within the area. GENERAL PUBLIC Section 54774 of the Government Code states the Local ALTERNATE Agency Formation Commission shall develop and determine DONALD A. McINNIS the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency MAeOR within the County. This Section further states the Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by them. RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER Very truly yours,�f(/� "�400 �/ met.✓ Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih �r �l SY 8 I 'USOLUTION OV THE 400AL A(3rN Y VCMIATION GOMIMSION 2 OF 0W Ii P, COMITY, CAT,I:I'ORNIA 3 Augu©t 14, 1974 FILE COPY, 4 PA rmotion o.2 Cow ttssioner xdorthrup, duly ge0cWq*,TrJWr0VE 5 crrrical the follow-Lts resolution was adopteds' 6 I.qW,wAS, the local Agency Formation Commission has adopted 7 a Prc;grm for Establishing ssphores of influence for Orange County Cities; 8 and 9 WMAS, Government Code Section 54774 states that the Vocal. 10 Agency xormation Co=issaion shall develop anti determine the sphere of 11 influence of evch local governmental aSency within •the 'County; and 12 IMtl 118, G vermeut Cade Section 54774 further states the 13 Co=isssion shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence 14 developed and determined by theta; and, 15 11.7 40, on June fin, 19749 the Local Agency Fb=tttion 16 Cormi.sscion Not a heaving date of .Au,ust 14, 1974 to review the adopted 17 spheres of influence of the eit3es of Costs Mom And Newport Beach ss it 18 relates to unincorporated territory known an the "corridor area"y.south. 19 of S• O= Drive; and 20 V E,M.4 8V its. accordance 'with the Cslifornia l:nvirommontal 21 Qualtiy,Act of 1970s the Executive Officer filed a negativo declaration 22 on the rrti-iew of the adopted, spheres of influence of the cities of Costa 23 Mesa and' Newport B®hch;°ands 24 WBMAS, the 1:cecutive Qa"fieer notified the cities of Costa a 25 Mesa and, Newport' beach of the review of their respective spheres of 26 influence 30 days prior to the public hearing on same, 27 f IdOtr, TiiMPORE, TT 18LMMEBY RESOLV',BD that thio Commission 28 adopts the negative declaration and approvee an rmendment to the spheres 29 of influence of the cities of Newport Beach and�� t��+ as shown on 30 the accompanyiing map tattachod hereto. ommuni 'D Dev,,Pz eat 31 Os AUG 3 019741- 32 rec-o ution 17o, 74-100 rvb�vpoarOF 6 cquF •; • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AYES: CgiTi• ls' ;lori .m STAU 11011 t1i DPO DAVID Z. BAiP3R AiW RALM A. DIEDRICH IIu1 a: COMNIZCS0I41 L: z TiMM J. SATRAMLLI A14D AZICE Jw lti'SiANKIEWICH AB,:,' a1TTi mvinissloi s Immu ti l.;tiTZ Ol C.AL11.70 U.P. B9r COLil��P OF dR�ITU,,` 1,1 lilCFtrs RD T* MJRw 9: Outivc QUicor.uf the local Agefsoy xormation Co=izn1qja of Orangg County, Cali.forni.a, horo V certi ft r that the ebove and foregoing resolution was duly aAd regvl.arly a4ol7ted by said Commission ut a rcgularr mating thereof# held on the 14th day of dAUE;aotj 1974"r 1I7 t7T'1i%CS,S I1,'kiIv1 01,1 I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of humwag 1974, r 8erolution Xo* 74--10 RTTaRD T. iT3R'iv1;R Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commigeion of Orvtge Countyo CcliZornia iaecr t xv "�. 2. !'XIST!NV.5OUNDARIES ..w ANNEXAJON BOUNDARIES ---•�- n CITY OF COSTA MESA SOI .� - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SOI AMENDED SOI 'BOUNDARY Ii 7•�i1•I,•ifp1•,I;I;I I'1 [I'll 11111111 1, ,I,I,, .I'.I'I'1'I:I'1�1�1't'. I'Ij�' I �I'1•I',1'1µ'1'i'1'1'i'1'1!1!1!1!1!i' 1!1. ii!i!'.I.I' I'.II'.Iy',I.' I! !It l'' 'I'I H i l l l l 1 1 1 1' ' '1'I'S' Ht'P}1'}�`1 1 TL} 11Tiill l�'1ijiyl 1 I 1 I 1 1'�'-�1'Iyil pill '� 1 111'(� 1"I"I�"1�I'�1�1�' 1.I I�1I,I-1j•SIT''.,I,'L''LI-L'I71 1�IT'I'.1I1'�T�Ftf'�71�+��7�1�' • ' i' f''I 1ITj{I1T1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I '1'1'1' • i 1�1 Iiii II II III�III�I�III�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�II'i j'ili'ihii'i1�1�'�1j1�1� FI�I�I�I �I�i�l ICI Ii 1�1�1�I�I�1�I�lii�i�l�i'I�I�I'I'111'I'I'I'I jl�l'I�I'I j1'I 1 I'i I'1'I'i'1'I'I'Ii1'I'I'I'I'1'1'i'I'I'i'1il'1'I'I'1'I'i'I'1'f'1'Iil li'I'1'I'iili I I I t l l l I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII I 111111111 III II II IIIIIIIIIIIIiII IIIIIII '1'I'1'1'1'lI �I�I�I�I�I�I�FrI�I� II�IIIIIifII.I.I�I�I�I�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1� 1�1�1� II I'JIII II IIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIIIII111111 IIIIIIIIII IIII I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I l i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIII111II IIII III II IIII111I1111111II111111111II IIIIII IIIIII111 III111IIII I111 I�1 I�I�I�1�1�1�1 �I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�i�l�l�l�l�l �I �I�I�i� iii lililil IIII I;I lilililjlili li l; lillli1111lI I1I1111I111i1i111 IIIIIIIIII IIII I I I III III I I I I I I I I III I I I III I I I I ( I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l III 11111111111III11II II111 II III I11111111 'IIIII'I'I'Iil'1'I'I'I'1'I'I'I''t'I'1'I'I'i'I'1'I'I'Iil'I''II'''''I'1I'I'I'11i 1!I'I�f'I II�1�1�1�1 �I�I ICI 0111411111111 11I111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11'i i'I f'I'I'I'I'I'1'1'i 1 I'I'III111i11' 'I''llI'I'i'III111111I�1�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�1 �I�I�1�1�1�I�1 'I'I'I'i'I'1'I'I'I'Iil'I'I'I'I'I'i'I'1'1'II�I�I�I�i�I�1��1�1�1�I�I�1�1�I�I�I�I�1�1�11111�I�I�I�II�I 1� I�1�1�1'11111,',7'•�.I'1''�'�1/'11 I'1'1 ;1il;li i; l; t; i;i�lit;l; l;t;1� �I �1�1�1�111,1'I,Ih�I 1t��1I'I�^, ;Ifs I� I� '1�1 1'I'1'i'1'I'i'1'I'1'I'i'i'I'1'I'I'I'I'1'1'I'1'1'1'Il'I'I'I'I'1'I'1il'1'I'I'1'I'1i I'I'I'I'I'I' 'I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I i I I IIIIII (IIII IIIIIIIIII IIII (IIIIII (IIIIII IIII iI II IIIIII II II i11111IIIIli / ''�' '1'i'I'Iil'I il'III'I'I'IiI'I'I'1'I'1'I'IiI'i'I I111111'1'I'I'i'i'I'1'I'1'i'1 il'1IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 ��Iy) I111 11 �l,,.}Lc}1-1,,1-�1��I11�,I li�.,'I1111 {�'c't�I r1 rc 1'i�l i'1'I'I'I'I'�1�1�1�1L1��y1 ��1•�1�I1 ��{1i'1.Y1','yI',i'1'I'I'1t1j'1'I'I'1'I'1'I'I'1'I'I'I'i'1'I'1'IIIIIIiiI I' I'I�'lilii, fit,{q! i1H, 9�'{� •�I'I'If1'I'11 111�1 I'I'''Ii' 11''I1111'1 1 Pihi'1 III''i'i'11i'II'I'i11'1'1'I'ili'''1''t'111 i1'11111i1'1'i'1I' '1' 11111 t1��1 Y�1� i�1(�� IIII111111111I " IIIIII,IIIIIIIIII •� t_.l, ,IhI, ,I�1, I_I, 1.1.LLLI.L;�xO f10 niliN}, I, I,IIhil lbt•.1.LLL1.1.1_I , L1 1 I,I I, 1.I,I, 1.I,LLi. LLL1.1. 1.1.11111_� aeO , I T Y 0 F N EWPORT AMENDED SPHERE 'OF INFLUENCE THE CITIES OF' ' COSTA MESA AND Iil'Ili'i'1'Iil'I'1'Iil'I I'1'I'I'I'1'i'I'I'I'Illil' III I11 IIII IIIIIIIIII11111111i111 I i I 1 IIII IIIIIIIII II1111111III1 IFI I�1 E IIIIII (I I I I ' I I 1 1 1 1 II IIII i'i'itl'I'Itl'1'Itl'I'III' i I 1 1'1t 171IIIIII'11ii1i IIII i'1' .i. 'i!'i IiJ!1!1!G2d1>7VS1!I!l�f;� 1 tt'I L iiit�l r 1 'm Ii'I'I'i Q CW iE1 I'i'1 •h I II II "• 1 Y n tl In O • I'1'li'I'1 U !F1yaj u, I 'IIII'( Q .411i1 11 F}-• {b_ I IIIIII II I . 11111 it 4 Lly LI foul NCORVOR4TEo TFRRlPO .� BEACH BOUNDARY FOR NEWPORT 4 M FILE COPY, 1 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL D6G1MjdS AT ION M $ pN9v. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA p4F,`n�Cy 3 September 25, 1974 4 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and 5 carried, the following resolution was adopted: 6 WHEREAS, on May 8, 1974, the Commission directed staff to 7 provide the Commission with alternatives regarding whether the Commission 8 should make the ultimate determination on spheres of influence or should 9 the Commission determine spheres of influence based on a more reasonable 10 extension of the local governmental agency's boundaries; and 11 WHEREAS, on July 24, 1974, the Commission further directed 12 staff to bring back a short term sphere of influence policy to the 13 Commission with specific recommendations as to policies which should be 14 implemented within short term spheres of influence; and 15 WHEREAS, on September 25, 1974, the Commission discussed 16 staff's specific recommendations -as to policies which should be imple- i7 mented within short term spheres of influence; 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission hereby 19 adopts the following policies for implementation of short term spheres 20 of influence for cities in Orange County: 21 A short term sphere of influence is intended to define an area within 22 a city's adopted sphere of influence which may desire city services 23 within the next five years. Such spheres of influence shall be perio- 24 dically reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission and updated 25 - when warranted by a change in local conditions or circumstances. 26 The establishment of a short term sphere of influence boundary shall 27 be established for each city in Orange County and shall be based on 28 but not limited to the following factors: 29 1. Ability of affected city to provide municipal services. 30 2. Zoning and land use in the area. 31 3. General plan of the city and the County of Orange 32 Resolution No. 74-131 L 1 2', 3 4'' 51 61 7 81 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4. Specific plans, i.e. water, sewer, open space, etc., adopted by the city, the County of Orange and other public agencies. 5. Capital improvement plans adopted by the affected.city. 6. Existence of unincorporated "islands" in the area. 7. Existence of agricultural preserves in the area. Upon establishment of short term spheres of influence for cities in Orange County, the following policies shall apply: A. Formation of independent special districts should be dis couraged within a city's short term sphere of influence. B. Annexations of territory to independent special districts within a city's short term sphere of influence should be discouraged when it is found that the affected city can pro- vide identical services to the property. 1. If it is found that the city cannot provide the service offered by the special district to the p and the subject property, is contiguous to the city's boundaries, the Commission should require that approv of special district annexation be subject to the con- dition that the property be annexed to the city. C. All property within a city's short term sphere of influence is by definition urbanized or urbanizing and shall be subject to annexation. A. Recognizing that the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must consider development and rezoning proposals in the unincorporated area on a case by case basis, LAFCO requests the County of Orange to consider: (1) Not approve proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications, and major development proposals which are within a city's short term sphere of influence, and can be legally annexed, Resolution No. 74-131 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AYES: u (2) To recommend to applicants in the above cases that they annex their property to the City and develop it under the city's jurisdiction. E. LA.FCO will request the County to refer all proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications and major development proposals which are within a city's short term sphere of influence to the city for review and comment. COMMISSIONERS DOIIALD J. SALTARELLI, ALICE J. FRANKIEWICH, ROBERT W. BATTIN, STAN NORTHRUP-AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMISSIONERS NONE. ABSETTP : COMMISSIONEl.3S NOlYE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ). ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of September, 1974. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of September, 19'744. Resolution No. 74-131 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California By=' Vecretary 2. t �A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Date AUG N Ft 1975 cSFr; ii1o:— t.ix;or;or 'r id7.niger ,orney p •;i Director csr,,Der Director otner FJ Q Councilmen I/ R 0 EIVEu m�J Comunity Develop,,,ent h D6ot. AUG 2 81975a- 1 CITY Or= '-�NEWPORI 11iA0H, �/ CALIF. RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 1-3, 1975 0 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: t,Y WEEREAS, Government Code Section 54774 states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall develop•and determine the Sphere of of Influence of each local governmental agency within the County; and tr�rFRFnS, on May 289 1975 the Local Agency Formation Commissic set a hearing date of August l3, 1575, to develop and determine a Sphere of Influence for the Costa Mesa County Water District; and W,AS$ the Commission did review a map'of a Sphere of Influence and a report prepared by staffp and did also consider points of view raised by -the Costa Mesa County Water District and other parties that expressed an interest in said matter; and WEEREAS, the Commi.ssiont as Lead Agency,) certifies that a final Environmental Impact Report relative to said matter has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information therein. NOW, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Commission approves•a Sphere of Influence for the Costa Mesa County Water District,) as shown on the accompanying map attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission recognizes the undeveloped area southerly of 19th Street and southeasterly of the Santa Ana Rivers known as the "Banning, Property" or "Kadane Oil Lease", while presently being served water from the Costa Mesa County Water District,, should at some appropriate time in the future be the subject of discussions between said District and the City of Newport Beach for purposes of determining ultimate areas of water service by each agency. Resolution trio. 75-101 + F1LF COPY DO NOT REMOVE 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, ALICE J. FRANKMICH, THOMAS F. RILEY AND STAN NORTHRUP NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT W. BATTIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. ' COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Focal Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof' held on the 13th day of August, 1975• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of August, 1975- e 75-101 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission ,of Orange County, California By bedretary 2. � _ .-. �� _ • i U�%.\•,r-yT.- -ice•. e?°� - � � � � £ SPHEPE OF INFLUENCE `' r:. r•-;:::':::i COSTA HESA COUNTY WAT1:.R 'DISTRICT . _:_.J• _ >. ADOPTED a f L_A.F C., J'Nl _s : 13- 75 'r_ ,.� , . • l�//�/., - 4/ CITY IV or, CITY K j, / / � , /�`- -` �i *,-� �;•- - a � : � - :► OF YX Y. <y ,••-7 + .'`•. � i�y,4 ^/�'i::•j,w f�x+�C%(��»r,��\`t,�s'!�1•• i$ii��/��f/�f; - �..:>r_r-. i JJ �'� Irk �% i.��i /�.� 6cf IrJ �'J=' � .. +- ,,�a�T! � •trJ ,�fl � �1 / f/'f� •, : � \`' J.l,/ '>` i . /hr•" ,1� .i / ./ -.� j � ._?i�-c3v.j' r •1 . . / , •+/.j[/ Y drYr /�j/✓Y * \Lca•} �""• / S/ 'i ,-, ! •S / y� �'�1 }+ )/.: _ `r 'i:': \ / // � / �) ,\i -i.. ✓jy H /• (� F - t •. •r' OF 1 � _•4 :i.1r (i+% ; Lu�i�/� + ^r./ f �_`r 1I /Yj��fti i _ .J,'l•,��}.�tj,�vw...__ •Y �F'{ - � �C +.} ni A. NZ 11 INK 1 ••' /' '/! i /^i �`/:/'// / 1 /,• �• /a'�.J, - _- ram.- "� ;•� 4 •11 w •� G ,/��/ 1i ',w�)>. ._ \•�-t.T��.'y � -`f it :• • ',t. t ITY 1` `IV ix OF F 1 1 I i•Jv T I'1 N _. •:': . .-�'. ,. �,...y .-- -.w,.. �I� y 3.<.t.�...:. 1, , t}_ .� . I V ' i3�-f- ' % .t ,fez. j�' � ' 7.•"•L-+•.�,._ : f 3.;> �Z s...: = � �''�% 1�' BEACH TA { . /;';r%•,�`•' + •• i // �i.:, }��.�] i .. pia �• YA i �- , • �r ;.:;.'nz"e.•; Vy��\� i :`� i ,' � fit/ \"' - •• �t �� .�+•��`.-�._./ +�i•r' �- .. ' o as .: y: ', ", , ; �:• ��\ s •i �.\ ' __ ` ?�� ems✓ - �,..•;+ Y' \ v��y - f'-\0`' •i. }i F' �'":-�-�'.'.H!^'''.'?-._H�•r•-•�-1'•--�kn+: •.•/ \'�j.trr+;i." '., •:•,r , "•'• iPR •i \i., .,.{••-7�F': �'iy/ I??:^ ,,��,,�-fir ARTY --- - —. C � t Y OF N G E LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN July 9, 1979 DONALD A. McINNIS COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN THOMAS F. RILEY Mr. Robert L. Wynn SUPERVISOR FIFTH DISTRICT City Manager PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 West Newport Boulevard FIRST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE- (714) 834-2239 JUL1 019799- City Manager City of Newport Beach 1.4 J ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Dear Bob: GENERAL PUBLIC DONALD J. SALTARELLI Submitted for your information is the sphere.of influence policy COUNCILMAN CITY OFTUSTIN adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission on May 23, 1979. ALTERNATE ALCE J. MecLAIN Please note on page 4 of this policy under the heading, "Procedure COUNCILWOMAN for Reviewing and Updating Spheres of Influence" that the CITY OF CYPRESS Commission will review and update a city sphere of influence once ALTERNATE JOAN K. RIDDLE every three years. ' REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC The Commission determined d sphere of influence for the west and ALTERNATE north areas of Newport Beach in September, 1973 and for the HARRIETT M.WIEDER COdStdl area in September, 1976. SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT For the spheres of influence for cities that were determined in RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER 1973 and subsequently added thereafter I am scheduling hearing dates for the Commission to review said spheres of influence. I will be suggesting to the Commission the city of Newport Beach sphere of influence be reviewed at one of the Commission's meetings in September, 1979. If you have any questions on this matter please give me a call. Verytruly,yours, 7, �Il'ati/ Richard T. Turner Executive Director RTT:bd Attachment i SPHERE OF INFLUENCE POLICY LEGAL AUTHORITY The California Government Code, Section 54774 states in part: In order to carry out -its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the local agency formation commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county. DEFINITION Sphere of Influence: A plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local governmental agency (California Government Code Section 54774). STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1. To facilitate orderly urban growth in the (unincorporated) areas adjacent to a city. 2. To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various cities, county and districts to facilitate proper effectuation of their respective general plans. 3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely provisions for adequate and essential services such as sewer, water, fire and police protection when urbanization occurs. 4. To assist all governmental agencies in planning the logical and economical extension of all their facilities and services, thus avoiding unnecessary duplications. 5. To assist property owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use and development of their lands. POLICY GUIDELINES 1. A sphere of influence presumes eventual annexation to, and provision of urban services by the affected local governmental agency. 2. Spheres of influence will guide the future expansion and organization of local governmental boundaries by doing (but not being limited to) the following: a. Providing long-range guidelines for the efficient and economical provision of organized community service and orderly change of governmental organization. b. Discouraging the potential duplication of services by two or more local governmental agencies. 5/23/79 :. Sphere of Influence Page 2 c. Guiding the Commission in its deliberations on specific changes of organization. d. Indicating the need for specific governmental reorganization studies. 3. Annexations should proceed in a sequential manner. Each local agency should identify areas within its LAFCO approved sphere of influence where services are now provided or where services are planned to be provided within the next ten years and submit promptly to LAFCO any plans for the development.of such areas as they are formulated. Such areas will be considered by LAFCO as appropriate for annexation, 4. Phased urban development contributes to the orderly growth of urban areas. LAFCO encourages annexation of territory identified as available for urban development prior to annexation of other areas. LAFCO encourages the provision of urban services within andimmediately adjacent to existing urban areas before they are provided to areas not yet devoted to urban uses. 5. LAFCO will exercise its powers, specified in California Government Code Section 54790 to encourage and provide planned, well -ordered, efficient urban development patterns. 6. LAFCO encourages cooperation and communication among cities, districts and the county relative to using "spheres of influence" as not only a LAFCO policy plan, but rather as a basis for other planning projects within the county. 7. LAFCO discourages the formation of independent special districts within cities spheres of influence. 8. LAFCO discourages the annexation of unincorporated territory to independent special districts when such territory is within a city's sphere of influence. LAFCO may condition any such special district annexation on concurrent city annexation when the territory is contiguous to such city (dual annexation policy). 9. LAFCO requests the Orange County Planning Commission to refer all proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications and major development proposals which are within a city's sphere of influence to that city for review and comment. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED Government Code Section 54774 specifies the following eight factors which must be considered when establishing or reviewing spheres of influence: 1. The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency. 2. The range of services the agency is providing or could provide. 5123/79 ,. W Sphere of Influence Page 3 3. The projected future population growth of the area. 4. The type of development occurring or planned for the area including, but not limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial development. 5. The present and probable future service needs of the area. 6. Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of services provided by such existing local governmental agencies. 7. The existence of social and economic interdependence and interaction between the area within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the areas which surround it and which could be considered within the agency's sphere of influence. 8. The existence of agricultural preserves in the area which could be considered within an agency's sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such preserves in the event,that such preserves are within a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. In addition, the Commission shall consider the following criteria for determining a city's sphere of influence - Provision of water transmission mains -- Ample sewerage facilities -- Adequate police and fire protection -- Waste disposal -- Parks and recreation -- Compatible street circulation -- Economic and social relationships -- Natural topographic features such as rivers, ridge lines, ravines, etc. -- Man-made barriers such as freeways, major streets, railroads, etc. -- Recognition of formal general plans adopted by all'public agencies -- Existence of unincorporated "islands" in the area -- Existing scha6.1,,postal and judicial districts and other special districts which give municipal type services -- Consideration of property owner statements indicating preference of his choice of jurisdiction -- The revenue needs of cities 5/23179 Sphere of Influence Page 4 These criteria are used to determine which city is the most capable of providing the necessary public facilities and services essential to urban development. in applying the above criteria the Commission's sphere determinations will not be based on any single factor, but rather will include a composite consideration of all the factors that are applicable. PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 1. Each city should define and determine its boundaries in the areas of the county which, in its judgment, bears a relationship to its future planning. 2. Consideration of the previously mentioned criteria factors should guide each city in its determination of its proposed sphere of influence. 3. If two or more cities feel that a certain area in the county relates to their planning program such studies should be conducted jointly by the appropriate representatives of the cities involved and the Local Agency Formation Commission in order to establish areas of agreement for all concerned. 4. At such time as agreement is established between all of the affected agencies a map should be prepared which delineates the areas of agreement. 5. Copies should be filed with and reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 6. That the spheres of influence of other public entities should be defined where appropriate. 7. If the cities or other governmental entities cannot agree on the boundaries or conditions of a sphere of influence the collected information and points of view may be filed with the LAN by any affected agency with a request that the LAFC make the final determination. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING AND UPDATING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE 1. The Local Agency Formation Commission will review and update a city's sphere of influence once every three years, and other agencies' spheres of influence every five years, unless circumstances warrant an earlier review. A sphere of influence review and update can also be initiated by resolution requesting such review by the county, or the affected city or district. 2. A "Plan for Services" shall be completed and submitted by the affected city or district. This plan shall include, but is not necessarily limited to the following information: a. A master plan for the provision of services including: - Description of the services to be provided - Level and range of services - When services will be available 5/23/79 Sphere of Influence Page 5 - Location of present services - Present population and projected population for the study area for the next ten years - Present and proposed land use - General plan designations for the area - Reasons that justify the sphere maintenance or extension b. A map or maps showing the area to be included within the sphere which clearly show(s) the following: - Topography - Urban areas - open space and agricultural areas - Industrial areas - Major highways and freeways -,Existing boundaries of the involved city or district - Boundaries of contiguous cities and districts as they relate to the area under review, including the sphere of influence lines for adjacent cities and districts. A sphere of influence extension request for a city or district shall clearly justify the action and include a time frame for possible annexation. Capital improvement projects shall be identified which would be planned for the sphere of influence. 5/23/79 1 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May 23, 1979 3 On'motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously carried, 4 the following resolution was adopted: 5 WHEREAS, this Commission is mandated by Section 54774 of the California Government Code to determine spheres of influence for local governmental agencies; and 6 WHEREAS, this Commission has adopted certain policies and procedures for 7 determining spheres of influence; and 8 !JHEREAS, this Commission has decided to review and update these policies and procedures; and 9 WHEREAS, this Commission has sought and encouraged the comments and advice 10 of local agencies within Orange County; and 11 WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed a revised "Sphere of Influence" policy prepared by its staff and has received verbal testimony from local agency 12 officials and other interested persons. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that this Commission adopts the 14 attached policy package dated May 23, 1979 as the Commission's goals and guidelines for considering and determining spheres of influences for local governmental agencies within 15 Orange County, California. 16 AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, DONALD J. SALTARELLI, HARRIETT M. WIEDER 17 ROBERT E. DWYER AND DONALD A. MC INNIS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. 18 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation 21 Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing 22 resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting 23 thereof, held on the 23rd day of May, 1979. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of May, 1979 24 RICHARD T. TURNER 25 Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission 26 of Orange County, California 27; i 28 By Resolution No. 79-72 Secretary COUNCILMEN Rni I r\A\11\e\%XTP ,Cli`Y OF NEWPORT BEACH April 28, 1980 MINUTES frar.7=6'J months provided no claims have been filed. (A report from the Public Works Department)' 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7 - Acceptance of the public Site Plan improvements constructed under Site Plan Review Review No.7 No. 7, located at North Newport Boulevard between (84) Catalina Drive and Santa Ana Avenue; and authoriza tion to the City Clerk to'release the Faithful Performance Bond (Bond No. 8 SM 174001) and to release the Labor and Materials Bond (Bond No. 8 SM 174001) in six months provided no claims have been filed. (A report from the Public Works Department)' TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT BIRCH STREET Traffic Sig. AND VON KARMAN AVENUE AND BICYCLE PUSH BUTTONS AT '/Safety Light- 4 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (C-2101) - Acceptance ing/C-2101 o the work; authorization to the City Clerk to (38) fil a Notice of Completion; and authorization to the ty Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after Notice f Completion has been filed. (A report from the ublic Works Department) 13. .STATE LITTER ONTROL, RECYCLING AND RESOURCE Litter RECOVERY ACT 0 1977 - Authorization to*the City Control Manager to sign letter of intent stating that (44) the City of Newpor Beach transfers the remainder of its 79/80 entitle ent funds to the County of Orange: (A•report fr the Litter Control Citizen Advisory Committee) 14. MAINTENANCE DREDGING HARBOR ERMITS - Approval of Harbor the following applications fo maintenance dredg- Dredging ing harbor permits, subject to he conditions of Permits approval listed in the general p it issued to (51) the City by the Corps of Engineers. (A report from the Marine Department) 101-194 1353 Bayside Drive California ecrea- tion Co. 143-32 32 Harbor Island Briggs Cunnin am 119-223 223-21st Street Howard Bishop 15.. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: BA-083, $3,700.00 increase in Budget Appropria- tions and increase in Revenue Estimates for purchase of tables and chairs, donation from Friends of the Newport Beach Public Library, from Unappropriated Surplus and Donations and Contribu- tions to Newport Center Branch Library, Building Excise Tax Fund. I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x 1. Resolution requesting that the Local Agency LAFCO All Ayes Formation Commission amend the City's exi_at- (21) ing Sphere of to include all lands -Influence in West Np.Wort presenter surrounded by the City boundary^ kMC0 p?;Mee ty) was_Keferred to staff for action. Volume 34 - Page 103 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES .4 ROLL CALL `�' A ril 28, 1980 IND Moti x 2. Copy of a letter to Mayor Heather from the West Use Permit Ail Ayes Newport Beach Improvement Association regarding No. 1717 the building at 2106 W. Ocean Front, on the north- (88) easterly corner of West Ocean Front and McFadden Square was referred to staff for a report track. Motion x 3. Mayor Heather reported on the LAFCO meeting of All Ayes ii-23, acid the agenda was ordered filed. S. ADDITION SINESS: Motion x 1. Use Permit 1939, a he request of Mayor Pro Temp LAFCO All Ayes pore Hart, was called and set for public hearing (21) on May 12. K. The Council adjourned to Executive sion to discuss litigation matters. L. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m., M q'Z9 to 7:30"a m., May 1, 1980. Volume 34 - Page 104 City Council Meeting April 28, 1980 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH eApril 23, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO Property Suggested Action H-2(a) If desired, adopt Resolution No. requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission amend the City's existing Sphere of Influence to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary. •Background On January 7, 1980, the requested that the City property in the Newport Local Coastal Council pursue Beach "Sphere Planning Advisory Committee the inclusion of the BEECO of Influence." At the March 24, 1980 meeting, the City Council directed staff to request the Local Agency Formation Commission to review Newport Beach's "Sphere of Influence" as it might apply to the BEECO property. On March 25, 1980, the City Manager requested the Local Agency Formation Commission's early review of this matter. The Local Agency Formation Commission responded that a formal City Council Resolution would be required; therefore the attached resolution has been prepared for the Council's consideration. The request should be set for public hearing by the Local Agency For- mation Commission within thirty to forty-five days of receipt of the resolution. Respectfully submitted, ,,Respectfully DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by R AR� Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments: 1) City Manager 2) LAFCO letter letter dated March 25, 1980 dated March 31, 1980 2 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 640-2151 . MAR 71980 March 25, 1980 �cHapo rruRIA a CM. OMMR LOCAL Ali'Y MWAT101 CMAIM16osio'' Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza - Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mr. Turner: The City Council, on March 24th, requested this correspondence go to the Local Agency Formation Commission requesting early review of this City's Sphere of influence in the westerly portion of the City on the Beeco property. If it would be of assistance for this City to com- plete an application form asking for review by LAFCO in this area, please send a copy of the ap- plication to Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Calif., 92663. Sincerely, a"�, ��- RCBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Mr. James HeWicker, Planning Dir. • City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL July 14, 1980 INDEX PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Paul Balalis was assigned the red light, and Robert Ashton was assigned the green light; and Paul Balalis was reappointed. (b) -Helen McLaughlin was assigned the red light, wand Jerry King was assigned the green light; and` len McLaughlin was reappointed. 2. A letter dated Ju 2 from Richard N. Callahan, Jr. Towing License appealing the denial o �iis application for a (70) towing license was present A report was presented from the Po a Department. The City Manager informed the Council that Callahan was no longer employed by the towing company. Motion x The letter and report were received and ordered All Ayes filed. 3. A report was presented from the Planning Depart- LAFCO ment regarding the Local Agency Formation Com- (21) mission's review of the City's Sphere of Influence as it relates to the BEECO propert in West New- port. Bill Banning of BEECO addressed the Council and stated he was present to answer any questions. Motion x The proposed position paper was approved. All Ayes G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. This item was considered out of agenda order at the beginning of the meeting. 2. A letter from William Nelson Gentry was presented H ght & asking the Council to reconsider its action taken ensity on January 22, 1979 in adopting Ordinance No. 17 Regulations regarding height limitations on structures on a (26) bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. A letter from McDonough, Holland & Al n, the City's attorneys, was presented. William Nelson Gentry address the Council re- garding his request in beh of his clients. Motion x Mr. Gentry was.grante three additional minutes All Ayes for his presentatio . Motion x No action was aken because of the litigation All Ayes involving a City in this connection. Volume 34 - Page 165 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL�� July 14, 1980 INDEX Motion x Ordinance No. 1859 was adopted. All Ayes 2. ordinance No. 1860, being, 'Fireworks Displays AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1860 ADDING SECTION 5.10.02.7 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH (41) MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, was presented for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1860 was adopted. All Ayes F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: nd Commission appointments. Bd/Comeh Appts ignment of red and green lights was selected (24) method of voting, except for the Civil Board, which was handled individually; and \by lowing appointments and reappointments were ed for four-year terms ending June 30, 1984 imous consent of the Council: F LIBRARY TRUSTEES ards was assigned the red light, and (a) Th\Ts Hokinson was assigned the green light; anEdwards was appointed to succeed Spvert. CITY ARSSTON assigned the red light, and (a) Janet Enni\ganed Jerrel Ricwas assigned the green light; and Jerrelrds was appointed to succeed Janet Enni (b) Patricia Gassigned the red light) and Novell Heno was assigned the green light; andl ndrickson was appointed to succeed PaGib s. CIVIL SERVICE B Motion x (a) Robert Bons reappo ted.Ayes xxxxxx Noes x Motion x (b) Pat A. Krosappointed t succeed John J. Ayes x x x x x x McKerren. Noes x PARKS BEACHES CREATION COMMISSI (a) Bruce Stuart was assigned the red 1 ht, and John Heffernan was assigned the gree light; and Bruce Stuart was appointed to suc ed Gary B. Lovell. Volume 34 - Page 164 City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. F-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •July 10, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO Property Suggested Action If desired, take a position not opposing the inclusion of the BEECO property in the City's Sphere of Influence. Background On January 7, 1980, the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee requested that the City Council pursue the inclusion of the BEECO property in the Newport Beach "Sphere of Influence." •At the March 24, 1980 meeting, the City Council directed staff to request the Local Agency Formation Commission to review Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence as it might apply to the BEECO property. On March 25, 1980, the City Manager requested the Local Agency.Forma- tion Commission's early review of this matter. The Local Agency Formation Commission responded that a formal City Council Resolution would be required. A resolution was prepared for the City Council meeting of April 28, 1980; however, it was subsequently removed from the Consent Calendar and the City Council decided not to move ahead at that time pending further review of the oil question and follow- up on the oil leases. In the meantime the Local Agency Formation Commission, on its own motion, has initiated a review of the Spheres of Influence among the various cities within the County. The Newport Beach Sphere of Influ- ence is scheduled to be reviewed by LAFCO at 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 1980, at which time the Commission may or may not direct the LAFCO staff to study further changes in the Sphere of Influence. Inasmuch as a Sphere of Influence is only a not an annexation, and inasmuch as the BEECO •a County Island completely surrounded by the City Council may wish to go on record as not this area in the City's Sphere of Influence question and the follow-up on the oil leases Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the revi-ew of the oil continues. JDH/kk rector Attachment: Vicinity Map f,_4' \ F 1 10, Jf BEECO PROPERTY A � t -9 t C f F � C CRY w w ml MMI 1 OF NEWPORT BEACH July 16, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Subject: Newport Beach Sphere of Influence - BEECO Property, Gentlemen: On July 23, 1980 the Local Agency Formation Commission has scheduled a public hearing to review the Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach. This letter is to advise you that the Newport Beach City Council, at its meeting of July 14, 1980, took a position not to oppose the inclusion of the BEECO property in West New- port within the City's Sphere of Influence. You may recall that earlier this year the City had requested that the Local Agency Formation Commission review the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence as it applied to the BEECO property. A resolution was pre- pared for the City Council meeting of April 28, 1980; however, it was not adopted pending further investigation by staff regarding oil production and o•il leases i_n the area. The City.of Newport Beach recognizes that the Sphere of Influence is a tool for future planning and not an annexa- tion, and we would have no objection in including the BEECO property in the City's Sphere at this time. - Sincerely, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager RLW/kk City IIall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES rAi �P� July 28. 1980 INDEX (h) To staff for report back, a letter from Richard Minard of Aqua Wind International Ltd. asking for a special use permit for a rental concession at the end of 18th Street on the Bay. (Attached) 4. C0 ICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for i usion in the records: (a) A copy o letter from Ray E. Williams to EMA Advanced nning Functions regarding the redevelopment Newport Dunes and the environmental documen repared in conjunc- tion with the proposal. tached) (b) Letters from Al "King Alfonso" Liz etz enclosing orchid tree seeds and statin is feelings regarding the influence of Seagra Distilleries on the American lifestyle. (c) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Bus License (27) Agenda Local Agency (d) Copy of Preliminary of Formation Commission including the review f and update of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence. Attached M e Copy of a notice from Sout ern California Gas Company of its application before the Public Utilities, Commission for authoriza- tion to include certain purchase gas costs j in its approved PGA procedures. (Copy of J 90-page document on file in City Clerk's ` office) i (f) Notice from U.S. Environmental Protecf6n Agency regarding a public meeting with representatives of the U.S. Radiation Policy Council in San Francisco on July 31, 1980. (Attached) i (g) Agenda of Board of Supervisors meetings held July 15, 16, 17, 18�; 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1980. (h) A letter from Mr. and Mrs. David Fox object- ing to pyIadditional hotel rooms being allowed to develop within the City. (A�tached) r' (i),r"Copy of a report from the City Attorney to ' the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee, Quality of Life Subcommittee, l regarding Nuisance Ordinances, Extra Police Support During Summer, and Use Permit " Requirements for residential rental units. (Attached) 1 r , Volume 34 - Page 183 Ov I 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CA21K July 28 1980 S. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: Claims (36) For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier: (a) Claim of Mohammed Ali Roushan for allegedly Roushan illegal entry and violation of rights by the City Police Department at his home at 534 San Bernardino Avenue on April 6, 1980. (b) Claim of Larry Scott Davis for personal Davis injuries allegedly sustained when a Lifeguard jeep ran over his face while was sleeping on the beach at 5200 ashore Drive on June 14, 1980. aim of Janice Parker for damage to her Parker r allegedly caused when a City stop gn at Agate and Park on Balboa Island ll over and bit the top of her car on ne 25, 1980. on to City Clerk to serve Notice of ciency of Claim: V \SUMMONS ice of Inof Claim to be Soderling eased to Ronald E. Soderling, 500 a ido Nord, Newport Beach, CA 92663, gar ing claim filed with the City erk ly 11, 1980. AND C LAINTS: firmation of the City Clerk's referral to the insurance trier: (a) Summons and Cc laint of Cindy Susan Thompson Thompson for Fal a Imprisonment, Violation of Civil Rights, vasion of Privacy, Infliction of Ment Distress, and Negligent Inflictio of Emotional Distress, Case No. 337408 in th Orange County Superior Court. (b) Summons and Complaint of ghan Gallagher, Gallagher a Minor and Dorothy Lucce i., her Guardian ad Litem for damages, Case Vo. 337908 in Orange County Superior Court Original claim was for injuries sustai ed ghen claimant was involved in an au mobile accident at Ford Road and Newpo � Hills Drive East. (c) Summons and Complaint of James Keith Cummins Cummins for assault and battery, and, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Case No. 336054 in Orange County Superior Court. Volume 34 - Page 184 , PRELIMINARY AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JULY 23, 1980 • EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 9, 1980 A. CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS 2:00 P.M. ITEMS Al-A3 ARE SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS OF LESS THAN 50 ACRES AND ALL THE LANDOWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ANNEXATION PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 40 - WISMER ANNEXATION Approximately 0.636 acre located in the vicinity of the intersection of Mohler Drive and Willdan Road in the east city limits of Anaheim. Filed by resolution of the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District No. 2. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT TRASK AVENUE NO. 5 ANNEXATION Approximately 6.458 acres consisting of two parcels located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Trask Avenue in the north city limits of Westminster. Filed by petition signed by the landowner, Pacific Theatres Corporation. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was cate- gorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT MAGNOLIA ANNEXATION NO. 10 Approximately 0.984 acre (Site Plan SP-695) located in the southwesterly corner of Hazard Avenue and Magnolia Street in the city limits of Westminster. Filed isby petition of the landowner, California Medical Group Health Plan, Inc. (The City of Westminster prepared Negative Declaration No. 79-66 for SP-695 on November 6, 1979.) `1k 9 a�an OP1980. �' G1f'&.j1144: PAGE 2 AGENDA - JULY 23, 1980 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION B. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: . 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 28 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 7 Approximately 253+ acres (Tentative Tract 10967-78) located south and west of Nohl Ranch Road and south of Anaheim Hills Road in the Anaheim Hills area of east Anaheim. Filed by petition signed by the landowner, Texaco -Anaheim Hills, Inc. (The City of Anaheim certified FEIR-214 for Tentative Tracts 10967-78 on February 11) 1980.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ORANGE PARK VILLAS ANNEXATION Approximately 20.543 acres located westerly of Prospect Avenue, 650+ feet northerly of Chapman Avenue in the east Orange area. Filed by petition of the majority landowner, Orange Park Ventures. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON Lampson Annextion No. 80 (Continued from meeting of January 23, 1980) Approximately 34.255 acres located east and west of Beach Boulevard, north and south of Lampson Avenue in the south Stanton area. Filed by resolution of the Stanton City Council. (The City of Stanton prepared a negative declaration for the proposed annexation on January 2, 1979.) 4. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The study area is bounded by the Santa Ana River on the northwest, the city limits of Costa Mesa and Orange County Airport on the north, Muddy Canyon on . the southeast and the Pacific Ocean on the south. Scheduled by action of the LAFC on June 25, 1980. (The Executive Officer determined the periodic review was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) PAGE 3 AGENDA - JULY 23, 1980 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •SCHEDULED REVIEW OF THE ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA (SUGGESTED HEARING DATE - AUGUST 27, 1980) OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS • • , . G t� MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA July 23,. 1980. gun SSION AUG151��Q'�` CITt OF NEWPURi BUM CALIF. _4/// The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orang: California was held on July 23, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Commissi present were Robert E. Dwyer, Chairman, Edison W. Miller, Donald J. Saltarelli, Philip L. Anthony and James T. Jarrell. Alternate Members: Harriett M. Wieder, Joan K. Riddle and Phillip R. Schwartze. Absent: None. In attendance: Victor Bellerue, Deputy County Counsel, Kenneth : tergood, , Administrative Assistant and the Secretary. s�> Commissioner Saltarelli led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Administrati•ve•Assistant gave the Innyocation. IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 9, 1980. .Onomotion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and',car Commission approved, as submitted, the minutes of its meeting of July`; 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, DONALD J. SALTARELLI_, PHILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER. - IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 40 - WISMER ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposel annexation was categorically exempt from CEQA and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 40 - Wismer Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, PHILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER. Resolution No. 80-60 - See File. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT TRASK AVENUE NO. 5 ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposed annexation -was categorically exempt from. CEQA and approved, as recommended, the proposed Trask Avenue No. 5 Annexation to the Midway City Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD'•J, SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, Date PHILIP • L. ANTHONY 'AND ROBERT-E. DWYER.- COPIES SENT TO: Q Mayor NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE, Rx Manager ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 'EDISON W. MILLER. !�] Attorney P W tHreetor Resolution No. 80-61 '- See File. �combo Director other IN RE:: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO•MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT o amen MAGNOLIA ANNEXATION NO. '10 On motion of Commissioner'Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the Commission certified the review and consideration of city of Westminster negative declaration No. 79-66 for SP-695 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Magnolia Annexation No.. 10 to the Midway City Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, :r+^-D.: ri. PHILIP'L. ANTHONY, AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE_- ,,H yy ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER:•::=' . :: `_"'k - Resolution No. 80-62 = See File.. .- 'Y `a.Y SJ,Y..i�i��tie j•:' �}•�i.+. .�E��+._ r 0 e ... y� �—i•.- •1:�:— if"a.f.y:,:... • d R '�P - +l(,i. pr , '`... '�++ �, '.�-- -..nw(;,t -Y +f y: 'A•,ma. '• ' .4, ^w�til f•♦�"': i,t t:eu.p i. ,.:.4 •�•%, w ( .: ^Jn ] a_Y' '„t'!P^/Y�. ^^.�±� repr_'�'!T+.G at '. v ..e r. _ d .... • . V ✓ .,. .. . ... �a _ f: "ae.wgq.. Y r '.I July 23'," 1980 COMMISSIONER.MILLER ARRIVED AND ASSUMED HIS -DUTIES. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 28 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 7 Mr. Scattergood presented the staff's report and located the site. Mr. Scattergood answered Commissioner Miller's question that the proposed annexation would not affect the county's negotiations with Anaheim Hills over dedication of open space easements. Seeing no one to speak to the proposed annexation, Chairman Dwyer closed the pulic hearing. ' On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly'seconded and unanimously carried; the Commission certified the review and consideration of city of AnaHeiin final,ElR-214 for Tentative Tracts 10967-78 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation'No: 7 to County Sanitation District No. 7. 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, EDISON W. MILLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-63 - See File. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ORANGE PARK VILLAS ANNEXATION Mr. Scattergood presented the staff's report and located the site, Mr. Scattergood advised the property owner was discussing the possibility of converting the existing apartment units to condominiums with the city of Orange, but Orange had not made any commitments to that effect. Commissioner Miller interjected he had been concerned about the proposed condominium conversion, but after discussion with the city he was sure that Orange had stringent standards for condominium conversions. - Robert Sundstrom, representing the sole landowner, Orange Park Ventures, concurred with the staff's report and recommendation. Mr. Sundstrom offered to answer any questions. There being no further testimony, Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from CEQA and approved, as recommended, the proposed Orange Park Villas Anenxation to the.city of Orange. 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. 80-64 - See File. IN RE:- .'PROPOSED ANNEXATION.TO THE CITY_OF STANTON 1. LAMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 80 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING, OF JANUARY 23,1980) COMMISSIONER WIEDER ARRIVED AND ASSUMED HER DUTIES. Mr. Scattergood advised the city of Stanton on behalf of Mr. Walter Schmid, one of the major landowners, who was unable to attend the meeting had requested a 30 days continuance. If the Commission approved the city's request, staff suggested the Commission continue the hearing until August 27, 1980. • There being no testimony offered, Chairman Dwyer called for the Commission's wishes. On motion ofCommissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed Lampson Ahenxation No. 80 to the city of Stanton until its -regularly scheduled meeting of August 27, 1980.:� -' y' ..7t — Y-fit: tti a• J- i_' ..U;• � .',, }Y, 31 4v•rt _. - ' 't ;°: . . - I_~f f.'4 4 "°" t,".' t;i, r... .. ...'7r. t'L.tr:: niv': •<;:.. .'L�..� ..:" +_<:->, r. ... ... . rrs4, - r'. y• K July 23, 1980 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: I IN RE COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, PHILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER. COMMISSIONERS NONE. COMMISSIONERS NONE. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Mr. Scattergood described the existing sphere of influence and summarized the history of its determination. Mr. Scattergood advised the city of Newport Beach and the surrounding cities were satisfied with -the established sphere of influence. The Irvine Company supported the reaffirmation of the sphere of influence. Beeco, Ltd. still preferred not to be included in the Newport Beach sphere: . . • . Mr. Scattergood responded to Commissioner Anthony's question that staff supported the reaffirmation of the established sphere of influence for Newport Beach because the circumstances and landowner positions had not changed since the Commission's earlier decisions. 'Commissioner Anthony criticized staff for not providing alternative - recommendations for the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Jim Hewicker, Planning Director for the city of Newport Beach, concurred with the staff's report and recommendation. Mr. Hewicker advised there were representatives from Beeco in attendance that would explain their position for not wanting to be within a city's sphere of influence. Mr. Hewicker answered that the strip of land surrounding the Beeco property was owned by the Beeco Company. Mr. Hewicker stated the crux of the problem was a restriction in the city charter which prohibits oil production. Mr. Hewicker stated an amendment to the charter would require an election. Mr. Hewicker concluded the city would not object to the Beeco property being within its sphere of influence. Mr. Hewicker answered Commisioner Saltarelli's question that the city's zoning ordinance permitted pre-existing uses, but he could not state whether the charter allowed such uses, especially as it•relates to oil production. Chairman Dwyer asked why the Bay Knolls area was never annexed. Mr. Hewicker explained an annexation was -initiated bythe residents, however, the city expected them to participate in solving a drainage problem within the area. The residents subsequently lost interest in annexing. No recent annexations have been considered. Mr. Hewicker responded to Chairman Dwyer's question on extending water and sewer to the Irvine Coastal area that trunk sewers would be provided by County Sanitation District No. 5, local sewers would be provided by the city of Newport Beach. Future service depends on the ultimate land uses selected for the down coast area. John Haskell, Vice -President of Beeco, Ltd., stated they preferred to remain outside any city's sphere of influence. Mr. Haskell answered Commissioner Saltarelli's question that the previous property owner had consented to the strip annexation which surrounds their property. Mr. Saltarelli surmized that this approval limited their future options. Mr. Saltarelli supported including the unincorporated Beeco property within'the Newport Beach sphere since it could not annex to any other city or incorporate as a new city. , Mr. Haskell argued that they were concerned about'their existing oil - activity. Mr. Saltarelli rebutted that a sphere did not have the same effect as annexation, but was rather a plan. Mr. Saltarelli commented that -the Bay Knolls residents were adamant in 1974 about being in Newport Beach to enhance their property values. He opposed transferring the area to Newport Beach from Costa Mesa. However, when the annexation was proposed, he supported it because the residents assured the Commission they were sincere about annexation. However, they apparently were not prepared to pay for the necessary improvements. Mr. Saltarelli suggested offering the residents a certain period of time to annex, or maybe the Commission should consider putting Bay Knolls back in the city of Costa Mesa sphere of influence. Deputy County Counsel Victor Bellerue cautioned the Commission about taking any action to amend the spheres without further CEQA review. A. I . Y July*23, 1980 Mr. Scattergood suggested the Commission continue the public hearing on the review of and possible amendment to the Newport Beach sphere of influence until August 27, 1980 and concurrently direct staff to schedule a public hearing for a review and possible amendment to the Costa Mesa sphere of influence for the same August 27 hearing. On motion of Commissioner Anthony, -duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing onihe review and update of the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence and scheduled a review and update of the city of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence on August 27, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, DONALD,J. SALTARELLI3 EDISON W. MILLER, JAMES T. JARRELL AND ROBERT Et DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. IN RE: PROGRESS OF AB 8 NEGOTIATIONS Commissioner Anthony advised the committes were very near agreement: However, there were still a couple of points which were yet to be resolved. Mr. Anthony advised the•negotiations may be complicated by the passage of SB 180 which specified that special districts would be parties in the negotiations under certain circumstances. The Commission took no formal action. There being no futher business the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. ATTEST:- .2 .Se etary O'A"W KEN SCATTERGOOD. Local Agency Formation Commission herrie Vander :Dusssen City of Newport ;each Planning Department 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 In Re: Sphere of Influence Dear Sherrie: Attached are our latest exbibit maps illustrating the Newport Beach sphere of influence. I trust this satisfies your request. If you have any question, please give me a call at 834-6793. RFCFINJF.D ;oA SEP 30 1981" L?) v ' N€VIPOR GAwt 1 2 3 4 M 5 6 8 9 L' 4 .y 10 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION -OF ORANGE COUNTY,, CALIFORNIA August 27,1980 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly'seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 54774 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission'to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental' agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Loc41 Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of influence for the City, of Newport Beach by Resolution No, 73-145, adopted September 120 1,973; and WHEREAS, Section 54774 of the California -Government Code requires the Local Agency Formation Commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by it; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did amend the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach, by Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 141 1974, to include the area generally known .as the "Bay Knolls tracts"; and WHEREAS, the "Bay Knolls" area has not annexed to the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission by minute order dated June 250 1980 scheduled a public hearing;to review and update the City of Newport,Beach'i sphere of influence on duly 23% 1980; and WHEREAS, this Commission did c6n0nue.the public; hearing on such sphere of influence review unti'1 August 27, 198`0;'and WHEREAS, on August 27, 1'980;-this 4oc'a1 Agency Formation Commission reviewed and considered the negative declaration prepared by the Executive Officer for such "sphere of influence review; and Resolution No. 80-73 r • e • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, this Commission did review a map of such sphere of influence and did receive a report prepared by,staff and did also consider points of view expressed by the City of Newport Beach and other parties that expressed an interest in said matter. NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, this Local Agency Formation Commission adopts the prepared negative declaration; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission revises the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence to exclude the "Bay Knolls" area generally located westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Isabel and 22nd Streets as shown on the attached map and by thi's reference made a part hereof. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, EDISON W. MILLER AND JAMES T. JARRELL NOES: COMMISSIONERSROBERT E. DWYER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer'of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the'27th day of August, 1980. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of August, 1980. Resolution No. 80-73 I RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the ilocal Agency Formation Commission 'a .of 0ran County, California // / � R� T �• 1 'N t. ,17111i w� (.VIIf M _' � � � :�� '� g^,r •. R�r' x N"'"�-.,��,� MINE �� o s` SIR e r • �zxn. cj c ��. \AI ill ..z NEW r • . - SPHEREOF BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES • ••. • ..10/15/77 ADOPTED partial) SHEETS AMEN• • \© •.• REVISED 0 V I i r LAGUNA ..... . . . . . . . . . .... 81EAC Hir R. ......... . ..... ffl... NEWPORT 11�CHf PAQ-Rr_COAST W;Q- 05-ju - ---------------- Uli NET 0017IF Q Ilk, ",Fla 7 NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O,.I. fmwmmmmwm� ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 75 (1 St. partial) NEW MAP 10/15/77 ADOPTED 11 / 28 / 73 (?-nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / [4 / 74 ( TUSTIN AV.) AMENDED 9 / 8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) scale 1:3,000 19 • • AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILLIP R. 5—CHHN1tRT-b JD ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS ROGER R. STANTON. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BRUCE NESTANDE AND JAMES T. JARRELL. IN RE: RESOLUTION FROM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REAFFIRMING _C_ITY'S APPROVED , Pf SPHERE OF INFLUE CE g CUK TAL--ME9-` `�"' On motion of Commissioner Dwyer, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received and filed the Executive Officer's memorandum on the city of Newport Beach's resolution reaffirming the city's sphere of influence in the Irvine Coastal area. AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYEk, PHILLIP R. SCHWAARTZE AND ROGER R. STANTON. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BRUCE NESTANDE AND JAMES T. JARRELL. IN RE: LETTER FROM SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PROPERTY OWNER EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ANNEXATION TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH On motion of Commissioner Dwyer, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received and filed the Executive Officer's memorandum on the letter submitted by certain property owners within the Santa Ana Heights area opposing annexation to the city of Newport Beach. AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYER, PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE AND ROGER R. STANTON NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT:- COMMISSIONERS BRUCE NESTANDE AND JAMES T. JARRELL. IN RE: MEETING DATES Executive Officer Turner reminded the ission that its next meeting would be Thursday, November 12, 1981, ins d of Wednesday, November 11 because of the county holiday. Mr. Turner aske he Commission if they wanted to go "dark" on the second meeting in Decembe because of the Christmas holidays. On motion of Commissioner D�}}vv er, duly seconded and carried, the Commission decided to go "dark" the seyofid meeting in December and directed the Executive Officer not to schedule a�rmyitems for.December 23, 1981. AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBE $1' E. DWYER, ROGER R. STANTON AND PHTCLIP R. SCHWARTZE. NOES: COMMISSIONEgS"NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIA RS BRUCE NESTANDE AND JAMES T. JARRELL. There being nodfurther business the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. ATTEST: EXCERPT— MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY - October 28, 1981 118. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 18, 1983 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN 81-1 Bill Banning called this date concerning further processing of 81-1. He seems to recall that members of your staff have told him that the Coastal Commission will not process the proposed development until the area is annexed to the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of this memo is to determine from you what the next steps would be on the proposed Beeco development. ROBERT L. CTYNN Y' J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 18, 1983 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN 81-1 Bill Banning called this date concerning further processing of 81-1. He seems to recall that members of your staff have told him that the Coastal Commission will not process the proposed development until the area is annexed to the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of this memo is to determine from you what the next steps would be on the proposed Beeco development. Vt/ ROBERT L. YNN CVCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH%OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 18, 1983 TO: BOB BURNHAM, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: BEECO ANNEXATION Bill Banning telephoned this date concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 25 acres of the Beeco property involved in the General Plan amendment last year. On these 25 acres there are approximately 10 operating wells. He requested a City opinion as to whether these _ operating wells would be grandfathered and permitted to operate, redrill, etc., if the property is annexed to the City. It is my understanding that the Charter would, in effect, grandfather this operation in, but he needs an opinion from the legal department rather than my office. Could you check the Charter and give me your opinion. ROBERT WYNN CC: Jim Hewicker Pon jt • • J. COUNCIL AGENDP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ITEM NO. F2(pl OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 27, 1983 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ON BEECO PROPERTY ATTACHMENTS (A) Resolution (B) LAFCO staff report SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to amend the City's existing Sphere of Influence (S01) to include the land in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary and known as the BEECO property. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of June 8, 1983, LAFCO conducted a required review of the City's SO[. Attached is the LAFCO staff report which provides history and background on this issue. The BEECO property was the main topic of discussion during the June 8 meeting but on the motion of Commissioner Dwyer, LAFCO scheduled a public hearing on July 27, 1983, to consider not only the BEECO property but the City's entire SOI. The BEECO property was last considered for inclusion in the City's SOI in July, 1980, and the City Council took a position not to oppose such action by LAFCO. LAFCO, however, did not approve the action. PLANNING ISSUES: The BEECO property is a part of the City's planning area and is addressed in the General Plan. Additionally, General Plan Amendment 81-1 addressed approximately 20 acres of this area. The City's Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee in 1979 requested the City Council to have this area included in the City's SOI. Because the Mayor and City Council June 27, 1983 Page 2 • area is completely surrounded by the City's boundaries, State law prohibits its annexation to any other city. All, other areas currently within the City's S01 are within the City's planning area and are recommended for retention. The attached resolution reaffirms that position in response to LAFCO's review of the City's entire S01. RLW:KJD/m Attachments • • L. WYNN [ . I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY TO AMEND THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO INCLUDE THE BEECO PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission designates certain unincorporated areas of Orange County as the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS, the purpose of a Sphere of Influence is to plan for the ultimate physical boundaries and service area of local government agencies, and WHEREAS, the land area known as the BEECO property and shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto Is completely surrounded by the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach and, therefore, In accordance with State law can only be annexed to the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS, all areas currently within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach are consistent with the purpose of a Sphere of Influence, and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission will hold a public hearing • on July 27, 1983, to consider amendments to the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach requests the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County to amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach to include that area known as the BEECO property shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and requests the Local Agency Formation Commission to amend no other portion of the City's Sphere of influence. • ATTEST: C ty Clerk KJD/m 6/27183 3 ADOPTED'' "' 1983 Mayor, City of Newport Beach r CHAIRMAN HARRIETT M. WIEDER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT VICE-CHAIRMAN DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN UNTV OF LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION June 8, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission County Hall of Admtnfs-trati.on Santa Ana, California 92701 Ladies and Gentlemen: ORANGE COUNTY Z '/ HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834.2239 ROGER R. STANTON SUPERVISOR RE Review of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence FIRST DISTRICT ROBERT E.N DWYER California Government Code Section 54774 states in pertinent ATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC part ".... the commission shall eriodically review and update the adopted sphere (of influence ." Your Commission has JAMES T. JARRELL COUNCILMAN established an administrative policy to review city spheres of CITY OFBUENA PARK influence once every three years unless circumstances warrant an ALTERNATE earlier review. In accordance with your direction of June 23, PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE 1982, we are continuing with the periodic review of each city's COUNCILMAN CIIOSAN JUAN CAPISTRANO sphere of influence. This report addresses the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach. A ATE JO RIDDLE REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ,LOCATION ALTERNATE The boundaries of the Newport Beach sphere of influence are BRUCE NESTANDE generally described as the centerline of the Santa Ana River on SUPERVISOR the west, the city limits of Costa Mesa and Irvine on the north, THIRD DISTRICT the ridgeline of the San Joaquin Hills and Muddy Canyon on the RICHARDT.TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER east and the Pacific Ocean on the south (see attached location maps Exhibit A and Exhibit B). �. 'HISTORY \ By Resolution No. 73-145, passed September 12, 1973, L F CO determined a partial sphere of influence for the city o Newport Beach. The unincorporated territory designated within the sphere of influence were the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel, described as Area 1 on the attached Exhibit A, th.e "County Triangle" (Area 3) and the Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) also identified on Exhibit A.• • In November, 1973, LAFCO considered designating the Beeco (AKA Banning) property (Area 2) within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. The city argued that the Beeco property was completely surrounded by the city limits as a result of an annexation completed in 1950 and as such should be within the Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The property owner, Beeco, Ltd., opposed inclusion in any sphere of influence because the property was in use for oil production which was not a permitted use in Newport Beach. By a majority vote, LAFCO rejected the inclusion of the Beeco property within the Newport Beach sphere. 2 I June 8, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Reviewof City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page ,2 oi'te�request offcertain residents within the Bay Knolls' tracts '(Area 4, exhibit A), LAFCQ reviewed the established sphere of influence for the cities of e*06rt Beach and Costa Mesa along the Irvine/Tustin Avenues corridor. Earlier, the Cbm Usion had included Bay Knolls within the sphere of influence for the city ;of Costa Mesa. the residents preferred to be within Newport Beach's sphere of influence -'and stated they would annex to Newport Beach if their area was placed in Newport Beach's sphere. By Resolution No. 74-100, passed August 14; 1974, LAFCO, by a majority vote, amended the respective spheres of influence of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to designate the Bay Knolls' tracts within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. In September, 1976, LAFCO conducted a public hearing on the inclusion of the Irvine Coastal area (Area 6, Exhibit B. between the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach within a city's sphere of influence. The Commission rejected the city of Irvine's bid to include any of the area within its sphere of influence. The Commission determined the area westerly of Muddy Canyon was within the Newport Beach sphere of influence south of the ridgeline of the San Joaquin Hills.. The territory easterly of Muddy Canyon was placed in Laguna Beach-'s sphere. The •Laguna Beach sphere was reviewed in May, 1981 and revised to delete the Irvine Coastal area east of Muddy Canyon. LAFCO reviewed the spheres of influence of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa i.n August, 1980. At that time staff reminded LAFCO that it had revised the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa spheres of influence in 1974 at the request of certain residents within the Bay Knolls tracts because these residents had indicated an interest in annexing to Newport Beach.. However, following LAFCO's action to amend the spheres of influence and to approve a subsequent annexation to Newport Beach the residents did not complete the annexation because the city required, as a condition of annexation, the area participate in a municipal assessment district to improve the area's drainage, which the residents refused to do. Staff supported transferring the Bay Knolls tracts back to Costa Mesa. By Resolution No. 80-73,dated August 27, 1980, LAFCO revised the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence along the alignment of Tustin and Irvine Avenues south of John Wayne Airport to exclude the "Bay Knolls" (Area 4) generally located westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Ana and 22nd Streets. ANALYSIS The city of Newport Beach is located within the urbanized central portion of •Orange County. The city of Huntington Beach is located westerly of Newport Beach across the Santa Ana River channel. The cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine border Newport Beach on the north. The Pacific Ocean is on the south. Separating the city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is the undeveloped Irvine Coastal area. The expansion of Newport Beach is limited to certain county islands on the north and west and the Irvine Coastal area on the east. By Resolution No. 80-33, LAFCO approved the annexation of the county "Triangle" (Area No. 3) to the city of Newport Beach. Annexation proceedings had been initiated by the city pursuant to the special "island" annexation procedure within the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). Annexation proceedings were completed in November, 1980. June 8, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review of City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. Page 3 • Certain residents and landowners within Santa Ana Heights (Area No. 5) have expressed interest in annexing to Newport Beach and are discussing the future zoning of the area if annexation were to occur with the city. Newport Beach is also discussing the exchange of property tax revenues that would occur if annexation occurred with the County of Orange in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 (b). Annexation of Santa Ana Heights is complicated by the presence and operation of John Wayne Airport immediately north of the area. At issue is the expansion of the airport particularly in regards to noise and traffic. Because of the unique nature of the airport and its ownership by the County of Orange, LAFCO has not considered the inclusion of the airport in any city's sphere of influence. The airport is contiguous, to three cities: Costa Mesa, Irvine and Newport Beach. Area 6 (the Irvine Coast) has been the subject of much planning study in recent years. Until the ultimate land use decisions are made, annexation of the Irvine Coast is not expected. Area 2 (Beeco) is currently used for oil production. Several land use proposals have been considered by Newport Beach, but the ultimate land use had not been decided. It is expected the ultimate development •will be a mixture of land uses including residential and commercial. Although surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach, the Beeco property has been excluded from the Newport Beach sphere of influence because of the landowner's wishes. Staff has solicited comments from the city of Newport Beach and the surrounding cities on the review of the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Newport Beach, in the past, has indicated it would like LAFCO to consider including the Beeco property (Area 2) within the city's sphere of influence. Otherwise the city is satisfied with its adopted sphere of influence. The adjacent cities have not responded and it is assumed they have no objection to the reaffirmation of the Newport Beach sphere of influence. In previous staff reports on the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence it has been staff's recommendation to include the Beeco property within the city's sphere of influence. The property is a county island completely surrounded by the Newport Beach city limits. The territory then could not annex to any other city. The reason the area was excluded from Newport Beach's sphere, in the past, was because of the landowner's preference. However, the landowner has requested a general plan amendment, zoning and tentative development approval from,the city of Newport Beach, which suggests ultimately the landowner plans to annex the •property to Newport Beach. By definition "spheres of influence" means a plan for the probable ultimate boundaries of a local agency. It would seem appropriate then to consider including the Beeco property within Newport Beach's sphere in accordance with the Legislature''s intent for adopting spheres of influence. If your Commission believes the Newport Beach proposal to amend its sphere of influence over the Beeco property is worth consideration, then a public hearing would need to be held prior to making such an amendment. Your existing policy for amending city spheres of influence requires at least a 30 days notice to the affected city and at least 15 days public notice of the public hearing. Further, any amendment to a sphere would be a project and subject to an environmental 2 • June 8, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review of City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 4 assessment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Receive the submitted staff report. 2. Consider the city of Newport Beach's proposal to amend its sphere of influence to include the Beeco property. 3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider adding the Beeco property to the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence for the meeting of July 27, 1983 and provide the appropriate public notice. KespectTUIly suDmlzzea, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer • RTT:KWS:bd Attach ents xc7 Kenneth Delino, City of Newport Beach • 7 • • LAMM NEWPORT SPHERE "OF INFLUENCE BEACH EkISTING _ CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S . 0 . I . �-------w ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 ( I St. partial) NEW MAP 10 / 13 / 77 ADOPTED 11 / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / 14 / 74 (TUSTIN AV.) 15 AMENDED 9 /'8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) scale P3,000 Mo • E 0 O 1 f f }gram NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O.I. ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 (1st. partial) NEW MAP 10/ 13/77 ADOPTED II / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / I4 / 74 (TUSTIA AV.) EE p' AMENDED 9/8/ 76 (COASTAL AREA) scale 1:3,000 u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL. MEMBERS MINUTES 9� n0 c141ROLL CAL AGs� June 27, 1983 INDEX Resolution No. 83-70 establishing the alaries of Management and Other Key E oyees for the 1983-84 Fiscal Year and nding the Classification and Compenson Plan to reflect said changes. (Report fro ity Manager) (h) Resolution No. 83- establishing the Salaries of Temporary d Seasonal Classes for the 1983-84 Fiscal Ye and Amending the Classification and Compe ation Plan to reflect said changes and res ding Resolution No. 82-100. (Report fro Personnel) Res 83-70 Salaries Mgmt/Key Emp (66) Res 83-71 Salaries Temp/Seasonl (66) (i) Resolution No. 83-72 requesting the Res 83-72 Local Agency Formation Commission to LAFCO Amend_the,SSpjhere_of Influence_of_the Sphere of City_of Newport Beach to Include the Influence Beeco Property. (Report from City Beeco Prop Manager) (21) (j) Resolution No. 83-73 affirming that the /� Res 83-73 City's Circulation Element, Master Plan/ Circ Element of Streets and Highways, is in con- Mstr Plan formance with the County's Master Pl n Sts & Hwys of Arterial Highways. (Report from (74) Public Works) (k) Resolution No. 83-74 adXblicimprovements Res 83-74 Budget for 1983-84 fisc 83-84 Bdgt (25) 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (a) Authorize the Mayor andrk to U/P 3039 execute a USE PERMIT AGuarantee- (88) ing completion of the required with Use Per t No. 3039, SOUTH- WEST LEASING AND REN AL, INC., property located at 1220 and 1230 West Coast Highway. (Report rom Public Works) (b) Authorize the or and City Clerk to U/P 1994 execute a TRAF IC SIGNAL AGREEMENT Trfk Signal guaranteeing ompletion of Traffic Agmt Signal Impr ements requited with USE (88) PERMIT NO./1994, HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, property ocated at 500 Superior Avenue. (Report rom Public Works) (c) Autho ize the Mayor and City Clerk to St & Alley exec to an agreement with TED R. JENKINS Slurry Prog fo AWARD OF CONTRACT (No. 2354) for C-2354 ST ET AND ALLEY SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM, (38) }4982-83, in the amount of $82,300. / (Report from Public Works) (d) Approve Change Order No 1 to Contract San Miguel No. 2358 in the amount of $48,998.81 for Park Const construction of four handball courts; Change #1 six bleachers; brick angel dust at base- C-2358 ball diamond; upgrading of play equipment; (38) construction of additional sidewalk; plus miscellaneous changes. (Report from Public Works) Volume 37 - Page 208 RESOLUTION NO. 83 - 7 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY TO AMEND THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO INCLUDE THE BEECO PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission designates certain unincorporated areas of Orange County as the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS, the purpose of a Sphere of Influence is to plan for the ultimate physical boundaries and service area of local government agencies, and WHEREAS, the land area known as the BEECO property and shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto is completely surrounded by the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach and, therefore, in accordance with State law can'only be annexed to the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS, all areas currently within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach are consistent with the purpose of a Sphere of Influence, and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission will hold a public hearing on July 27, 1983, to consider amendments to the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach requests the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County to amend the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach to include that area known as the BEECO property shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and requests the Local Agency Formation Commission to'amend no other portion of the City's Sphere of Influence. ADOPTED JUN 2 7 1983 �P�LrtJ ARy-t Mayor, City of Newport Beach ATTEST: l .) NCB) A A xd p'r-) C City Clerk KJD/m 6/27/83 F. � COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ITEM NO. F2(p) OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 27, 1983 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager . ............. ...... ..1,"..-,...... SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ON BEECO PROPERTY ATTACHMENTS (A) Resolution (B) LAFCO staff report BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OUN 2 71983 SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to amend the City's existing Sphere of Influence (S01) to include the land in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary and known as the BEECO property. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of June 8, 1983, LAFCO conducted a required review of the City's S01. Attached is the LAFCO staff report which provides history and background on this issue. The BEECO property was the main topic of discussion during the June 8 meeting but on the motion of Commissioner Dwyer, LAFCO scheduled a public hearing on July 27, 1983, to consider not only the BEECO property but the City's entire S01. The BEECO property was last considered for inclusion in the City's S01 in July, 1980, and the City Council took a position not to oppose such action by LAFCO. LAFCO, however, did not approve the action. PLANNING ISSUES: The BEECO property is a part of the City's planning area and is addressed in the General Plan. Additionally, General Plan Amendment 81-1 addressed approximately 20 acres of this area. The City's Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee in 1979 requested the City Council to have this area included in the City's S01. Because the Mayor and City Council June 27, 1983 Page 2 area is completely surrounded by the City's boundaries, State law prohibits its annexation to any other city. All other areas currently within the City's S01 are within the City's planning area and are recommended for retention. The attached resolution reaffirms that position in response to LAFCO's review of the City's entire S01. 1 " 6VV-V� ROBERT L. WYNN RLW:KJD/m Attachments \• UNTY OF EVIA :HAI RMAN HARRIETT M. WIEDER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT 1ICE•CHAIRMAN DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN , CITY OF TUSTIN ROGER R. STANTON SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVEOF GENERAL PUBLIC JAMES T. JARRELL COUNCILMAN CITY OF BUENA PARK ALTERNATE PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE COUNCILMAN CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ALTERNATE JOAN K. RIDDLE REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE BRUCE NESTANOE SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 30 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE:(714) 834.2239 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION �(/N June 8, 1983 E 6)9 3 Local Agency Formation Commission ,L arpsr d County Hall of Administration Santa Ana, California 92701 N Ladies and Gentlemen: RE Review of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence California Government Code Section 54774 states in pertinent part ".... the commission shall periodically review and update the adopted sphere (of influence)." Your Commission has established an administrative policy to review city spheres of influence once every three years unless circumstances warrant an earlier review. In accordance with your direction of June 23, 1982, we are continuing with the periodic review of each city's sphere of influence. This report addresses the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach. LOCATION The boundaries of the Newport Beach sphere of influence are generally described as the centerline of the Santa Ana River on the west, the city limits of Costa Mesa and Irvine on the north, the ridgeline of the.San Joaquin Hills and Muddy Canyon on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the south (see attached location maps Exhibit A and Exhibit B). �. . HISTORY By Resolution No. 73-145, passed September 12, 1973, LAFCO determined a partial sphere of influence for the city of,,Newport Beach. The unincorporated territory designated within the sphere of influence were the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel, described as Area 1 on the attached Exhibit A, the "County Triangle" (Area 3) and the Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) also identified on Exhibit A. In November, 1973, LAFCO considered designating the Beeco (AKA Banning) property (Area 2) within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. The city argued that the Beeco property was completely surrounded by the city limits as a result of an annexation completed in 1950 and as such should be within the Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The property owner, Beeco, Ltd., opposed inclusion in any sphere of influence because the property was in use for oil production which was not a permitted use in Newport Beach. By a majority vote, LAFCO rejected the inclusion of the Beeco property within the Newport Beach sphere. June 8, 1983 Local Agency Re Reviewof Page 2 Formation Commission City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence request of.certain residents within the Bay Knolls' tracts '(Area 4, Exhibit A), LAFCQ reviewed the established sphere of influence for the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa along the Irvine/Tustin Avenues corridor. Earlier, the Commission had included Bay Knolls within the sphere of influence for the city :of Costa Mesa. The residents preferred to be within Newport Beach's sphere of influence and stated they would annex to Newport Beach if their area was placed in Newport Beach's sphere. By Resolution No. 74-100, passed August 14, 1974, LAFCO, by a majority vote, amended the respective spheres of influence of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to designate the Bay Knolls' tracts within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. In September, 1976, LAFCO conducted a ublic hearing on the inclusion of the Irvine Coastal area (Area 6, Exhibit B� between the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach within a city's sphere of influence. The Commission rejected the city of Irvine's bid to include any of the area within its sphere of influence. The Commission determined the area westerly of Muddy Canyon was within the Newport Beach sphere of influence south of the ri'dgeline of the San Joaquin Hills. The territory easterly of Muddy Canyon was placed in Laguna Beach's sphere. The Laguna Beach sphere was reviewed in May, 1981 and revised to delete the Irvine Coastal area east of Muddy Canyon. LAFCO reviewed the spheres of influence of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in August, 1980. At that time staff reminded LAFCO that it had revised the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa spheres of influence in 1974 at the request of -certain residents within the Bay Knolls tracts because these residents had indicated an interest in annexing to Newport Beach.. However, following LAFCO's action to amend the spheres of influence and to approve a subsequent annexation to Newport Beach the residents did not complete the annexation because the city required, as a condition of annexation, the area participate in a municipal assessment district to improve the area's drainage, which the residents refused to do. Staff supported transferring the Bay Knolls tracts back to Costa Mesa. By Resolution No. 80-73,dated August 27, 1980, LAFCO revised the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence along the alignment of Tustin and Irvine Avenues south of John Wayne Airport to exclude the "Bay Knolls" (Area 4) generally located westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Ana and 22nd Streets. ANALYSIS The city of Newport Beach is located within the urbanized central portion of Orange County. The city of Huntington Beach is located westerly of Newport Beach across the Santa Ana River channel. The cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine border Newport Beach on the north. The.Pacific Ocean is on the south. Separating the city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is the undeveloped Irvine Coastal area. The expansion of Newport Beach is limited to certain county islands on the north and west and the Irvine Coastal area on the east. By Resolution No. 80-33, LAFCO approved the annexation of the county "Triangle" (Area No. 3) to the city of Newport Beach. Annexation proceedings had been initiated by the city pursuant to the special "island" annexation procedure within the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). Annexation proceedings were completed in November, 1980. s June 8, 1983 Local Agency Re Review of Page 3 Formation Commission City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. Certain residents and landowners within Santa Ana Heights (Area No. 5) have expressed interest in annexing to Newport Beach and are discussing the future zoning of the area if annexation were to occur with the city. Newport Beach is also discussing the exchange of property tax revenues that would occur if annexation occurred with the County of Orange in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 (b). Annexation of Santa Ana Heights is complicated by the presence and operation of John Wayne Airport immediately north of the area. At issue is the expansion of the airport particularly Tn regards to noise and traffic. Because of the unique nature of the airport and its ownership by the County of Orange, LAFCO has not considered the inclusion of the airport in any city's sphere of influence. The airport is contiguous, to three cities: Costa Mesa, Irvine and Newport Beach. Area 6 (the Irvine Coast) has been the subject of much planning study in recent years. Until the ultimate land use decisions are made, annexation of the Irvine Coast is not expected. Area 2 (Beeco) is currently used for oil production. Several land use proposals have been considered by Newport Beach, but the ultimate land use had not been decided. It is expected the ultimate development will be a mixture of land uses including residential and commercial. Although surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach, the Beeco property has been excluded from the Newport Beach sphere of influence because of the landowner's wishes. Staff has solicited comments from the city of Newport Beach and the surrounding cities on the review of the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Newport Beach, in the past, has indicated it would like LAFCO to consider including the Beeco property (Area 2) within the city's sphere of influence. Otherwise the city is satisfied with its adopted sphere of influence. The adjacent cities have not responded and it is assumed they have no objection to the reaffirmation of the Newport Beach sphere of influence. In previous staff reports on the city .of Newport Beach's sphere of influence it has been staff's recommendation to include the Beeco property within the city's sphere of influence. The property is a county island completely surrounded by the Newport Beach city limits. The territory then could not annex to any other city. The reason the area was excluded from Newport Beach's sphere, in the past, was because of the landowner's preference. However, the landowner has requested a general plan amendment, zoning and tentative development approval from,the city of Newport Beach, which suggests ultimately the landowner plans to annex the property to Newport Beach. By definition "spheres of influence" means a plan for the probable ultimate boundaries of a local agency. It would seem appropriate then to consider including the Beeco property within Newport Beach's sphere in accordance with the Legislature's intent for adopting spheres of infl-uence. If your Commission believes the Newport Beach proposal to amend its sphere of influence over the Beeco property,'is• worth consideration, then a public hearing would need to be held prior to making such an amendment. Your existing policy for amending city spheres of influence requires at least a 30 days notice to the affected city and at least 15 days public notice of the public hearing. Further, any amendment to a sphere would be a project and subject to an environmental L1 f fT W June 8, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review of City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 4 assessment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Receive the submitted staff report. 2. Consider the city of Newport Beach's proposal to amend its sphere of influence to include the Beeco property. 3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider adding the Beeco property to the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence for the meeting of July 27, 1983 and provide the appropriate public notice. Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:bd At:7ents xcKenneth Delino, City of Newport Beach II 7 :��.•�� t! NEWPORT SPHERE 'OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S . 0 . I . ADOPTED 9 /12 /73 (1st. partial) NEW MAP 10/13/77 ADOPTED 11 / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / 14 / 74 (TUSTIN AV.) AMENDED 9 /-8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) scale 1:3,000 a. M , f NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE �..� BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O.I. ADOPTED 9 / 12 /73 (1 St. partial) NEW MAP 10/13/77 ADOPTED it / 28 / 73 (zed partial) SHEETS 12 AMENDED 8 / 14 / 74 (Tt15TRJ AV.) cl AMENDED 9/8/ 76 (COASTAL. AREA) nak l=2i,000 t I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAt� o�?ROLL �� yp OpGss August 22, 1983 MINUTES INDEX (b) Copy of letter from Richard Nichols, President of the Corona Del Mar llo_nmunity Association to Newport -Mesa UnifYed School District regarding local School Dtszict Obligation in the Sale of Playground laying Field and Recreation Prope (c) Notice of Public Hearing Orange County Board,of Supervisors r krding Funding Assistance for Cities of -Se 1 Beach, Huntington Beach and San Clement - for repair of coastal access piers. (d) Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission communication: 1) Resolution No. 83-44 regarding the proQosed designated_Detachment. No. 83-01 from the Costa Mesa--S•anitary District; 2) Resolution No. 83-48 regarding revised established Sphere of Influence for_the City of Newport Beach to include the Beeco property and reaffirm the balance of the Sphere of Influence as determined by Resolution Nos. 73-145, 74-100 and 80-73; 3) Minutes of July 27, 1983; and 4) Preliminary Agenda of August 10, 1983. (e) United States/Mexico Sister Citi Association, Inc. Newsletter. 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's/referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Patty Hobson for prop/ty amage to iobson radial tire from bea h parking lot spikes on June 3, 1 83. (b) Sophie Horton fo property damage forton alleging her ve-Kicle's paint was damaged while parked/a/It Marine Avenue, Balboa Island, on August 7, 1983 due to tree sap. f F I Volume 37 - Page 262 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES '�► C+ 9f, 'i ti �� 10 �tn� August 22, 1983 ROLL CAI I INOEX 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) To Traffic Engineering for inclusion in rrfk Sgnl/ the records, letter of thanks and riconderoga 5 appreciation from Newport Crest Superior Homeowners Association for the proposed (85) traffic signal at Ticonderoga and Superior Streets being included in the 1983/84 budget. (c) To City Attorney for response, petitionCity- Atty/ from Harvey D. Pease to waive rejection Pease Claim f his claim for property damage dated (31) ne 30, 1983. (d) To Planning Department and City Attorney Bus Lie/ for response, letter of complaint Novakta P1 rega ding alleged unsanitary conditions, (27) nois and zoning violations at Novak's - The lace, 2920 Pacific Coast Highway from J m Nugent, and Charlotte W. Munro, and pet tion signed by residents living in the v einity of Novak's Place. (e) To Utilit s Department for response, lister Seepg/ letter fro Arthur E. Balkwill regarding Balkwill ongoing gro nd water seepage adjacent to (89) his property (f) To Aviation C ittee for report back to /C Arprt Council, invit tion on behalf of members (54) of the Inter -Co my Airport Authority (Mayors from the Cities of Stanton, Garden Grove, San a Ana, Anaheim) for Newport Beach to j in them in the development of a s ution to mutual needs for adequate it transportation services. (g) Removed from the Conse t Calendar. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referra to the City Clerk for inclusion in the reds: (a) Copy of letter from Mayor arry Agran, City of Irvine to State of California, Secretary of Environmental fairs, regarding Outer Continental elf oil lease - 1984. O. ume it - rage tot Date COMES SENT TO: mayor bA 4 ❑ C anager tum �Lpo'qUG a t Cy 4— Attorney '1Q CI�Fi,1983e. g 1 O Bldg•Oirry RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISS 0 ry [] (ien$eTV DIP. •CT ��fi R Jir• OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �44� f 0 Clfjannirs;tar.P Cam. p pofte Chief June 22, 1983 3 c it t3 Otn6r On motion of Commissioner Jarrells duly seconded and carried, the following Otner resolution was adopted: 5 WHEREAS, a resolution for the proposed detachment designated Detachment No. 83-01 from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District was heretofore filed by the Costa Mesa 6 Sanitary District and accepted for filing on May 22, 1983 by the Executive Officer of the 7 Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Title 60 Division 1, commencing with 8 Section 56000 et seq of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 56263 9 set June 22, 1983 as the hearing date of this proposal; and 10 WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54794 11 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 WHEREAS, this Commission on June 22, 1983 heard from the interested 40 parties, considered the proposal and the report of the Executive Officer, and considered 14 the factors determined by the Commission to be relevant to this proposal, including, but not limited to, factors specified in Government Code Section 54796; and 15 WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the negative 16 declaration issued by the Executive Officer; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: 18 Section 1. This Commission so certifies it has reviewed and considered 19 the negative declaration issued by the Executive Officer 20 on this proposal pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 21 Section 2. This Commission does hereby adopt the negative declaration. 22 Section 3. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal is approved. Section 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be detachd&from 24 the,Xosta•.Mesa Sanitary District are specifically described 25 in the legal description attached hereto and by this 26 reference made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be inhabited and is assigned the following distinctive short - 27 form designation: DETACHMENT NO. 83-01 FROM THE COSTA MESA 28 Resolution No. 83-44 12-5 1 SANITARY DISTRICT. Section 5. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District is designated as' the conducting district and is hereby directed to initiate 3 proceedings in compliance with this resolution. 4 Section 6. The Board of Directors shall initiate and conduct proceedings in accordance with Chapter 1, Part 5. Division 1 5 of Title 6 of the Government Code. 6 Section 7. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order 7 for detachment shall be called, held and conducted upon such 8 detachment only within the territory ordered to be detached. Section 8. Upon completion of the detachment: of the territory from the 9 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, said territory shall be 10 relieved from liability for payment' of all or any part of 11 principal or interest or any other amounts which may be due or become due on account of all or any part of any bonded indebtedness, contracts, oe obligations, including, but not 3 by way, of limitations, any judgments or Judgments against the 14 Costa Mesa Sanitary District and that said territory shall be relieved from the levying or fixing and the collection of any 15 taxes or assessments as may be made for the payment thereof. 16 Section 9. The Coasta Mesa Sanitary District, as applicant, shall be 17 liable for all fees necessary to conduct and complete the proposed detachment. 18 Section 10. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to 19 mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and 20 as provided in Section 56272 of the Government Code. AYES: COMIISSIONERS,:JAMES T. JARRELL, ROGER R. STANTON, ROBERT E. DWYER AND 21 HARRIETT M. WIEDER. 22 NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. 0 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 24 ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 25 I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation 26 Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting 27 thereof, held on the 22nd day of June, 1983. 28 Resolution No. 83-44 � • J 1 02 3 4 5. 6', 7 8 9 10 11 *3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of June, 1983. Resolution No. 83-44, RICHARD Ti TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of. Or,.ange County, California By Secretary -3- • EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 1 DETACH!%1ENT FROM THE COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT - DETACHMENT NO. 83-01 That portion of Land in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, said point being at the northerly corner of Engineer's No. 33 Annexation to said District; thence along the existing boundary of said District as described in said Engineer's No. 33, Engineer's No. 46, and Annexation No. 27, through its various courses in a general southeasterly, southwesterly, westerly, southwesterly, and northwesterly direction to a point on the westerly line of the First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, as shown on a map thereof, recorded in Book 8, page 61, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, said point being at the intersection with the north line of 16th Street, 60 feet in width, as shown on said tract, said point also being distant North 290091000 West 3060.75 feet from the most Southerly corner of said Annexation No. 27; thence departing said existing boundary, easterly, along the north line of said 16th Street and the southerly lines of Lots 1112 and 1011 of Newport Mesa Tract, as shown on a map thereof, recorded in Book 5, page 1, of Miscellaneous'Maps, records of said Orange County, North 89042100" East 955.90 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 1012; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 1012 North 00018100" West 300.00 feet to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence easterly along the westerly prolonga- tion of the northerly line of Lot 912 of said Newport Mesa Tract and along the northerly line of said Lot 912 North 89042100" East 690.00 feet to the north- easterly corner thereof; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 912 South 00018'00" East 300.00 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lot 812 of said Newport Mesa Tract North 89042100" East 630.00 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence southerly along the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 812'h of said First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, and along the easterly line of said lot 812h South 00018100" East 360.00 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence North 88044143" East 60.01 feet to a point on the westerly line of Lot 713 of said First Addition, said point being one foot northerly of the south- westerly corner thereof; thence easterly along a line one foot northerly of, and parallel to the southerly line of Lots 713 and 613 of said First Addition North 89 42'00" East 1,111.59 feet to a point on the existing boundary line of said District and the center line of Superior Avenue, 60 feet in width, as described in said Annexation No. 27; thence southwesterly, along said existing boundary as described in said Annexation and said center line South 40000,001, West 934.4 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 146 acres, more or less. Attached and made a part of is a map designated EXHIBIT "B". This proposal does meet the approval of the Surveyor's Office. BA:sgPWS10-28 C. R. lson, County Surveyor. 8/5/83 By & Deputy Date Aq6&_ ,9 -I9P3 C.M.S.D. Engineer's No. 210 1 • • r� u EYHIDIT 9013" LFGEAID EX157. BOUNDARY OF Tl15TA MESA SANITARY D15TRILT ""7"7"77" AREA TO BE DETACHED ( - EX151. BOUNDARY L.M.S.D. UNDER ORIGINAL FORMATION ATY LIMITS OF LMIA MESA - NEOVIT M*5A 1TtALT Mli. 5/1 NDO.16'00'W I 500°10'OD'E 1-4 300.00' 300.00' N B go 00"E /I �� LItY LIMITS OF COSTA MESA _ L90 00' 1� / L_ IIIZ ,ICIZ 912 ✓.. ��..._.._!, ,1-CITY LIMITS OF COSTA MI LI! I r)"m cq I 612k 713 G1) CITY LIMl15 OF INEWPORi EfltN� . N09.42'00'E I,III.YI' , W'LY LINE FIR5T ADD.ibNfT.MSA U28°d4'43'E o y iRILT CO 01, FIRS, 'AUUITIOhWPORT MESA TiiAi* M.M. B/Gl Is T EPu W. 5TREEI L ANNEXATION W. 27 FtiG11.fFIY°. N< 33 N40°OD'OD'E 293.13' ' Mast Souther/y Corner are Anneka f lon Na, R 7 LDR, DETACHMENT FROM THE C05TA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT DETACHMENT N° 83•0I AREA • IWACRE5 This proposal does meet the approval of the Surveyor's Office. C. R. elson, County Surveyor. ROBIN 15. HAMERI f A51OCIATE5.INC. By LIYIL ENGINEERS Deputy 154 E 11w 51REE7 SUITE Z05 Date 04wrzg7' 9 r 4P3 C05TA MESA , G 4=7 0I41 GII.1131 C.11AP.. ENGME0 N'210 1 3 4 51 61 7 8 9 10 11 *Is 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0 24 25 26 27 28 gi �n 4.01-J 0DeN C p \ �OTUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO�i:'! �� 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �•• t'7J1P%�� July 27, 1983 ��i On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and c resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 54774 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of Influence for the city of Newport Beach by Resolution No. 73-145, adopted September 12, 1973, Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 149 1974, and Resolution No. 8D-73, adopted August 27, 1980; and WHEREAS, Section 54774 of the California Government Code requires the Local Agency Formation Commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influenc developed and determined by it; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission on June 23, 1982, directed staff to continue scheduling periodic reviews of city spheres of influence. WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54774 set July 27, 1983, to review said city of Newport Beach sphere of influence. WHEREAS, this Commission did review a map and report prepared by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that this Commission revises the established sphere of influence for the city of Newport Beach to include the Beeco property and reaffirms the balance of the sphere of influence as determined by Resolutions Nos. 73-145, 74-100 and 80-73. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER, AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROGER R. STANTON. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27th day of July, 1983. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand this 27th day of July. 1983 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California Resolution No. 83-48 i•, ec ry I • • LOCATION MAP Study areas: (1) Centerline Santa Ana R 2 Beeco, Ltd. 3 County "Triangle" Irvine -Tustin Corridor 5 Santa Ana Heights 6 Irvine Coastal Area H. B. m V. NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O.I. ADOPTED 9 / 12 /73 (1st.parilal) NEW MAP 10/13•/77 ADOPTED 11 / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SSHHEEFTTS AMENDED 8 / 14 / T4 (TUSTIN AV. ) Lti�`I •+,.<•m<n a / a / 7R IrnACTAI AFFA1 Seale 1:3,000 ..................... -_......... ..-----....;. ............ • LAGUNA BEACH Deleted (May 13, 1981' • O � � 1 O ILI • NEWPORT SPHERE OF, INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O.I. ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 ([St. partial) NEW MAP 10/ 13/77 ADOPTED 11 /28 / 73 (end partial) SHEETS IN AMENDED .8 / 14 / 74 (TUSTIN AV.) AMENDED 9 / 8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) scab 1:3,000 COUNCIL AGENDA N0- ---Eir�22 MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION S CI7YOf 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NEYYPORTBEACH, till Culf. July 27, 1983 AUG 121983• The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange • C n 4A:Y Gil California was held on July 27. 1983, at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Commis on resen were Donald J. Saltarelli, Robert E. Dwyer, Roger R. Stanton and James T. J3r�, Alternate Members: Joan K. Riddle and Phillip R. Schwartze. Absent: Harriett M. Wieder and Bruce Nestande. In attendance: Benjamin DeMayo, Deputy County Counsel, Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer and the Secretary. Commissioner Dwyer led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Executive Officer gave the Invocation. is • IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 22. 1983 On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carrie Commission approved the mihutes of its meeting of June 22. 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROGER R. STANTON. ABSTAINING: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-746-83 (SP-109-82) The proposed annexation was a special district annexation i than two acres and all the landowners had consented to annexation. No one answered Chairman SaTtarelli's invitation to testify. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received the staff report, certified the review of the city of Garden Grove's negative declaration for SP-109-82 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. B-746-83 to the Garden Grove Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROGER R. STANTON. Resolution No. 83-46 - See File. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 363 (PREZONE CHANGE NO. 997) Executive Officer Turner presented the staff report and located the site on the wall exhibit. Jack McGee, city of Orange planner, offered to answer any questions. Mr. McGee responded to Chairman Saltarelli's question that the city was confident they had the support of the majority of the residents within the annexation territory. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received the staff report, accepted the city's notice of exemption for the proposed anenxation and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 363 to the city of Orange. Commissioner Dwyer commended the city for its efforts in reducing the size of this island. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROGER R. STANTON. Resolution No. 83-47 - See File. IN RE: REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NE14PORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Executive Officer Turner presented the staff report and described the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence on the wall exhibit. Mr. Turner introduced a letter from Mr. Banning, representing the Beeco land ownershipt,supporting the inclusion of the Beeco property within the cigy's sphere of influence with the 3/ 36. L July 27, 1983 .qualification that such a designation would not affect the existing oil operations witoip the territory. Mr. Turner also introduced the Newport Beach City Council's resolution supporting the addition of the Beeco property within the city's sphere of influence. • Evelyn Hart introduced hereself as the mayor of the city of Newport Beach and supported the staff recommendation that the Beeco property be added to the city's sphere of influence. Wayne Miller identified himself as an employee of Mobil Oil Corporation. Mobil was a lessee within the Beeco property. Mr. Miller had been asked by the Company's Denver headquarters to attend today's meeting and advise Mobil had no objection to the sphere of influence designation as long as it did not interfere with their oil and gas operations. Seeing no one else to testify, Chairman Saltarelli closed the public hearing. Mr. Turner introduced a letter from the city of Trvine indicating the city was still interested in expanding its sphere of influence into the Irvine Coastal area at some future date. However, at 'this time Irvine did not oppose the reaffirmation of the Irvine Coastal area within the city of Newport Beach's sphere of influence. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received the staff report, adopted the prepared negative declaration and approved, as recommended, the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach to include the Beeco property. Commissioner Dwyer added that he would be willing to reconsiderthe sphere of influence of the Irvine Coastal area at some later date when the landowner's bTams are more firmly defined. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROGER R. STANTON. ( Resolution No. 83-48 - See File. t COMMISSIONER STANTON ARRIVED AND ASSUMED HIS DUTIES. IN RE: PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY' -(DISTRICT) REORGANIZATION NO. 62 (Transfer of territory between Municipal Water District of Orange County and Coastal Municipal Water District) (Continued from meeting of June 22, 1983) Chairman Saltarelli reminded the proposed reorganization had been continued to coincide with the presentation of the consolidation reports from WDOC and Coastal. Mr. Saltarelli asked the Commission's pleasure in deciding the order to consider these matters. Commissioner Dwyer indicated that he preferred to receive the district's presentations on the consolidation issue first. Commissioner Jarrell indicated he had no objection to that order. Chairman Saltarelli ordered then consideration of Reorganization No. 62 would follow the presentation of the districts' reports on consolidation. IN RE: PRESENTATION OF REPORTS FROM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY AND COASTAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ON CONSOLIDATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE 1981-82 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Executive Officer Turner apprised that in addition to the written 'reports received from MWDOC'and Coastal he had received letters and resolutions from the city of La Habra, Los Alisos Water District, Santiago Aqueduct Commission, Orange County Water District, Tri-Cities Municipal Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water • District, Santa Margarita Water District, Coastal Municipal Water District and Municipal Water District of,Orange County objecting to the proposed consolidation. Chairman Saltarelli opened the discussion for public testimony, but asked that the speakers limit their remarks to three or four minutes unless they were the designated spokesperson for an agency. Gerald E. Price introduced himself as the president of the Municipal Water District of Orange County. Mr. Price advised their study had concluded that consolidation of the districts would be neither, cost-effective or improve coordination. Mr. Price asked LAFCO to drop the matter from further consideration. Chairman Saltarelli asked why the Grand Jury had recommended the consolidation. Mr. Price responded that he did not know. Mr. Price added that he had been on the Board of Directors of the Municipal Water District of Orange County since 37. July 27, 1983 1951, and this was the fourth time consolidation had been proposed. Commissioner Dwyer commended the districts for their studies and asked Mr. Price to share some of the examples of cooperation that existed between MWDOC and Coastal Municipal Water District. Mr. Price stated that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern • California (MET), was obligated to provide water to the member agency's nearest border. MWDOC had located transmission lines to assist MET and Coastal in providing that water supply. Mr. Price noted the Aufdenkamp Line as an example. Commissioner Dwyer replied that he understood the cooperation at the MET level, but questioned the specific cooperation between MWDOC and Coastal. Mr. Stanley Sprague, General Manager of the MWDOC, advised that MWDOC and Coastal had executed several joint powers agreements, such as with the Aufdenkamp Line, to provide water transmission and intertie capacities. Additionally, Coastal was consulted when planning facilities to determine if additional capacity was necessary regardless of whether or not Coastal was an active participant. Mr. Dwyer responded that in his experience there had been little or no contact between the two districts.* Mr. Sprague'replied that he thought there was now better cooperation and coordination. Mr. Sprague added that maybe some of the other districts would like to amplify on that point.* Langdon Owen identified himself as a member of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. Mr. Owen advised he had been with the OCWD since 1963 and he recalled consolidation had been recommended many times by various grand juries. Mr. Owen commented the districts may have been remiss in not responding to these recommendations, but believed there was a high level of cooperation between the districts. Mr. Owen admitted there were disagreements between districts at times, but he thought these were positive aspects of the districts' relationships. Mr. Owen also commented that the districts could do more in the way of coordination, particularly in advance planning, but he was firmly opposed to any consolidation. Mr. Wayne MacMurray, President of the Coastal Municipal Water District, • remarked there was no evidence that consolidation would improve service or reduce costs. Mr. MacMurray requested LAFCO drop further consideration of this issue and notify the Grand Jury that it did not support consolidation. Commissioner Dwyer thanked Mr. MacMurray for his comments, but disagreed that the studies were unwarranted. Mr. Dwyer thought.if nothing else.these studies improved the communication between the districts. Mr. Dwyer suggested the districts place on their future agenda consideration of an above ground storage facility for water to serve south Orange County. Mr. MacMurray thanked Mr. Dwyer for his suggestion'and remarked they would give it some consideration. Seeing no one else to testify, Chairman Saltarelli closed the public hearing. Chairman Saltarelli indicated he was disturbed with the premise that "if it works, don't change it." Mr. Saltarelli thought it appropriate for the Grand Jury and LAFCO to consider and discuss the possibility of consolidation. Mr. Saltarelli accepted the fact that there was little support for consolidation at this time and it was obvious that the county's water supplies were being well managed. He was satisfied with the districts' responses and prepared to 'end any further discussion on the topic. Mr. Saltarelli did caution that LAFCO did not control the Grand Jury and could not control the jury's future agenda. Commissioner Dwyer commented that he hoped the parties did not consider these studies fruitless. Personally, he thought they should have been done years ago. Mr. Dwyer did counsel that things can always be better, particularly in communications. Mr. Dwyer suggested the districts consider forming some ombudsman -like group. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the • Commission received the reports from the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Coastal Municipal Water District on consolidation as proposed by the 1981-82 Orange County Grand Jury and directed staff to prepare correspondence to the Grand Jury forwarding copies of these reports and advising LAFCO had considered the proposed consolidation and concluded consolidation.was not supported at this time. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER, ROGER R. STANTON AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. *Minutes corrected 8/10/83. L • • July 27, 1983 IN RE: PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY (DISTRICT) REORGANIZATION NO. 62 (Transfer of territory between Municipal Water District of Orange County and Coastal Municipal Water District) (Continued from meeting of June 22, 1983) Executive Officer Turner presented the staff report and located the transfer sites. Mr. Stanely Sprague, General Manager of the Municipal Water District of Orange County, offered to answer any questions. Mr. Sprague responded to Commissioner Dwyer's question that he did not expect any further reorganizations in the near future. "At some later date there may be some in the vicinity of Laguna Beach and San Clemente," he said. Mr. Fred Gilbert, General Manager, of the Coastal Municipal Water District, responded that his district was in the process of developing a sphere of influence for LAFCO consideration which would take into consideration any future reorganizations. Seeing no one else to testify, Chairman Salterelli closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Dwyer, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received the staff report, adopted the prepared negative declaration and approved, as recommended, the proposed Orange County (District) Reorganization No. 62. AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYER, ROGER R. STANTON, JAMES T. JARRELL AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. Resolution No. 83-49 - See File. IN RE: ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 498 (CORTESE), CHAPTER 27, STATUTES OF 1983 Executive Officer Turner summarized his staff memorandum on AB 498. Under this legislation, spheres of influence would need be developed and approved for all cities and districts by January 1, 1985. Mr. Turner reminded that spheres of influence had been adopted for all 26 cities and approximately two-thirds of the districts. In compliance with AB 498 he would be scheduling public hearings to develop spheres of influence for the remaining districts. Chairman Saltarelli ordered the Executive Officer's memorandum received and filed. IN RE: 1983 CALAFCO CONFERENCE - REGISTRATION AND RESERVATIONS (INDUSTRY HILLS AND SHERATON RESORT) Executive Officer Turner advised the deadline for registration and reservations was August 20 for the 1983 CALAFCO Conference. Mr. Turner further advised the Commission needed to designate voting members for the conference. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission authorized any attending commissioner, the Executive Officer, or Administrative Assistant to vote on any matters at the 1983 CALAFCO Conference scheduled at Industry Hills. The Commission further authorized the reimbursement of any expenses incurred by any commissioner or staff in attending and participating in the CALAFCO Conference. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, DONALD J. SALTARELLI, ROBERT E. DWYER AND ROGER R. STANTON. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. IN RE: CALAFCO QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER - JULY, 1983 Commissioner Dwyer suggested a copy of the article on incorporations be transmitted to the Leisure World Incorporation Committee and any other community that staff might think would benefit from the article for their information. Chairman Saltarelli found the formation of fire districts in San Diego County most interesting and commented that many cities in Orange County might have to consider this approach in providing future fire suppression services. Chairman Saltarelli ordered the newsletter and staff summary received and filed. ,34/ 39. July 27, 1983 IN RE: LAFCO STAFF SALARIES Executive Officer Turner advised the Board of Supervisors had adopted memoranda of understanding with its employees. LAFCO had adopted a policy that staff's salaries and benefits would be commensurate with county employee salaries in the respective clerical and administrative management units. Mr. Turner recommended LAFCO. approve salary increases for the Secretary and Typist -Clerk III by 4.4 percent and 5 • percent for his position and the Administrative Assistant's position consistent with the Board of supervisors action for its employees. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission authorized a 4.4 percent salary increase for the LAFCO Secretary and LAFCO Typist -Clerk III and a 5 percent salary increase for the LAFCO Executive Officer and LAFCO Administrative Services Assistant II and other benefits provided county employees in similar positions and consistent with the Board of Supervisors memoranda of understanding with its clerical and administrative management units for fiscal year 1983-84 and directed the Executive Officer to forward a copy of the Commission's resolution to the county's Personnel and Auditor -Controller Departments for implementation. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 3;00 p.m. ATTEST: ecretary 33� an