Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE- BECCO PROPERTY
*NEW FILE* SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BECCO PROPERTY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL s February 25, 1980 MINUTES INDEX (c) The following actions regarding the Litter Motion All Ayes x ` Litter Control Citizens Advisory Committee Control were confirmed: CAC (24) 1) District 4, Councilman.Heathex's appoi�ntme t of a member to replace Rae Cohen was o t on�ed to March 10. 2) District 6, Councilman Humm�3' appointment of a member to replace Gordon Kilmer was postponed to March 10. 3. A report was presented from the Planning Sphere of Department regarding a request of the Local Influence Coastal P1ana`fn—gAdvisory Committee that the (21) City establish a Sphere of Influence on the BEECO property in West Newport. Motion x Consideration of establishing a Sphere of r Influence on £he BEECO proper" ty e47 st All Ayes Newport was postponed to allow discussion with the City of Costa Mesa and with the land owner involved. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: / 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Encroa Ti- Department regarding the request of Lido Isle me /City Community Association to encroach with a P' perty building four feet onto Lot C, Tract 907 is San Remo (City -owned bayfront lot at southerly prolongatio (65) of Via San Remo). Motion x Councilman -Strauss made a motion to approve the request. Derek Niblo, President of the Lido I e Council ' Community Association, addreyccondition in answer to Councilman Heatuestion in connection with the addition imposed by the Planning Co in granting Use Permit No. 1925 which tates that only one event nsored by an off - island person oation be allowed. Mr. Niblo explained off -island event had /thhe historically beA awards luncheon, but that this en specifically named and that it- d just been left open for one event, wh did not preclude such civic s as use for a polling place at All Ayes i /electtime. s taken on Councilman Strauss'hich motion carried. Volume 34 - Page 51 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILME J` MINUTES SG y �i A<iFJ'�'Gi 9�$Ttn �� tP ROLL CALL February 25, 1980 itinay 2. A report from the Public Works Department regarding Stop Signs/ the request of the Corona Highlands Property Seaward Rd Owners Association for stop signs on Seaward Road (81) was presented with a copy of the request letter from the Corona Highlands Property Owners Associa- tion dated January 11, 1980. Robert Peterson, President of the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association, who presented a petition signed by sixty-seven residents of Corona Highlands, and Calvin McLaughlin addressed the Council and urged installation of the requested stop signs. Motion x The request for the installation of stop signs All Ayes on Seaward Road at Morning Canyon Road and at De Sole, Terrace was granted. 3. A report from the City Manager regarding acquisi- California tion of the P, B. right -of -Way was presented with Land Acquired a report from the Parka, Beaches and Recreation /Leased Director. (73) A report received after the agenda was printed from the West Newport Beach Improvement Association s presented urging the City to acquire the P. B. p perky as soon as possible. The ollowing people addressed the Council and urged equisition of the property by the City: Mike Jo neon, speaking as Secretary of the West Newport each Improvement Association; Ninfa Jarvis, P sident of the Newport Shores Community Associatio who presented letters from Barbara Thibault, E1 zabeth J. Johnson, Armand R. Davie, John A. and ion T. Ross and Mr. and Mrs. Wallace Dobbs; avid Goff, President of the Lido Sands Community ssociation; Louise Greeley, on the Board of Newp t Crest Homeowners Association; Wally Semeniuk; an Dick Clucas. Motion x Councilman McInnis ma•a motion to direct the City Manager to negotid�e with the State for the City acquisition of subject property. Councilman Hart asked tha\t'Pe motion be amended to also refer the subject to \the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission forNinput, which amendment was accepted by the maker of t motion. Motion x Councilman Strauss made a substit to motion to Ayes x x x x continue the item in order to race ve input from Noes x x x the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Co ission, which motion carried. 4. A report was presented from the City Man@ger NIWA regarding the Newport -Irvine Waste Managelgent (51) Agency. I Volume 34 - Page 52 1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 7, 1979 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff and Members of the Council: The Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, in our efforts to develop the City's Local Coastal Program, is frequently reminded by adopted City policies that the area in West Newport known as the Beeco parcel is not within the City's limits nor sphere of influence. Also, the Local Coastal Program planning jurisdiction for the site has been assigned to the County of Orange by the • California Coastal Commission. While it is undoubtedly too late for the City to regain LCP plan- ning authority over this land, the Committee believes that the City would have much greater influence on forthcoming land use policies relating to the future of the site, if it were officially within the City's Sphere of Influence. It is respectfully requested, therefore, that the City Council petition the Local Agency Formation Commission to officially place all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bobby L ell, Chairman .r BL/MO: nm L'j u••• r City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL LP February 25, 1980 MINUTES INDEX (f) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors Meetings of February 13, 14, 19 and 20, 1980. (g) A letter dated February 14, 1'980 from Al �" ng Alfonso" Lizanetz. (h) Notice of h ng before the Public Utilities Commissivnn-of the application of Richard A. Gregory,—an�dividual, dba Sunset Coast Bus Lines, for" auauthority to operate as a passenger stage co3p ation in a home -to -work service between points in Orange County and the Garrett AiResearch Facility in Torrance. (i) A_cqRy of a letter to The_Irvine Company in response to a full page ad in the Pilot on February 13, 1980 from Louise Brazelton regarding the present Council administration. (Attached for Council) 5., CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and confirmation Claims of the City Clerk's referral of claims to the (36) insurance carrier: (a) Claim of Mark L. Fahey for property hey damage to his vehicle on January 31, 1980 when the front wheels of his automobile dropped into a pot hole near 3500 Irvine Avenue and the inside wall of the tire was slashed and the rim bent. (b) Claim of Mr. and Mrs. WillVr Helm damages due to the death on, Robert C.,Helm,'who was drhicle on Pacific Coast Highway athe intersection of Newport Ceon October 6, 1979 and the sty highways were allegedly n a wet and dangerous slippery co dition causing his vehicle to roll over. 6. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT : For confirmation the City Clerk's referral to the City Att ney: (a) Summon and Complaint of Associated Associated Inds ity Corporation for damages to the Indemnity re dence of their assureds, Donald arling and Helen Starling, Case No. 32-74-72 in the Orange County Superior Court. The original claim was for damages allegedly due to a deterioration i of the City's water system. / i i Volume 34 - Page 55 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL N February 25, 1980 MINUTES INDEX (b) Summons and Complaint of The Koll Company Koll Co/ and Aetna Life Insurance Company for Aetna Life Compensation for the Taking of Private Property for Public Use, for Denial of Equal Protection of the Laws, for Denial of Due Process of Law, for Violations of United States Code Title 42, Sections 1983 and 1985, and for Punitive and Exemplary Damages, Case No. 80-00510 in the United States District Court, Central District of California. For confirmation of the City Attorney's referral to the County Counsel and authorization for the County Counsel to appear and defend the interests of the City of Newport Beach in this proceeding: (c) Summons and Complaint of International IBM Business Machines Corporation for Recovery of Property Taxes (California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5140 et seq.), Case No. 32-02-54 in the Superior Court of Orange County. 7. QUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - For a proval: (A report from the City Manager) (a) Two Emergency Equipment Dispatchers, Police Department, to fill vacant positions. (b) 0 e Library Clerk I, Library Services De rtment, to fill a vacant position. 8. REPORTS - or Council information and filing: (a) A prog as report from the City Arts City Arts Commissi n regarding the summer concert. Concert (Attache (24) 9. WEST COAST BIG Y IMPROVEMENTS (SOUTH SIDE) Coast Hwy 57TH STREET TO BOA BOULEVARD (0-2062) - 57th/Balboa approval of the p as and specifications; (38) and authorization t the City Clerk to advertise for bids for Contrac No. 2962 to be opened at 2,30 p.m, on Thurs y, March 13, 1980. (A report from the Public arks Department) 10. RESUBDIVISION NO. 588 - ffceptance of the Resub 588 public improvements constfeted in conjunction (84) with Resubdivision No. 588 n property located on the northwesterly corner f Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in Ko11 Center Newport; and authorization to the City, lerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond ( and No. L05- 031403), and to release the Labo and Material I Bond (Bond No. L05-031403) in six oaths provided no claims have been filed. (A report j from the Public Works Department) i Volume 34 - Page 56 i // i � l � //, i �� � / �� - - r � � /� / , ♦ i / / � ; � � � / . ' �- ., � / � � � � ,, ,, / ! / ,, i � ,. � � ., � / ! / � J i . �' i / / � '� / � i .: i i / ' '� � � i �i i � /, i>�. . /i i:� r � / �/� � � / / �� � , ,, �, � i, � `/ /,/ /� j / i� � / � � �, / �, j, � i � i �� i/ � � � /� � / / �. � i �' •�� ,, i � / .� ,c ■ / � .• i � � / � i i� ' � -,. .� i 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 (BEECO) WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach desires to request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) that the City's existing sphere of influence be amended to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary (Beeco); and WHEREAS, Section 54774.2 of the California Government Code provides that a local agency may request such a change to its sphere of influence by the adoption of a resolution requesting such amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Newport Beach hereby requests that LAFCO amend the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary (Beeco property). ADOPTED this 14th day of April , 1980. r ATTEST: City Clerk kv 4/7/80 CIA OF NEWPORT BEA*H COUNCILMEN S' y fi �I ti SJ rs� G�� 9?i Ty�� ss is RM I .AI_L MINUTES March 24, 1980 INDEX 3. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches and Property Recreation Director regarding acquisition of the Acquired P.E. right-of-way by the City. (73) Letters urging acquisition of the P.E. right-of-way by the City were presented from the Balboa Coves Community Association, Lido Sands Community Associa- tion and from Gerta Farber. or Ryckoff made a motion to direct the City Mana- Motion x ger o commence negotiations with the State to date a the lowest price and terms on which the State wi sell the subject property and to report back to the ty Council with recommendations on financing. Jack Cook addressed a Council and presented a letter., which he read full, from the Newport Crest Homeowners Association sup rting purchase of the property for an approximate ount of $650,000 with the property to be kept as open ace. Wally Semeniuk addressed the Council d urged acqui- sition of the property by the City. In sponse to a question by Council, Mr. Semeniuk stated at he felt the purchase price should be between $60 , 00 $675,000. Ayes x +,x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's motion, which motion carried. 4. A letter dated January 7 1980 was uresented from Annexations the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee asking (21) the City to petition the Local Agency Formation_Com- mission to officially place all lands in West NewIm presently surrounded by the C__ _boun ary nc ud3ng Beeco property) within the Sphere of Influence of the City o ewportn—ea8ff. � A letter from Beeco, Ltd. expressing concern over th City's Charter provisions prohibiting oil operations within its City limits and calling attention to the fact that much of the Beeco land is a producing oil field, and also reviewing other uses proposed for this land. Margot Skilling, President of the West Newport Improvement Association, addressed the Council in support of bringing the Beeco property into the City's Sphere of Influence. Motion x The staff was directed to request the Local Agency Ayes x x x K x C x Formation Commission to review Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence as it might apply to the Heeco pro erty. i i Volume 34 - Page 73 Y OF NBWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES G�3�'A C�9 On9�b9�,yyi ROLL CALL` �'P " N March 24. 1980 INDEX b) That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially -significant environmental effecta, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts: and Resolution No. 97461 approving amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recre- ation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document (GPA 80-1), was adopted. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: None. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Appointments to Citizens Advisory Committees for a one-year term ending December 31, 1980: Motion x a) The following actions regarding the Bicycle Bicycle Ayes x x x x x x x Trails Citizens Advisory Committee were Trails CAC confirmed: (24) District 6, Councilman Hummel's appointment of a member to replace William Pope was postponed to April 14. 2) strict 7, Mayor Pro Tem. Williams' ap ointment of a member to replace Rob rt L. Newcomb was postponed to furt r notice, Motion x (b) The followi actions regarding the Litter Litter Ayes x x x x x x x Control Citiz na Advisory Committee were Control CAC confirmed: (24) 1) District 4, ouncilman Heather's appoint- ment of a me er to replace Rae Cohen was postponed to A ril 14. 2) District 6, Coun lman Rummel reappointed Gordon Kilmer, 2. A report dated January 21, 1 0 was presented from Parking the Traffic Affairs Committee egarding proposed Restricted parking restriction in the 300 ock of Crystal Zones Avenue on Balboa Island. (64) Bob Millar addressed the Council an stated that he had spoken that afternoon with the p operty owners and occupants abutting the area in co ideration, and they would all like the item remov to allow them to resolve the problem under a frie dly neigh- borhood agreement. Motion x The item was tabled. Ayes x x x xlx x x i Volume 34 - Page 72 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE • c'�4FOAN�r � ; / January 7, 1979 FEB 111980 City Council 6y iM C41Y 000HML City of Newport Beach CIiY 1IRACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff and Members of the Council: The Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, in our efforts to develop the City's Local Coastal Program, is frequently reminded by adopted City policies that the area in West Newport known as the Beeco parcel is not within the City's limits nor sphere of influence. Also, the Local Coastal Program planning jurisdiction for the site has been assigned to the County of Orange by the • California Coastal Commission. While it is undoubtedly too late for the City to regain LCP plan- ning authority over this land, the Committee believes that the City would have much greater influence on forthcoming land use policies relating to the future of the site, if it were officially within the City's Sphere o'f Influence. It is respectfully requested, therefore, that the City Council petition the Local Agency Formation Commission to officially place all lands in West.Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE % � t Bobby ! ell, Chairman cf g„ , ; i s r Directs! BL/MO: nm LI • p g9�cutsign City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • BEECO, LTD. 3990 WESTERLY PLACE, SUITE 255 P. O. BOX 1028 NEWPORTBEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 1714) 833-8701 March 17, 1980 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 North Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is with reference to a request from your City February 26, 1980 asking our company to give its opinion its West Newport Beach land within Newport Beach's sphere lc'' Manager in letter dated of the possibility of placing of influence. First, a brief review of current circumstances involving the property. A wide variety of public uses have been proposed for major portions of this 450 acre parcel in recent years. These include: a major regional county park, ocean -access marine uses, bird sanctuary, expanded flood control facilities, and a re-created marshland. These sug- gested uses have substantial regional implications affecting not only the adjoining •cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach but also the rest of Orange County. Relative benefits and costs of various combinations of these and other land - use alternatives should be carefully weighed in developing the Local Coastal Plan for this area. Orange County has accepted the responsibility for developing this plan for consideration by the California Coastal Commission and will, of course, be seeking input from Newport Beach as well as other interested parties during the course of its work. Much of the land is a producing oil field, currently operated by Mobil Oil Corporation. It is operated under regulations developed and administered by Orange County as has been the case since the field's inception in 1944. Production, which is presently increasing, has gradually evolved into sophisticated secondary recovery methods, and county government's role has become increasingly important. On the other hand, the city of Newport Beach has specific charter provisions and other restrictions prohibit- ing oil operations within its city limits. In light of the foregoing considerations, we respectfully suggest that until Local Coastal Plan work has been completed, or at least progressed to a more definitive stage, it would be premature for the Local Agency Formation Commission to place the subject property within the sphere of influence of any one city. However, in the meantime, we will welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff in exploring both long-range land use alternatives as well as clarification and resolution of inter- mediate term oil production policy for the West Newport area. If you have questions concerning the content of this letter, I shall be happy to discuss the matter individually or at a future Council meeting. m Ver truly yours, Hancock Banning IITf '� CIO' OF NEWPORT BEASH COUNCILMEN yGy'Alid �'3 A�%�� 9l. 9G �2 ROLL CALL 30'�'Ps February 25, 1980 MINUTES INDEX Motion All Ayes x ` (c) The following actions regarding'the Litter Control Citizens Advisory Committee were confirmed: 1 istrict 4, Councilman Heather's appoimt� of a member to replace Rae Cohen w=ostponedMarch 10. 2) District 6,'s appointment of a member to replac Gordon Kilmer was postponed to March 10. Litter Control CAC (24) 3. A report was presented from the Planning Sphere of -Department regarding a request o-f the Local Influence Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, that the (21) City establish a Sphere of Influence onthe BEECO property in West Newport. Motion Consideration of establishing a Sphere of All Ayes x Influence on the BEECO property in West Newport was postponed to allow discussion with the City of Costa M_e_sa and`iith the land owner involved. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: J / 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Encro�c°fr Department regarding the request of Lido Isle m lit/City Community Association to encroach with a operty building four feet onto Lot C, Tract 907 //////Via San Remo n (City -owned bayfront lot at southerly p:v/e (65) of Via San Remo). Motion x Councilman Strauss made a motion to app the request. Derek Niblo, President of the L' o Isle . Community Association, addre ed the Council in answer to Councilman He t er's question in connection with the add' tonal condition imposed by the Plann g Commission in granting Use Permit No. 192 which states that only one event year sponsored by an off - island perso or organization be allowed. Mr. Niblo expl ned that the off -island event had histori ly been the PTA awards luncheon, but t t this had not been specifically named an that it had just been left open for one ent, which did not preclude such civic activities as use for a polling place at election time. All Ayes A vote was taken on Councilman Strauss' I motion, which motion carried. I i i I i Volume 34 - Page 51 I OCITY OF NEWPORT &ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yG S �/ A•c i % "i0 'A 9j �y $ OyGZ ROLL CALL J'� p tip February 25, 1980 iklncv 2. A report from the Public Works Department regarding Stop Signs/ the request of the Corona Highlands Property Seaward Rd Owners Association for stop signs on Seaward Road (81) was presented with a copy of the request letter from the Corona Highlands Property Owners Associa- tion dated January 11, 1980. Robert Peterson, President of the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association, who presented a petition signed by sixty-seven residents of Corona Highlands, and Calvin McLaughlin addressed the Council and urged installation of the requested stop signs. Motion x The request for the installation of stop signs All Ayes on Seaward Road at Morning Canyon Road and at De Sola Terrace was ranted. eport from the City Manager regarding acquisi- California n of the P. E. right-of-way was presented with Land Acquired eport from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation /Leased ector. (73) eport received after the agenda was printed the West Newport Beach Improvement Association esented urging the City to acquire the P. E. s y as soon as possible. \NewportBeac foil wing people addressed the Council and ed acq sition of the property by the City: e Johns , speaking as Secretary of the West ort Beac Improvement Association; Ninfa is, Presi ent ofthe Newport Shores Community ciation♦ w presented letters from Barbara ault, Eliza th J. Johnson, Armand R. Davis, A. and Mario T. Ross and Mr. and Mrs. ace Dobbs; Dav d Goff, President o£ the Lido s Community Ass ciation; Louise Greeley, on the Board of Newport' rest Homeowners Association; Wally Semeniuk; and Di k Clucas. Motion x Councilman McInnis made motion to direct the City Manager to negotiate th the State for the City acquisition of subjec property. Councilman Hart asked that th motion be amended to also refer the subject to t Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission or i ut, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the otion. Motion x Councilman Strauss made a aubetitutA motion to Ayes x x x x continue the item in order to rece14 input from Noes x x x the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Comm ssion, which motion carried. 1 ' 4. A report was presented from the City Mana �r ( NIWA regarding the Newport -Irvine Waste Management I (51} 1 1 Agency. ' Volume 34 - Page 52 City Council Meetio February 25, 1980 11 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 20, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO property F-3 Suggested Action 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 At its meeting of December 13, 1979, the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee approved a motion to request the City Council to pursue the inclusion of the BEECO property in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City Council, on February 11, 1980, refer- red this item back to Staff, requesting an outline of the procedure required to accomplish a change to the Sphere of Influence. In 1973 the Local Agency Formation Commission established the exist- ing "Sphere of Influence" designations. At the time of these hear- ings, the LAFCO staff recommended that the BEECO property be in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. The City of Costa Mesa, however, asked that the area be included in its Sphere of Influence. The Commission then decided, at the request df the property owner, to leave the area undesignated as to Sphere of Influence. Procedures governing changes in Sphere of Influence boundaries are set forth in Section 54774.2 of the Government Code. If the City •Council wishes to request inclusion of the BEECO property in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence, a resolution requesting this action must be submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission. There is no formal application process required,but any information supporting the City's request can be included in the submittal. i • TO: City Council - 2. A request for change to a Sphere of Influence is set for a public hearing which is held within thirty to forty-five days of the receipt of the resolution. Final determination in Sphere of Influence requests is made by the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. NEWICKER, Director b +' YPATRICIA L. TE'RPLE Senior Planner PLTlkk Attachment. Letter from Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee 0 CJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE • January 7, 1979 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff and Members of the Council: The Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, in our efforts to develop the-City's Local Coastal Program, is frequently reminded by adopted City policies that the area in West Newport known as the Beeco parcel is not within the City's limits nor sphere of influence. Also, the Local Coastal Program planning jurisdiction for the site has been assigned to the County of Orange by the California Coastal Commission. • While it is undoubtedly too late for the City to regain LCP plan- ning authority over this land, the Committee believes that the City would have much greater influence on forthcoming land use policies relating to the future of the site, if it were officially within the City's Sphere of Influence. It is respectfully requested, therefore, that the City Council petition the'Local Agency Formation Commission to officially place all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bobby Well, Chairman :r (' t.r;c:cr BL/M0: nm l::a u,.,:, C'it% Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 r -r FEB5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH v' OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 12, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: REPORT ON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Attached is a letter from the local- Coastal Planning Advisory Committee requesting that this City establish a Sphere of Influence on the Beeco-parcel. The Council' considered this letter and requested a report back from the staff on the procedures and details of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you would prepare this report and have it, if possible, for the February 25th City Council meeting. Attachment ROBERT L. W� YNN n CI0Y OF NEWPORT BEAH COUNCILMEN 9 C 0 � v 2 3���oya2� ROLL CALL February 11, 1980 MINUTES INDEX (e) Resolution No. 9727 authorizing the Mayor St Impry and City Clerk to execute a Right -of -Way SJH Rd/ Certification for street improvements for Jamboree San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road, R-9727 free right turn lane. (See report with (38) H-2(d)) (f) Resolution No. 9728 authorizing the Mayor St Impry and City Clerk to execute an Arterial W Cst Hwy Highway Financing Program Project Administra- AHFP tion Agreement for street improvements R-9728 for West Coast Highway south side, 57th (38) Street to Balboa Boulevard. (A report from the Public Works Department) (g) Re lution No. 9729 authorizing the Mayor St Impry and ty Clerk to execute a Right -of -Way W Cst Hwy Certif tion for street improvements for R-9729 West Coss ighway south side, 57th (38) Street to Ba1koa Boulevard. (See report with H-2(f)) (h) Resolution No. 9730 uthorizing the Mayor Off -site and City Clerk to exec a an Off -Site Parking Parking and Reciprocal Ac ss Agreement Bryant/ between the City of Newport ach and Hooten David R. Bryant and John P. Ho en, Newport Beach, for required park spaces in conjunction with a propos conversion of an existing machine shop o retail space in an existing structure located at 2902 West Coast Highway on Mariner's Mile; zoned SP-5. (A report from the, Planning Department) 3. COM.IUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) To staff for resort back, a letter from Sphere of the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Com- Influence mittee regarding the Beeco property and (21) their request to have the property included in the Newport Beachhere of Influence. Attached) (c) To staff for report back on February 25, a Ston.Si ns letter from the Corona Highlands Property SS Owner's Association requesting stop signs Seaward Road. (Attached) (d) To staff for action, a er from L. S. Building Ondrasik regardin t a alleged code (26) violations �urid r onstruction at 203 Coral i AvenueB lboa Island. (Attached) Volume 34 - Page 39 � I Y T Y . y 41ITY OF NEWPORT AACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �9 \ ROLL CALL �d'� rahr„ary 11. iaan iNDFY j A letter from the Central Newport Beach Community Association was presented expressing its opposi- (J tion to the removal of the bandstand. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. A letter received after the agenda was printed from James and Georgia Mahoney was presented supporting the previous Council action to remove the gazebo. Councilman Strauss stated that the people opposing the removal of the gazebo/bandstand had requested that this item be postponed. Motion x The item was postponed to February 25, 1980. All Ayes H. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x e following actions were taken as indicated except All Ayes fo those items removed: 1. RDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Introduce and p as to second reading on February 25, 1980: (a) Proposed Ordinance No. 1838, being, AN Parking RDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prohibitions NDING SECTION 12.40.055 OF THE 0-1838 NE ORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED (64) "P ING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESI NTIAL DISTRICTS PROHIBITED." (A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee) 2. RESOLUTIONS F ADOPTION: (a) Resolution . 9724 amending the list of Disclosure positions de gnated by the Conflict of of Assets Interest Code s those which require the R-9724 filing of an an ual income/asset (66) disclosure state at. (A report from the City Clerk) (b) Removed from the Con at Calendar. (c) Resolution No. 9725 awa ding a contract Harbor Isl to John T. Malloy in con action with the Water & Harbor Island Water and S er Main Sewer Main Replacement (C-2112). (A port from R-9725 the Public Works Department) (38) (d) Resolution No. 9726 authorizin the St Impry Mayor and the City Clerk to exec to an SJR Rd/ Arterial Highway Financing Progra Jamboree Project Administration Agreement f R-9726 street improvements for San Joaquin (38) Hills Road and Jamboree Road, free ri ht I turn lane. (A report from the Public Works Department) i i i Volume 34 - Page 38 4. UNTY OF 2-'$1 CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC VICE-CHAIRMAN DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN PHILIP L. ANTHONY SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT 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 N G E LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION August 22, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission County Hall of Administration Building Santa Ana, California 92701 �v-y ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONES (714) 834.2239 In Re; Review and Update of the City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Ladies and Gentlemen: Rt(�;FIIt T AUG25 7986a- + 1;l Lr By minute order dated July 23, 1980, your Commission scheduled a public hearing on August 27, 1980 for the review of and possible amendment to the city of Costa Mesas sphere of influence. LEGAL AUTHORITY California Government Code Section 54774 requires ....... the commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by them." The Commission's administrative policy on spheres of influence specifies a periodic review every three years. ALTERNATE HARRIETT M. WIEDER LOCATION SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT The boundaries of the established sphere of influence are RICHARD T. TURNER generally described as the center line of the Santa Ana River on EXECUTIVE OFFICER the west, the city limits of Santa Ana on the north and the city limits of Newport Beach on the south. The easterly boundary generally follows the alignment of Tustin and Irvine Avenues southerly of the Orange County Airport. The unincorporated territory westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Isabel and 22nd Streets,, generally known as Bay Knolls, is not a part of the Costa Mesa sphere of influence (.see accompanying Exhibit A). FINDINGS Section 54774 of the Government Code specifies eight factors which must be considered by the Commission when determining the spheres of influence of each local governmental agency and requires a written statement of their findings with respect to each of these factors. For purpose of this review, these factors are discussed as follows: (a) The le service area of based' The city of Costa Mesa is located within the urbanized central section of Orange County. The cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley are located westerly of Costa Mesa 0 1K August 22, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Page 2 across the Santa Ana River channel. The city of Santa Ana is located on the north. Newport Beach is on the south. The expansion, then, of Costa Mesa is limited to certain county islands located along the city's easterly boundary adjacent to Irvine and Newport Beach. By Resolution No. 73-86 passed June 13, 1973, LAFCO determined a sphere of influence for the city of Costa Mesa. The unincorporated areas designated within that sphere include certain county islands found westerly of Tustin Avenue (Area 1); an unincorporated island located along the San Diego Freeway, westerly of the Costa Mesa Freeway (Area 2); an unincorporated island located northerly of Victoria Strept (Area 3 ; and the easterly one- half of the Santa Ana River channel as it paralleled the existing city boundary (Area 4) as illustrated on the attached Exhibit B. In June, 1974, certain residents within the Bay Knolls tracts initiated the "Bay Knolls Annexation" to the city of Newport Beach. Bay Knolls is generally located westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Isabel and 22nd Streets. Bay Knolls had been included within the Costa Mesa sphere of influence by Resolution No. 73-86. However, the residents preferred to be within the city of Newport Beach. Consequently, the Commission decided to review the spheres of influence of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach concurrently with the proposed "Bay Knolls Annexation." By Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 141 1974, LAFCO by a majority vote) amended the respective spheres of influence of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach by transferring the Bay Knolls tracts from Costa Mesa to Newport Beach, The Commission subsequently approved the "Bay Knolls Annexation" to the city of Newport Beach. However, the annexation was never completed. The residents apparently lost interest in annexation when the city of Newport Beach proposed the formation of a municipal assessment district to correct the area's drainage problems. - -- -T- September-, 1978-LAFrA approved the "Pacific -Canyon Island_ Annexation_" to the city•of Costa Mesa. The annexation territory corresponded to Area 3 on Exhibit B. Annexation proceedings were initiated by the city of Costa Mesa pursuant to the special island annexation procedure within the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). The Board of Supervisors ordered the territory annexed in November, 1978. Annexation proceedings were completed in December, 1978 and the entire unincorporated island was eliminated. In October, 1978, LAFCO approved the "Tustin -Woodland Annexation" to the city of Costa Mesa. Annexation proceedings were initiated by certain landowners within the territory who desired increased municipal services. The annexation territory was a county island grouped with other islands identified on Exhibit B as the "Corridor" Area 1. Annexation proceedings were completed in January, 1979 and another county island was eliminated. The city of Costa Mesa has annexed several individual parcels that have reduced the size of existing islands within the city's established sphere of influence. .s r August 22, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the city of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Page 3 (b) The range of service'the agency'is'providing or"could'provide. The city of Costa Mesa provides police and fire protection within its corporate boundaries. The city also provides parks and recreation programs. General governmental services, such as building safety, zoning enforcement and street maintenance are also provided by the city. Water and sewer services are provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, respectively. (c) The projected future population growth of the area. - The Santa Ana River channel (Area 4) and the San Diego Freeway (Area 2) are uninhabited. The river channel i,sutilized by the Orange County Flood Control District right-of-way. It is expected then that these areas will remain uninhabited. Area i (Corridor) westerly of Tustin Avenue is developed. Population estimates are not available for these areas. However, the city does not expect any significant -change in the population of these areas. (d) The type of development'occurring or planned for the'area, including but not Area 4 is the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel. The property is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District which uses the property for flood control purposes. Area 2 is a portion of the San Diego Freeway right-of-way. Area 1 is mostly developed with low uses are compatible with the city's area. The city does not expect any to high density residential. The existing general plan and zoning ordinance for the significant change to the existing uses. (e) The present and probable future service needs of the area. (f) The infrastructure fo within the "Corridor" islands if annexed. r serving the unincorporated islands east of Costa Mesa Area i exist with sufficient capacity to.serve these frl Dresent level, range and adequacy of services provide__d by such local agencies. The city of Costa Mesa provides such municipal services as police and fire protection, street maintenance and parks and recreation programs. The County of Orange is responsible for community safety within the unincorporated islands. Other agencies with facilities and service responsibilities within the subject sphere of influence include the County Sanitation Districts, the Mesa Consolidated Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Comments were solicited of these agencies regarding the subject review, but none were offered. It August 22, 1980 Local Agency Formation Re Review and Update of Page 4 (g) Commission the city of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence The unincorporated territory included within the Costa Mesa sphere of influence represent county islands surrounded by the city limits of Costa Mesa. Primary access to many of these islands is available only through the city of Costa Mesa. The territory is within the same school districts as the city of Costa Mesa. Most of the territory has a Costa Mesa mailing address. Much of the area is within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. (h) The existence of agricultural preserves in the area. There are no agricultural preserves within the Costa Mesa sphere of influence. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A negative declaration (copy attached) was prepared for the review and update of the city of Costa Mesa sphere of influence in accordance with state and local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The negative declaration has not been appealed. CONCLUSIONS In 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted a sphere of influence for the city of Costa Mesa as illustrated on the attached Exhibit B. In 1974 at the request of certain residents within the Bay Knolls tracts, the Costa Mesa sphere was revised by the exclusion of the Bay Knolls tracts from the Costa Mesa sphere of influence and that sphere of influence has remained unchanged to this date. The Commission was pursuaded to exclude Bay Knolls by the residents because they had inititated the "Bay Knolls Annexation" to the city of Newport Beach. However, following the Commission's action to amend the sphere of influence and to approve the annexation the residents did not complete the annexation. The city of Newport Beach advised the reason that the territory was never annexed was that the city required as a•condition of annexation that the area participate in a municipal assessment district to improve the area's drainage, which the residents refused to do. The Bay Knolls tracts are located westerly of Tustin Avenue. It has been staff's opinion that Tustin Avenue should be the common boundary between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in this vicinity. Experience has shown that major arterials provide better boundaries for cities in that they are more easily definable and recognizable for delineating urban service areas. The expansion of Costa Mesa is limited to certain county islands along the city's eastern fringe. Residents within these islands have not expressed any interest in annexing to the city. The city of Costa Mesa has been reluctant to initiate annexation proceedings on these islands under the "island" annexation procedures within MORGA because of the Board of Supervisor's refusal to approve such annexations over the objections of residents. August 22, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the city of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Page 5 Comments were solicited of the adjacent cities and special districts. None of these agencies offered any comment or opinion on this matter. By letter dated July 24, 1980 (copy attached) Mr. Fred Sorsabal, City Manager of Costa Mesa, reported the city did not believe that there had been any changes since the sphere was last reviewed which warranted a reconsideration of the present sphere of influence. Mr. Sorsabal further advised by letter dated August 18, 1980 that the city did not seek the addition of the Bay Knolls area within the Costa Mesa sphere of influence. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the prepared negative declaration. 2. Receive submitted staff report and accept staff findings. 3. Revise the established sphere of influence for Costa Mesa to include the Bay Knolls tracts which are located westerly of Tustin Avenue between Santa Isabel and 22nd Streets. Respectfully submitted, 44OW-L , l� Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:bd Attachmmnts cc N}h Fred Sorsabal, City of Costa Mesa �/F1r. James Hewicker, City of Newport Beach �ANTa I F. V. M ,,,, R, Mtw^\ KNOLLS Mill oy..... .4."'������ 1/1 `��. "1Ar .:C7�t�F. �Y � ��� •,l � �I .y� �\ COSTAMESA SPHERE OF INFLUENCEEXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT ADOPTED NEW A. NOTE, The centerline of the Santa Ana River is the cities I common S.O.I. boundary. scale 1: •0• IA i I u I "IIC CAA' WIML WOLIC IRTEwotn'ATE 50100L ••••"- CRY DMIPICA" •--�R sco STREET FIFE STATICY OO coxm%w CITY c I/ I CITY of COSTA MESA SPHERE of INFLUENCE AS ADOPTED BY �. LAFCO on 6/13/73 LOCALAGENCY FCOIRMGa` OCH COMMOSSOON NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ORANGE COUNTY DATE July 28, 1980 10 Civic.Center Plaza, Room 458, Santa Ana, California 92701 - Tel. 834-2239 Project Title. Review of the City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Project Location: Santa Ana River (west)• cjt� limits of Santa Ana (north). city limits of Irvine and Newport Beach (east),• city limits of Newport Beach (south) Project Description: Periodic review and update of established sphere of influence as required by Ca. Gov't. Code, Section•54774 Persons or Agency proposing this project: Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County Phone: ( 714 ) 834-2239 The Initial Study, as attached and made part of this Negative Declaration, indicates that the above project will not have a*significant individual'or'cumdlative adverse effect on the environment for the followinq reasons: The project is a review and update of LAFCO's approved sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa. This review does not consider or evaluate specific plans for development. Mitigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially c inn ii'ti nani- ofi'ar1-c• ____ Project hearing date and time: August 27 1980 at-2;00 PA Project hearing place: ' ]_n r•vir r ntor 'P9`aYa Santa Ana,,California RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER By: Date July 28, 1980 r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 41 Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes. (Attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No X 1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes -or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. - X 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. — X 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground Crater quality or quantity, alteration of existing drainage patterns. ._ X 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the r , vicinity. - X 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 9. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) - X 10. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished -above and in The attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and infor— mation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date July 27, 1980 ignature 14, For Richard T. Turner xecu ive Officer RE: COSTA MESA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92626 R. 0. BOX 1200 tamwiv.smw+nsaror.�vmn FROM THE OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER July 24, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Gentlemen: a r,U,LM2.,1,,0� RICHARD T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY 170M001`1 COMMISSION The City of Costa Mesa has received the notice of review of the City's sphere of influence. The City's sphere was last amended on August 14, 1974. The City's sphere is substantially coterminous with City limits, with excep- tions occurring between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue. Unincorporated land is located in this area which adjoins the limits or sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. The City of Costa Mesa does not believe that there have been changes since the sphere was last reviewed which warrant a reconsideration of the present sphere of influence. Sincerely, Fred So sabal City Manager GMS:ajw MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION LIN OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA b SEP I2 •jgg0Prl August 27, 1980 City 0r Vj'gj?01rX1 BEAC ' CALtc. The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orang California was held on August 27, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Comm present were Robert E. Dwyer, Chairman,•Edison W. Miller,.Donald J. Saltarelli and James T. Jarrell. Alternate Members: Harriett M. Wieder. Absent: Joan K. Riddle, Philip L. Anthony and Phillip R. Schwartze. In attendance: Victor Beilerue, Deputy County Counsel, Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer and the Secretary. Lomrnissioner SaiLareilii fled the Pled-ge uF �:'rley:aiiue. The Executive Officer gave the Invocation. IN RE: MINUTES OF,THE MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1980. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission approved, as submitted, the -minutes of its meeting of August 13, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. DONALD J. ROBERT E. NOES:. COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, SALTARELLI, HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND DYWER. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 79-2 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission certified.' -:he review and consideration of negative declaration I8/61028 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 79-2 to the Dana Point Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEDER AN = �' ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE.�9��. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-69 - See File. a-, IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 I� ANNEXATION NO. 91 - SMITH ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 91 - Smith Annexation to County Sanitati.on District No. 7. JARRELL AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD, J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. , Date EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND COPIES $ENTiOt ROBERT E. DWYER. © Mayor NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Manager ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Attorney �] P W Cirectoi Resolution No. 80-70 - See File. ComDcrDtiec:ot p o:ror s IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION'DISTRICT NO. 7 E] coun:i:mod ANNEXATION NO. 97 - GIMENO ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 97 - Gimeno Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. 20. 4 T i 1 August 27, 1980 AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROBERT E. DYWER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-71 - See File. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ANNEXATION NO. 2-79 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1980) The Executive Officer reminded the.Cormission that the proposed annexation had been continued at th.e request of Garden Grove to allow sufficient time to prezone the territory. Commissioner Jarrell 'asked if the prezoning had been concluded. Commissioner Wieder interjected the Garden Grove City Council by a majority vote on Tuesday, August 26, 1980, prezoned the territory R3. Commissioner Miller questioned the inclusion of the existing commercial uses along Garden Grove Boulevard. Mrs. Wieder responded the existing commercial uses were not in conformance with the city's general plan. Chairman Dwyer opened the public,hearing. Bob Lloyd, 1201 Edgeview, Santa Ana, identified himself as a property owner within the annexation territory and favored annexation. John Silstrale identified himself as an affected property owner. Mr. Silstrale favored annexation and thought the city's prezoni.ng would benefit the entire area. Howard Soloman, Chairman, HCD,nWest Orange County, read excerpts from a 'tettpr he had• reS;eive! from.,M1iurra� Stor.11,, .Director, -E -- i- the need .for :certain, - improvements, i.e.', drainage, lighting and.sidewalks with the annexation territory. Mr. Soloman hoped Garden Grove would make the same commitments. Bob Dunek, Senior Analyst, City_of Garden Grove answered Commissioner Wieder's question that the city would be glad to attend the upcoming HCD meeting at the Rancho Los Alamitos school. Mr. Dunek commented the city's goal was to eliminate strip commercial along Garden Grove Boulevard. The R3 zone which the city had approved was consistent with the city's general plan. Mr. Dunek added the city's zoning ordinance permitted nonconforming uses. , Mr. Dunek answered Commissioner Jarrell'•s question that there were a handful of commercial uses along Garden Grove Boulevard that were affected. Most of the island was developed residential. Most of the residents/landowners favored multiple -residential zoning for the area. Mr. Dunek answered Chairman Dwyer's question that there were no vacant parcels within the commercial area. W. 0. Davis, 12881 Josephine Street, supported the proposed annexation. Ray Bol l n identified h-Imself as an affected landowner. Mr. Bolin commented on the deficiencies of the private water system in the area. Mr. Bollin favored annexation. Walter Hart identified himself as a maintenance man for the Dalewood and Tract 1052 Mutual Water Companies. Mr. Hart emphasized the deficiencies in the water system and supported annexation. William Ashford, 12941 Adelle Street, reported he had resided in the area for more than 30 years. Mr. Ashford stated he had a commercial use on a portion of his property which he wanted to expand. However, his expansion would be limited by the city's R3 zone. Mr. Ashford opposed the proposed annexation. Mr. Ashford argued that their water system was more adequate than the city's. Paula Marcheson, representing a coalition of unincorporated areas, opposed annexation because the procedures denied the residents the right to vote. Ms. Marcheson suggested delaying action until after January 1, 1981, when the authority for island annexations expired. Commissioner Wieder commented that there would not be any increase in property taxes as a result of annexation and that area residents would benefit from annexation to the city. 21 August 27, 1980 6 •• Commissioner Miller interjected the residents did in a sense have the opportunity to "vote" by participating in public hearings through petitions and oral testimony. Mr. Miller noted that elections were costly. Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 2-79 to the i city of Garden Grove. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J.'SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON•W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEDER AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-72 - See File. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON LAMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 80 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 23, 1980) The Executive Officer advised that he had received a letter from the Stanton City Manager requesting to withdraw the subject annexation. Mike Pollis, representing the city of Stanton, reported the city still wanted to annex the site, but since the major property owners still object, the city thought it wise to withdraw its application. Mr. Pollis answered Commissioner Saltarelli's question that the city Council wanted the property owners support before they continued with annexation proceedings. Commissioner Miller asked if the city had led anyone to believe t'rlat the Uubl'i•c' heard g' yi(;oY1d clot 'be {'cld::%"M;`a' Pol ;-IS - Ui1JY4erEd•'9Iy: Mr. Pollis responded to Commissioner Jarrell's question that there were less than ten landowners within the 34 acres. Most of the residents were tenants in apartments or mobilehomes. Commissioner Miller commented that a lot of time and staff work has been spent on this proposal and that he would like to hear the opponent's arguments against annexation. Commissioner Wieder interjected that if the Commission approved the proposal she would vote against it. Commissioner Saltarelli remarked the Legislature wanted county islands eliminated. The city of Stanton wanted to annex the island. Consequently, he wanted to hear the reasons against annexation. Victor T. Vellerue, Deputy County Counsel, advised that since the public hearing had been continued they did not have to renotice or readvertize the hearing. Charles Lamperts, co-owner of an affected mobile home park, commented the residents were under the impression that the matter would be dropped. Consequently, they were not prepared to present arguments. On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed Lampson (island) Annexation No. 80 to the city of Stanton until its meeting of September 10, 1980 and directed the city of Stanton to notify the major landowners of such continuance. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J., SALTARELLI, JAMES TO. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M.. WIEDER AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. IN RE: REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 23, 1980) The Executive Officer presented the staff's report and recommended the inclusion of the Beeco property in the sphere, the transfer of the Bay Knolls tracts to the Costa Mesa sphere of influence and the redefinition of the northern 22. , August 27, 1980 Irvine Coastal boundary along the alignment of the San Joaquin Hills corridor. Jim Hewicker, Planning Director, city of Newport Beach, reported his council did not oppose the inclusion of the Beeco property in their sphere. The city had no position on the other staff recommendations. Mr. Hewicker answered Commissioner Saltarelli's question that he supposed the city would oppose any proposed deannexation of the strip that surrounded the Beeco property. Bill Banning, President, Beeco, Ltd., argued that including any of the unincorporated 458 acres in a city's sphere was premature at this time = because they had initiated a general plan amendment with the county as part of the county's local coastal program. Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. Chairman Dwyer interjected that he could not support excluding the Beeco property from the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Mr. Dwyer contended that inclusion or exclusion of the property within the Newport Beach sphere of influence would not impact the planning process. On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the Commission adopted the prepared negative declaration and reaffirmed the sphere of influence for Newport Beach with the exclusion of the Bay Knolls tracts and directed staff to report back in 12 months on the progress of the Beeco property within the county's local coastal program. AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, EDISON W. MILLER, AND JAMES-T. JARRELL. NOES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYER. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-73 - See File. IN RE: REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF COSTA MESA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The Executive Officer nrpspnted the staff's report and recommended the inclusion of the Bay Knolls tracts within the Costa Mesa sphere. Alan Roeder, represented the city of Costa Mesa, referenced the city manager's letter of August 18, 1980 opposing the inclusion of the Bay Knolls tracts within the Costa Mesa sphere. Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Miller, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the prepared negative declaration and reaffirmed the city of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence with the inclusion of the Bay Knolls tracts located westerly of Tustin Avenue. AYES: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL AND ROBERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-74 - See File. COMMISSIONER WIEDER WAS CALLED FROM THE MEETING. IN RE: SENATE BILL 180 Mr. Turner advised SB 180 prohibited his issuance of a certificate of filing on any jurisdictional change until any exchange of property tax has been negotiated. Staff then did not expect to schedule any jurisdictional changes for the Commission's agenda for approximately two months. The consensus of the Commission was not to alter the existing hearing schedule, but continue to review spheres of influence. No formal action was taken. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. ATTEST: ecretary 23. 4 �� `• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL COUNCILMEN MINUTES NLCALQ' August 25, 1980 INDEX ' (j) A copy of a letter from Allyn McDowell to the Planning Commission Chairman regarding his impressions, as a visitor, of the controversy concerning the possible extension of the concrete walkway on the beach. (Attached) (k) Remove rom the Consent Calendar. (1) Copies of reps from the Maricopa County Attorneys- f ice and the Mayor of Portland, Oregon in res-ponse to Al Lizanetz's efforts to suppress the sale Seagrams' liquor in their states. (Attache (m) Preliminary agenda for Local Agency Format Commission meeting of August 27, scheduling Spheres of Influence of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. (Attached) (n) Minutes of the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion meeting of July 23, including_rev_iew_and update of Newport Beach's Sphere of_Influence. (Attached) o Applications before Public Utilities Commis- sion: (1) Trailways, Inc. and American Buslines, Inc. to increase intra- state passenger fares. (2) Southern California Edison Company to increase base rates for electric service. (3) Southern California Gas Co any for adjusting tariffs. (4) Palm Springs Shuttl Service, Inc. to operate as pas nger and baggage service between ange County and Palm Springs and surrounding cities. rd of upervisors meetings of (p) Ag/AMA Au19 and 20, 1980. 5. CLAIMS F- For denial and confirmation Claims of the Creferral to the insurance (36) carrier: (a) ClaSmith for damages on May 11, Smith and 13th Street, allegedly tained while being issued a traffic ation. /(b)im of D. G. Cowie for property damage Cowie July 28, 1980, alleging that a City use truck destroyed his garbage can when it turned onto private property at 318 Island Avenue. Volume 34 - Page 209 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CAL � `EJe..n..cr 9r ionn (c) Claim of William R. Nichols for property Nichols damage allegedly sustained when his car was towed away from 123 - 44th Street on July 25, 1980. (d) Claim of Gary Gundersen for property Gundersen damage allegedly sustained when a baseball broke his windshield while he was on duty at Fire Station 6, 1348 Irvine Boulevard on August 8, 1980. (c) Claim of Tom le. Mmilnrnloo for fain(, Manloenioo arrest and imprls000KnL aL 43rd roil Itiver. Drive on June 16, 1980. (f) Claim of Bernard B. Greene for property Greene damage allegedly sustained when a utility cover went through the bottom of his car on Dover Road on June 6, 1980. (g) Claim of Michael Louis Gibellino for Gibellino property damage allegedly sustained when his car was struck by a City vehicle. 6. S ONS AND COMPLAINTS - For confirmation of the ity Clerk's referral to the insurance carri r: (a) Su ons and Complaint of John Rosheim for Rosheim depr vation of rights under color of state law, sault and battery, negligence, Case No. 33 in Orange County Superior Court. previous claim filed. %an (b) Summons Complaint of Thomas Wilcox, a Wilcox minor, by To Wilcox, his guardian ad litem,for inj ctive relief and damages, Case No. 33-92- 6 in Orange County Superior Court. No previ us claim filed. (c) Summons and Complai t 0P Philip Scott Ramser, Jr. •. Ramser, Jr. for £als imprisonment, battery and malicious prosecu on, and exemplary damages, Case No. 40524 in Municipal Court, Harbor Judicial D trict. (d) Summons and Complaint of Pa rick T. Bressert Bressert j for personal injuries, Case 41433, in j Harbor Municipal Court. 1 Volume 34 - Page 210 1 MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA July 23, 1980 tNa'� VEMIVS! AUG 16 Cltt of JIUM)ORI Sam � CALIF• �&I, The reg lar meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orang 8� ► Californ'a was held on July 23, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Commiss�iCtlr present w re Robert E. Dwyer, Chairman, Edison W. Miller, Donald J. Saltarelli, Philip L. nthony and James T. Jarrell. Alternate M bers: Harriett M. Wieder, Joan K. Riddle and Phillip R. Schwartze. Absent: None In attendance: Victor Bellerue, Deputy County Counsel, Kenneth W.•Scattergood, Administrative sistant and the Secretary. I Commissioner Salt relli led the Pledge of Allegiance. ''j The Administrative Assistant gave the Invocation.. IN RE: MINUTES On motion Commission approved, as AYES: COMMISSIO • NOES: ABSENT: THE MEETING OF JULY 9, 1980. f Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the RPomitted, the minutes of its meeting of July 9, 1980. JAMES T. JARRELL, DONALD J. SALTARELLI, HILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER. COMMISSIONERS NNE. COMMISSIONERS ESISON W. MILLER. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 40 - ISMER ANNEXATION On motion of Commissio er Saltarelli, duly seconded and carried, the Commission sustained'the Executiv Officer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt fr CEQA and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. 40 - Wismer Ann ation to County Sanitation District No. 2. AYFS: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SAL ARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, - PHILIP L. ANT NY AND "BERT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER. Resolution No. 80-60 - See File. • IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO MIDWAY CITY � NITARY DISTRICT TRASK AVENUE NO. 5 ANNEXATION On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, u1 Commission sustained the Executive Officer's determin ti annexation was categorically exempt from CEQA and appr•v proposed Trask Avenue No. 5 Annexation to the Midway Ci AYES: COMMISSIONERS DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES PHILIP L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS EDISON W. MILLER. Resolution No. 80-61 - See File. y seconded and carried, the on that the proposed ed, as recommended, the Sanitary District. JARRELL, Date DWYER.. cul SENT I, Q mayor ISd manager I ff Attorney p w rNrector cambev Director rl other IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT MAGNOLIA ANNEXATION NO. 10 On motion of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded a Commission certified the review and consideration of city of Westmi declaration No. 79-66 for SP-695 and approved, as recommended, the Magnolia Annexation No. 10 to the Midway City Sanitary District. 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. 80-62 - See File. Cpum.mme — carried, the er negative 13. July 23, 1980 COMMISSIONER MILLER ARRIVED AND ASSUMED H'IS DUTIES. • IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 28 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 7 Mr. Scattergood presented the staffs report and located the site. Mr. Sc ttergood answered Commissioner Miller's question that the proposed annexat n would not affect the county's negotiations with Anaheim Hills over dedicatio of open space easements. Seeing no one to speak to the proposed annexation, Chairman Dwyer close the pulic hearing. NOn motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the C&pission certified the review and consideration of city of Anaheim final E 214 for Tentative Tracts 10967-78 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annekation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District\No. 7. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAM ES T. JARRELL, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, EDISON W. MILLER,. \ DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E. DWYER. a NOES: COMMISSIO%ERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER`\S NONE. • Resolution Na\80-63 - See File•. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXA ON TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ORANGE PARK VILLA ANNEXATION Mr. Scattergood pre en 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 afbggr discussion with the city he was sure that Orange had stringent standards for dpndominium conversions. Robert Sundstrom, representi g the sole landowner, Orange Park Ventures, concurred with the staffs report\ nd recommendation. Mr. Sundstrom offered to answer any questions: There being no further testimony, Chairman Dwyer closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Anthony, kuly seconded and -unanimously iscarried, the Commission sustained the Executive Of icer's determination that the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from C A and approved, as recommended, the proposed Orange Park Villas Anenxat� n to the city of Orange. AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, DONALD J. SALTARELLI AND RO � RT E. DWYER. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Resolution No. 80-64 - See File. IN RE: 'PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON 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 of Commissioner Saltarelli, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed Lampson Anenxation No. 80 to the city of Stanton until its regularly scheduled meeting of August 27, 1980. 14. ,3. July 23, 1980 AYES: '`COMMIS OS.Z NER3_DONALD J. SALTARELLI, JAMES T. JARRELL, EDISON W. MILLER, PHIL-I-P—L. ANTHONY AND ROBERT E. DWYER. •NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE. x IN RE: 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. Saltarel-li 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 L 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. 15. q July 23, 1980 Mr. Scattergood suggested the Commission continue the public hearing fon the review of and possible amendment to the Newport Beach sphere of influence �ntil August 27, 1980 and concurrently direct staff to schedule a public hearing or 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 on the 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. SALTARELLI, EDISON W. MILLER, JAMES T. JARRELL AND ROBERT E. 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 yew •resolved. Mr. Anthony advised the negotiations may be complicated by t}ie passage of SB 180 which specified that special districts would be plarties in the negotiations under certain circumstances. The Commission took no formal action. There being no futher business the meeting ATTEST: • • at 3:00 p.m. 4-P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \rAl 0 9y9y�<Rni July 11, 1983 MINUTES INDEX E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as indicated, All Ayes exce t for those items removed: 1. 0 INANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: None. 2. RES UTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) solution No. 83-77 declaring the City Vacation o Newport Beach's intention to vacate 83-77 Wi sor, Hillsborough and Belmont; (eess acc ting a map showing the street righ of -way proposed to be vacated; and setti August 8, 1983, as the date for the pu is hearing concerning the intende vacation. (Report from Public Works) (b) Removed fro the Consent Calendar. (c) Removed from he Consent Calendar. 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENT (a) Award Contract No 2352 to G. R. Frost, Clbhs Ave Inc., of Wilmingto , California, in the Strm Drain amount of $154,280; and authorize the C-2352 Mayor and City Clerk to execute said (38) contract for Clubhous Avenue'Storm Drain Improvement and hannel Place Tidal Structure and Sto m Drain Extension. (Report from Public Works) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral a indicated: (a) To Business License Supervis r for Bus Lic response, letter of complaint rom Zoe (27) Z. Gunzel regarding alleged un nitary conditions at Novak's Place of usiness. (b) To staff for response, suggestion from Garbage/ Dorothy Hutchinson regarding alleg d Litter litter abuse by beach patrons in We t (44) Newport Beach. (c) To Public Works for inclusion in the PW/Landscp records, letter from Paul Webster Impvm opposing replacement of trees and plants (74) with proposed concrete wall separating Coast Highway from Bonnie Doone. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records:. (a) Minutes of Local Agency Formatto Commission of Orange Counj;y.ye $, 1983. Volume 37 - Page 221 r v � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES y n REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers LL CAL� s�, DATE: July P.M. 1983 IN Present x x x x x x ROLL CALL. Absent x Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes June 27, 1983, was waived, approved as orrected, and ordered filed. Note: orrection to page 201 (spelling of Father lliam Barry) and page 202 (Council Member S auss voted "aye" on motion regarding ra ing of the Channel Bridge). Motion x C, The eading of all ordinances and resolutions All Ayes unde consideration was waived, and the City Clerk as directed to read by titles only. D. HEARING : 1. Mayor Ha opened the public hearing Big Canyon regarding LANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. Country Clb 589, a req at of the BIG CANYON COUNTRY PCA 589 CLUB, Newpo t Beach, to amend the Big Canyon (94) Planned Co nity Development Standards so as to permit th construction of a residence for the General agar of the Big Canyon Country Club on the go course, and the acceptance of an Environme tal Document. Property bounded by Jamb as Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur ulevard and Ford Road, in the Big Canyon P1 ned Community; zoned P-C. Report from the Pla ning Department, was presented. Hearing no one wishin to address the Council, the public he ring was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adop Resolution No. Res 83-75 All Ayes 83-75, amending the.Plan d Community Development Standards to rmit the construction of a residenc for the General Manager of the Big Canyon untry Club on the golf course, and the accept ce of an Environmental Document. 2. Mayor Hart opened the public aring Weed Abtm/ regarding CONFIRMATION OF ASSE MENTS - WEED Fire Dept ABATEMENT PROGRAM. (41) Memorandum from Fire Chief James eed with resolution was presented. Hearing no one wishing to address t Council, the public hearing was clos d. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution N Res 83-76 All Ayes 83-76, confirming the report of the Fi Chief regarding the cost of abatement o weeds and other nuisances and requesting the Auditor -Controller of Orange County to a er the amount of each assessment referred to n said report of the County Tax Roll. Volume 37 - Page 220 clOYM AGENDA N� MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 8, 1983 The reguIa` eeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, Calfiornia w het. on June 8; 1983, at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Commission present C Were Harriett Wieder, Chairman, Robert E. Dwyer, James T. Jarrell, Roger R. Stanton, and Donald J. 3 tarelli. Alternate Members: Joan K. Riddle and Phillip R. Schwartze. Absent: Bruce Nesta e. y In attendance: Benja' DeMayo, Deputy County Counsel, Richard T. Tu �, Executive'•, Officer and the Secretar Y %,,, .it. �� •, Commissioner Stanton led t Pledge of Allegiance. J . The Executive Officer gave th Invocation. IN,RE: MINUTES OF THE MEET G OF MAY 25, 1983 ♦; On motion of Commissio r Jarrell, duly seconded and ca Yed;-Oe Commission approved the minutes of its eeting of May 25, 1983, as submitted._ - AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JA LL, ROBERT E. DWYER, AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIED ABSTAINING: COMMISSIONERS ROGER R. STANTON. C... IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GRO SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-744-83 (2230 Haster St et, An The proposed annexation was a special dis ict annexation involving less than one acre and all the landowners had consented to ann ation. There was no public testimony. on -motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconde and carried, the Commission received the staff report, approved the prepared no a of exemption and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. B-744-83 t the Garden Grove Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROGER R. STANTON, ROB E. DWYER AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. Resolution No. 83-42 - See File. IN RE:. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-745-83 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11884) The proposed annexation was a special district annexation involving less than six acres and all the landowners had consented to annexation. There was no public testimony. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, the Commission received the staff report, certified the review and consideration of the city of Fountain Valley's Negative Declaration No. 83-4-2 for Tentative Tract 11884 and approved, as recommended, the proposed Annexation No. B-745-83 to the Garden Grove Sanitary District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROGER R. STANTON, ROBERT E. DWYER AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. V. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. Vg l ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. � € , Resolution No. 83-43 - See File. rs # ; A,=� .K:1: IN RE: REVIEW OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENC(`c ,7t ,. :F; U;:;pf ;iul Executive Officer Turner summarized the staff report'and located the city's sphere on the wall exhibit. The staff report recommended the Commission set a hearing for amending the city of Newport Beach sphere of influence to include the Beeeo (Banning) property. 32. June 8, 1983 No one responded to Chairman Saltarelli's invitation to Speak on the subject sphere of influence review. On motion of Commissioner Dwyer, duly seconded and carried, the Commission directed staff to schedule for Qublic heariMr.t_h�_evjgv—a,od„update.w`.-the cy eac s entire hereofinfluencefr itstreetUU R July 27, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. DWYER, JAMES T. JARRELL, ROGER R. STANTON AND) DONALD J. SALTARELLI. C , NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. IN RE: CANCELLATION OF JULY 13, 1983 MEETING Mr. Turner advised the Commission's July 13 meeting conflicted with the commencement of the Board of Supervisors' budget hearings. Mr. Turner offered the Commission could cancel the meeting or find a different location. Mr. Turner responded to Chairman Saltarelli's question that he had not yet scheduled any public hearing items for the July 13 meeting. Mr. Turner did remind the presentation of the Municipal Water District of Orange County and Coastal Municipal Water District reports on consolidation were scheduled that date, but could easily be rescheduled f the next meeting. Chairman Saltarelli thought it wise to cancel the July 13 meeting ' nce the Board of Supervisors' members would not be able to attend. On motion of Commissioner Jarrell, duly seconded and carried, e Commission cancelled its meeting of July 13, 1983 and directed staff to no fy the Municipal Water District and Coastal Municipal Water District that it wo d receive - their reports on the meeting of July 27, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES T. JARRELL, ROBERT E. DWYER, ROGER, . STANTON AND DONALD J. SALTARELLI. NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HARRIETT M. WIEDER. IN RE; RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR BARBARA DE Chairman Saltarelli read the resolution ssed April 27, 1983 commending Barbara bePauw for her 30 years service. r. Saltarelli presented to Barbara the resolution signed by all members of th Commission. IN RE: MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF COUNTY SURV OR SERVICES FOR LAFCO Mr. Turner advised he had re ved a copy of the aud1L cmmplaLud by EMA/ Management Services on Surveyor services Zovided LAFCO. Mr. Turner added the report was directed to Supervisor Stanton as C irman of the Board of Supervisors and asked Mr. Stanton direction for its distrib Tan and use. Commissioner Stanton knowledged receipt of the audit, but advised he had not had time to read it. Mr. tanton directed the Executive Officer to make copies available to all the commissiongos. COMMISSIONER WIEDER ARRIVE5/AT THE MEETING. There being no furtheXusiness the meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m. LATTEST: Secretary NOTICE OF CANCELLATION NOTICE, IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County at its regular meeting of June 8, 1983, CANCELLED its regular meeting scheduled for WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1983. / b 33. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ale G5:'00 COUNCIL MEMBERS 9c C'0 4i9 y9 ti� S� July 25, 1983 R(11 I cel I 'P � MINUTES INDEX COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: a) For acceptance and referral to Parks, PB&R Beaches and Recreation Director, request (62) rom Mr. and Mrs. Jack Wuertz to donate a oung tree or flowering shrub to be pla din the Carol Beek Center and Park on Be oa Island in memory of Gerald F. Gillard. (b) To Finance artment for consideration, Finance suggestions f m J. R. Davison regarding (40) replacement of a ing City Department vehicles with Poli a patrol vehicles that are being taken ut of service. (c) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to £\CityClerk for inclusion in the records(a) Letter of thanks from Mr. andFeldman expressing the expedihandling by the City regardin on end of Walnut Street. (b) Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission Preliminary Agenda for July 27, 1983. (c) Notice of Application for Authority to Adopt Intrastate Access Charge and Tariffs and Notice of Amendment to Application for an Increase in Rates from Pacific Telephone and Telegrap Company. (d) Status of Application #83-01-17 ICC No. MC-150 (sub. No. 333), of Or hound Lines, Inc.'s proposed aband nment of passenger bus services to o er 99 points in California, from Publi Utilities Commission. 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For nial and (36) confirmation of the City lerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Rex Burrows se ing reimbursement for Burrows property dama a to ten -speed bicycle wheel, alle dly sustained by defective storm drat cover at Hospital Road and Newport B ulevard on June 30, 1983. (b) Theodo a M. DePierro alleging property DePierro dams. to vehicle tire as a result of met object in roadway at Superior Av nue and Coast Highway on July 2, 83. Volume 37 - Page 236 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL\L -A ROLL �� S GJ' July 25, 1983 MINUTES INQFY (c) John Patrick Hill alleging unnecessary Hill forceful and accusing conduct by Police Officers at Corona del Mar Beach on July 4, 1983. (d) James P. Trimble alleging wrongful Trimble arrest by Police Department at 5219 River Avenue on May 13, 1983. 7. S ONS AND COMPLAINTS: For denial and (36) con irmation of the City Clerk's referral to the laims adjuster: (a) eo Dardatian, Inc., Orange County Dardarian S perior Court Case No. 33-87-56. (b) Ru rt Mark Medina, U.S. District Court, Medina Cas No. 83-4358. Claim was denied by City Council on January 10, 1983. (a) Daniel and Susan Thrower, Orange County Thrower Superi Court, Case No. 40-37-56. Claim w s denied by City Council on November 22, 1982. 8. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - (Report (66) from the City ager) (a) One Police C erk, Police Department. (b) One Engineer in Aide I, Public Works. (c) One Building Ma ntenance Man 1I0 General Services. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION ORTS: For Council information nd filing: (a) Citizens Environmentai Quality Advisory PW/Arches Committee request for NTERIM Bridge IMPROVEMENT OF ARCHES BRIDGE OVER COAST (74) RIAN AND HIGHWAY TO INCREASE PED%roval: BICYCLE SAFETY. For Council information and (b) Report from Executive Assis ant to the PB&R/Walnut' City Manager regarding TREE AT END OF St Trees WALNUT STREET AND LETTER OF AND DORIS (62) FELDMAN. (c) Removed from the Consent Calend r. (d) Removed from the Consent Calenda . (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Volume 37 - Page 237 y JULY 27, 1983 •PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION • • PRELIMINARY AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMM OF. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF0. 4. 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 22, 1983 A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Item Al is a special district annexation involving less than SO acres and all the landowners have consented to annexation.) I. `PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. B-746-83 (SP-109-82) Approximately 1.817 acres located on the southside of Garden Grove Boulevard and east of Fairview Street in the east city limits of Garden Grove. Filed by petition of the landowner, E & M Partnership. (The City of Garden Grove issued a negative declaration for SP-109-82 on May 4, 1982 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.) B. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE ANNEXATION NO. 363 (PRE -ZONE CHANGE NO. 997) Approximately 22.8 acres located on the east side of Kennymead Street between Santiago Canyon Road and Randall Street in the east Orange area. Filed by petition of landowners Albert L. Sibley and Donald D. Greek (aka Terra-V-OPA). (The City of Orange issued a notice of exemption for the prezoning and annexation of the territory in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.) 2. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE By minute order dated June 8, 1983, LAFCO scheduled a public hearing to review and update the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The study area is generally described as the Santa Ana River on the west, the city limits of Costa Mesa and the alignment of Tustin and Irvine Avenues on the north, the city limits of Irvine thence along the ridge of the San Joaquin Hills to Muddy Canyon on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. (A negative declaration has been prepared for the review and update in com- pliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.) m 1 2 m p_po LtJ E�ctm�rnUQ ¢m�aaas �- 4 5 JULY 27, 1983 AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 3. 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) The subject territory consists of four separately described parcels. Parcel A contains approximately 731 acres located easterly of the Santa Ana River and southerly of 19th Street (extended) in the west Newport Beach area. Parcel B contains approximately 413 acres located east and west of Jamboree Road, southerly of Bristol Street in the northeast city limits of Newport Beach. Parcel C contains approximately 224 acres located west of the San Joaquin Reservoir and north of San Joaquin Hills Road (extended) in the east city limits of Newport Beach. Parcel D contains approximately 1,129 acres located south of Central Avenue between Berry Street and State College Boulevard in the west city limits of Brea. Filed by Resolution No. 1172 of the Board of Directors of the Municipal Water District of Orange County dated April 27, 1983. (A negative declaration has been pre- pared for the proposed reorganization in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.) • C. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 1. 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. 2. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 498 (CORTESE) ... CHAPTER 27, STATUTES OF 1983 3. 1983 CALAFCO CONFERENCE - REGISTRATION AND RESERVATIONS (INDUSTRY HILLS AND SHERATON RESORT) 4. CALAFCO QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER - JULY, 1983 5. LAFC STAFF SALARIES • D. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER July 27, 1983 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: INCLUSION OF BEECO PROPERTY IN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE At their meeting of July 27, 1983, LAFCO approved the inclusion of'the Beeco property in the City's Sphere of Influence and made no other changes. The vote was 3-,0, with Commissioners Weider and Stanton absent. Commissioner Dwyer did mention, even though he voted for the motion, that he'will "give a second look" to the downcoast area when it is considered in the future. KENNETH J. DELINO Executive Assistant KJD; mm cc: City Council Planning Director J1JL2 8 ,19ga� -NCH, BEECO, LTD. 3990 WESTERLY PLACE, SUITE 255 P.O. BOX 1028 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 (714) 833-8701 July 21, 1983 Local Agency Formation Commission Orange County Hall of Administration Bldg. 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Gentlemen: This letter Is in answer to your's of June 21, 1983 in which you advised us of a public hearing to be held by your commission on July 27, 1983 concerning the possible amendment of the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River. The subject area covers property owned by this company. After consultation with the lessees producing oil on this property, we wish to advise you that we support the inclusion of our property in Newport Beachts sphere of influence provided that such Inclusion will not interfere with the oil operation on the property. Sincerely, Ck,-f ancock Banning 111 President HB:DO cc: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach ✓ James D. Hewicker, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach Mobil Oil Corporation, Attention: Paul Moody Armstrong Petroleum Corporation, Attention: Robert A: Armstrong irm RECE(VT f `. CI ant JUl.2 21983�" L i i/ 0 F Nopi?OKT BEACH, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 1, 1980 TO: Advance Planning Administrator FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Banning Ranch - LCP Would you please make sure that the West Newport Beach Improve- ment Association, Newport Crest Community Association, Margo Skilling, and Louise Greeley are notified of the presentation to be made to the Planning Commission on October 23, 1980 regarding the planning which they are doing on the Banning Ranch. n JDHlkk g Director 0v go CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 21, 1980 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention: Dan Kirtland, Environmental Analysis Division Subject: Banning - Newport Ranch; GPA 81-1 Dear Mr. Kirtland: The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to respond to your notification related to the preparation of the "Banning -Newport Beach; GPA 81-1" mailed pursu- ant to Section 15066 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the understanding of the Department that the purpose of the notice is to insure that the EIR will reflect the concerns of all responsible agencies which will issue approvals for the project. It is the opinion of the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach that the proposed project will have significant environmental effects. Further, that these effects will be not only immediately related to the project but will also include secondary impacts. It is further the opinion of the Planning Department that all "Mandatory Findings of Significance"' as outlined in Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act will or are attribu- table to this proposed project. In order to assure that the County and City have all information - necessary to review this project, we request that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared and that it be focused as indicated in the remainder of this letter. Further, in light of recent court decisions related to CEQA (Woodland Hills Residents vs the City Council of the City of Los Angeles), we would request that you circulate a "preliminary Draft EIR" and hold a number of scoping sessions. In an effort to expedite your planning process, we have offered comments at this time related to your proposed scope of review. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 County of Orange Page 2 August 21, 1980 REQUESTED CONTENTS OF THE EIR 1. Project Description: The project description should contain a etailed project description delineating the location and extent of all proposed uses within the project site, a cir- culation/transportation plan, a development phasing plan, and an implementing ordinance (ZC), if it is to be devel- oped concurrent with this project. 2. Earth: The Planning Department feels that a comprehensive soils and geologic study of the proposed area should be ac- complished. This investigation should focus future environ- mental documentation that might be required to process sub- division maps for the urbanized areas. The analysis should contain preliminary grading concepts for all areas to be urbanized, including roadways and active recreational areas. The analysis must be prepared to the degree necessary to determine the level of impact of all proposed uses. Prelim- inary erosion and siltation control plans should be accom- plished and analyzed. The impact of the proposed coastal residential developments on coastal bluff faces should be analyzed and the City of Newport Beach bluff ordinance's application as a mitigation measure for any potential adverse impacts reviewed. 3. Air ualit : The Planning Department feels that an in-depth local an regional air quality analysis of the proposed pro- ject should be accomplished. 4. Water: A hydrology study of the proposed project should Ee"accomplished. The aforementioned should analyze all potential impacts on existing water resources. Storm drain- age systems that might eliminate impacts on the Seminiuk Slough and wetlands areas should -be analyzed and incorporated into the project. 5. Biolo ical Resources: This section of the EIR should be accomplishedir-complished in sufficient detail so as 'to allow the decision -maker the opportunity to understand all trade- offs that are associated with development of the areas to be urbanized and those allowed for active recreation. Specific measures for the preservation and enhancement of significant biological resources should be outlined so that they might, if needed, be incorporated into implementation measures (ZC's). County of Orange Page 3 August 21, 1980 6. Cultural/S.cientific Resources: It would be a prerequisite to City consideration of the Draft EIR that a Resource Management Plan be developed for the proposed project area. 7. Natural Resources: The EIR should be prepared in such a manner that the decision -maker can readily understand the options that will remain upon adoption of the proposed project. The extent of recreation open space within a11• proposed urbanized areas should be included. Public recrea- tional open space should be provided* in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach "Park Dedication Ordinance." To the degree possible, all areas to remain as permanent open space should be identified and the resources required to maintain them as such analyzed. The proposed project includes areas of potential regional and local recreational significance. The portions of the aforementioned to remain as natural open space should be identified and analyzed. The impact of these open space areas in terms of police,, fire., and other public services and facilities should be documented. Finally, it is anticipated that a substantial portion of the proposed area would be utilized as recrea- tional open space. These areas should be identified and their impacts noted and analyzed. 8. Aesthetics: We would request that the visual and aesthetic ana ysis include analysis from the City of Newport Beach and relationships of the existing City to the proposed urban- ized area. Additionally, a discussion of how the proposed expansion areas will visually and aesthetically relate to the adjacent communities should be accomplished. The Plan- ning Department is concerned with the overall bonding of the visual area and has concerns about maintaining the exist- ing diversity of housing villages upon which the City of Newport Beach has developed. 9. Energy: The Planning Department desires that energy be addressed in terms of existing capacities, demands, and potential changes to existing systems that might be required by the proposed project. The EIR should focus future en- vironmental documentation as it relates to energy. Addi- tionally, the Draft EIR should discuss activity center placement and phasing. 10. Land Use: The Planning Department requests that the pro- posed land use, circulation, development phasing, and zoning County of Orange Page 4 August 21, 1980 concepts be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan. In order to accomplish a meaningful com- parison, we would request that the development concept be translated into use categories consistent with the Newport Beach Land Use Plan prior to analysis and then reviewed in terms of the following: A. Newport Beach General Plan: 1 Land Use Element 2 Residential Growth Element 3 Circulation Element (MPAH) 4 Recreation and Open Space Element (including hiking and bicycle trails plans) 5 Public Safety Element 6 Noise Element 7 Conservation of Natural Resources Element 8 Housing Element B. Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan It is of critical concern to the Planning Depart- ment that the area being proposed for urbanization be analyzed and ultimately developed in a manner that allows for mutually beneficial land use, As previously mentioned, it is further requested that all proposed land use contained within the project area be clearly defined as to nature and extent. This would include not only those areas proposed by the applicant for urbanization, but potential areas of public ownership. 11. Transportation/Circulation: Automobile: It is requested that the proposed project be analyzed using the City, of Newport Beach "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" - Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and Policy S-1 - "Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance." It is further requested that the following be analyzed as they relate to the proposed project: A. The impact of the proposed project on Coast Highway from the most westerly boundary of the City of Newport Beach to Dover Drive; County of Orange Page 5 August 21, 1980 The timing of the implementation of the widening of Coast Highway and Santa Ana River Bridge, extensions of 15th Street, 17th Street, 19th Street, Balboa 'Boulevard, and the Route 55 Freeway; and C. The existing and planned capacities of each roadway described in B. Using the Traffic Rhasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and City Policy S-1, the impact of the proposed project on the following intersections should be analyzed: 1 Coast Highway at Orange 2 Superior Boulevard/Placentia Avenue/15th Street 3 Coast Highway/Prospect Avenue 4) Coast Highway at Jamboree Road 5) Coast Highway at Bayside Drive 6) Coast Highway at Dover Drive 7 Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard 8 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 9 Newport Boulevard/15th Street/Industrial Way Transit: It is requested that the Draft EIR analyze any potential for mitigation of adverse traffic impacts by expan- sion of the proposed Orange County Transit District Facili- ties. The Draft EIR should clearly analyze the proposed impact and opportunities for transit patronage in both the urbanized portions of the project area and areas proposed for active recreational uses. A discussion of the relation- ship between the OCTC Multi -Modal Study proposals and the proposed project should be accomplished. Air Transportation: The Draft EIR should analyze the impact of all aspects of the proposed project on regional and sub- regional•air transportation facilities. A detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the John Wayne/ Orange County Airport should be accomplished. A primary focus of the aforementioned should be secondary impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, air quality) related to air trans- portation impacts. 12. Population: Comments are contained within other sections. 13. Housing: The Draft EIR should provide the decision -maker with a detailed description of all housing proposed for the project site. It would be advantageous for the Planning Department to know the range of housing opportunities to County of Orange Page 6 August 21, 1980 be offered, product type, and estimated costs. The minimum information would be that required to prepare fiscal impact analysis and compliance with Coastal Act Policy. 14. Recreation: The Draft EIR while focusing on the regional and sub -regional recreational opportunities should also address localized recreational issues. The extent and location of all local recreational facilities within the urbanized areas should be documented. Additionally, the ability of existing community recreational programs in the City of Newport Beach to absorb the additional popula- tion should be analyzed. 15.- Public Health and Safety: See Sections No. 2, 3 and 16. 16. Noise: The impacts of highway -associated noise from the proposed project site should be analyzed on all arterial roadway segments passing through the project as well as Coast Highway from the City's most westerly boundary to Newport Boulevard. Additional impacts analyzed in Sec- tion 11 on Air Transportation should be summarized in this section. 17. Services and Utilities: The existing, planned, and com- mitted capacities of the following public and quasi - public services, facilities, and utilities should be reviewed and determinations made as to which jurisdictions should provide each service: A. Fire Services: County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, City of Huntington Beach, and City of Costa Mesa. B. Police: County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and-Tity of Costa Mesa. C. Marine SiSafety: City of Newport Beach, City of Gntngton Beach, County of Orange, and City of Costa Mesa. D. Water: City of Newport Beach, City of Huntington e� a— , and Mesa Consolidated Water District. E. Sewer: City of Newport Beach or Costa Mesa Sanitary Districts. F. Governmental Administration: City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, and City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange Page 7 August 21, 1980 G., Telephone: H. Gas I. Elect,ri city: J. Parks and Recreation: City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and County of Orange. K. Health Care Facilities and Emeroencv Response: Additionally, the EIR should discuss the impacts of the proposed project on the City of Newport Beach local commercial and employment areas. The location of personal and professional services and facilities related to the project should be analyzed. 18. Other Concerns: •A. Fiscal Impacts: It is requested that a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed urbanized portions of the project be performed, assuming annexation prior to development and using both the City's "Average" and "Marginal" Cost/Revenue approaches. B. Governmental Support: It is requested that the EIR provide a detailed analysis of all options of providing governmental services and facilities to the proposed project area. C. Alternatives: It is requested that several alter- natives be evaluated as indicated below: 1) No Development: This would involve public acquisition of all areas designated for urbanization by the proposed project. 2) Development Phasing: A series of development phasing alternatives should be reviewed. These alternatives should include consider- ation of major aspects of the proposed circu- lation system such as: a) The extension of Balboa Boulevard to 19th Street; County of Orange Page 8 August 21, 1980 b) The extension of Coast Highway; c) The extension of Coast Highway; d') The extension of the Santa Ana Ri e) The extension of to its terminus. 17th Street to 15th Street to 19th Street across ve r; the Route 55 Freeway Additionally, consideration of the development phasing as it relates to the following roadway improvements in the City of Newport Beach should be analyzed: a) Approved Circulation Systems' improve- ments of committed Newport Beach projects; b) Proposed improvements to the Coast Highway/Superior Avenue intersection; c) The proposed replacement of the Coast Highway bridge at the Santa Ana River; d) The proposed widening of Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Beach Boulevard. Additionally, development phasing alternatives should be reviewed and analyzed so as to provide timing for the following: a) Schools, b) Local Parks, c Libraries, d Fire Facilities, e Police Facilities, f General Governmental Services, g Sewer, h Water, and i) Other Public and Quasi -Public Services and Facilities. 3) Design: Alternatives to the proposed project that might achieve designs compatible to the City of Newport Beach existing residential communities should be evaluated. A comparison with existing residential communities within the City of Newport Beach should be accomplished. County of Orange Page 9 August 21, 1980 4) Public Park Usage: A series of alternatives for public park usage should be reviewed. 5) Newport Beach General Plan: An alternative that would develop the project area in con- formance with the City of Newport Beach's General Plan should be prepared. The receipt of your "Notice of Preparation" of the Draft EIR for this project will allow the City and County an excellent opportunity to complete our evaluation of the environmental concerns that should be reviewed on this project. We look forward to workin with you. please contact me at (714� 640-2197. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER Director by . FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator If we can be of any assistance, FT/kk cc: Mayor of the -City of Newport Beach - Jackie Heather Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Manager - Robert L. Wynn Newport Beach City Attorney - Hugh Coffin Newport Beach Public Works Director - Ben Nolan Phillips, Brandt & Reddick - Attention: Michael Brandman 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 OR CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC VICE-CHAIRMAN DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN PHILIP L. ANTHONY SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT JAMES T. JARRELL COUNCILMAN CITY OF BUENA PARK Y OP N G E LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834.2239 In Re: Review and Update of the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Ladies and Gentlemen: By minute order dated July 23, 1980, your Commission continued the public hearing on the review and update of the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence until August 27, 1980. ALTERNATE, PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE LEGAL AUTHORITY COUNCILMAN CITY OFSANJUANCAPISTRANOCallfornla Government Code Section 54774 mandates".....the ALTERNATE commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of JOAN K.RIDDLE influence developed and determined by them." The Commission's REPRESEN GENERAL UBLIC OF administrative policy on spheres of influence specifies a periodic ALTERNATE review every, three years. HARRIETT M. WIEDER SUPERVISOR HISTORY SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD T. TURNER By Resolution No. 73-145 passed September 12, 1973, LAFCO deter - EXECUTIVE OFFICER mined a partial sphere of influence for the city of Newport Beach. The unincorporated areas designated within this sphere of influence were the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel (Area 1), the "County Triangle" (Area 3) and the Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) 2 ' as identified on the attached Exhibit A. In November, 1973, LAFCO considered designating the Banning (Beeco) property (Area 2) within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. The city argued that the Beeco property was completely surrounded by the Gj Q city limits as a result of an annexation completed in 1950 and as such should be within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The (' 1 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 (Banning) property within the Newport Beach sphere. At the request of certain residents within the Bay Knolls' tracts (Area 4, Exhibit A), LAFCO 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 i August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 2 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 and the territory easterly of Muddy Canyon was in Laguna Beach's sphere. The Commission's decision was heavily influenced by the county's recently approved general plan for the Irvine coastal area. LOCATION The boundaries of the established 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 Exhibits A and B). FINDINGS Section 54774 of the Government Code specifies the factors which must be considered by the Commission when determining the spheres of influence of each local governmental agency and requires a written statement of their findings with respect to each of these factors. For your review these factors are discussed as follows: (a) The -city -of Newpo-L.-Beach-is located within the urbanized central secti-on 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 only undeveloped territory commonly known as the Irvine coastal area. The expansion, then, of Newport Beach is limited to certain county islands on the north and west and the Irvine Coast on the east. By Resolution No. 80-33 adopted April 23, 1980, LAFCO approved the annexation of the county "Triangle" (Area 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). The proposal has been referred to the County Board of Supervisors for final disposition. b- August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere'of Influence Page 3 Neither the city nor the residents have expressed any interest in annexing the Bay Knolls tracts (Area 4) or Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) at this time. Area 6 (the Irvine Coast) has been the subject of much planning study in recent years. Currently, most of the territory is being considered for acquisition by the Federal Government as part of a proposed national park. Until the ultimate land use decisions are made, annexation of the Irvine Coast is not expected. (b) The range of services the'agency is providing or could provide. The city of Newport Beach is a full service municipal corporation. Table I summarizes the major urban services provided by the city and how these services are financed. TABLE I Service Method of Financing Sewer General Revenues Water User Fee Police General Revenues Fire General Revenues Library General Revenues Park and Recreation General Revenues Street Lighting General Revenues Trash Collection General Revenues Street Sweeping General Revenues (c) The projected future population growth of the area. Area 1 (Santa Ana River), Area 2 (Banning) and Area 6 (Irvine Coast).are uninhabited. There are no development plans for these areas and meaningful population projections are not available. Area 3 (County "Triangle"), Area 4 (Bay Knolls) and Area 5 (Santa Ana Heights) are developed. The city of Newport Beach is amending its general plan within the County "Triangle" area which will increase the residential density and the project future population. The city does not expect any significant change in the population of Bay Knolls and Santa Ana Heights. (d) The type of development occurring or planned for the area including, but Area 1 is the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel. The property is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District which uses the territory for flood control purposes. August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 4 Area 2 is the Banning (Beeco) property which is in use for oil production. Ultimate development of territory is expected to be a mixture of land uses Including residential and commercial. However, no new development plans have been offered. Area 3 is the County "Triangle" recently approved by LAFCO for annexation to Newport Beach. Current land uses within the territory include a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The city is considering an amendment to its general plan that would provide more higher density residential within the area. Area 4 (Bay Knolls) and Area 5 (Santa Ana Heights) are developed, mostly low density residential. The existing uses are not expected to significantly change. Area 6 (Irvine Coast) is presently vacant, undeveloped hillsides and canyons. Much of the area is under consideration by the Congress for acquisition as a national park. Some low density residential and tourist commercial uses immediately adjacent to the city of Newport Beach are being considered by the Irvine Company. South of the study area the State of California recently purchased Moro Canyon for use as a state park. (e) The present and probably future service needs of the area. The infrastructure for serving the unincorporated islands west and north of Newport Beach already exist with sufficient capacity to serve these islands if annexed. Development of the Irvine Coast is uncertain, but would require the extension of roads and utilities. However, the cost of extending capital facilities into this area would be primarily borne by the landowner. (f) The city of Newport Beach is considered a "full -service" city providing such municipal type services as police, fire protection, water, sewer, parks and recreation, street lighting and maintenance and refuse collection. At the time the city's sphere of influence was adopted the city advised LAFCO that its utility lines had been oversized to accommodate development down coast on the Irvine lands. Other agencies with facilities and service responsibilities within the subject sphere of influence include the County Sanitation Districts, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Comments were solicited of these agencies regarding the subject review, but none were offered. August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 5 (g) The residents of Santa Ana Heights and Bay•Knolls supported their inclusion in the Newport Beach sphere of influence citing their affinity with the city. Although surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach the Banning property (Area 2) was excluded from the Newport Beach sphere because of the landowner's wishes. Area 3 (County "Triangle") was recently approved by LAFCO for annexation to the city of Newport Beach. LAFCO found the area would benefit from annexation. The Irvine Coast (Area 6) was included in the Newport Beach sphere because of its orientation to the city. The Commission found that whatever limited develop- ment was permitted it would most likely be adjacent to Newport Beach. (h) The existence of agricultural preserves on the area. Approximately 1,426 acres within the Irvine Coast are under the agricultural preserve contract. The contract on 55 acres will expire in 1981 and the contract on the remaining 1,371 acres will terminate in 1983. •COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A negative declaration, copy attached, was prepared for the review and update of the Newport Beach sphere of influence in accordance with state and local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The negative declaration has not been appealed. CONCLUSIONS California Government Code Section 54774 requires your Commission to periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by your Commission. In 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted a sphere of influence for the westerly one-half of the City of Newport Beach as illustrated on the accompanying Exhibit A. Area 2 (Banning/Beeco) was excluded from that sphere of influence at the request of the property owner over the recommendation of your staff and the objections of the City of Newport Beach. In 1976, the Commission considered the inclusion of the Irvine Coastal area within a city sphere of influence. The Commission rejected the City of Irvine's bid to place any of the Irvine Coast within its sphere of influence. The Commission determined that the territory westerly of Muddy Canyon was in the Newport Beach sphere of influence and that easterly of Muddy Canyon was in Laguna Beach's sphere (see accompanying Exhibit B). August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 6 The territory within the Newport Beach's westerly sphere of influence consists of unincorporated islands completely surrounded by city limits. The city has recently obtained LAFCO approval for annexation of the County "Triangle" (Area 3). Final disposition of this annexation is pending action by the County Board of Supervisors. The easterly sphere of influence within the Irvine Coastal area was decided by the orientation of the physical features and the county's general plan which designated certain limited development adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. The city of Newport Beach is a full -service municipal corporation providing such urban services as police and fire protection, water and sewer, library, parks and recreation, street lighting and maintenance and trash collection. The city supports the reaffirmation of its established sphere of influence. Comments were solicited of the adjacent cities and special districts, the Irvine Company and Beeco, Ltd. Most of the agencies solicited did not offer any comment or opinion on this matter. The cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine support the reaffirmation of the existing sphere of influence. The Laguna Beach County Water District by letter dated July 14, 1980 (copy attached) advised that it was a trustee for a joint power water transmission main in Coast Highway, and any development in this area would in turn have an impact on their district. The Laguna Beach County Water District did not oppose the existing sphere of influence for Newport Beach. By letter dated August 8, 1980, copy attached, Mr. Gene Hartline, Assistant Super- intendent, Irvine Unified School District, suggested rather than using the (San Joa- quin Hills) ridgeline as the northerly boundary (Irvine Coast) of the Newport Beach sphere of influence that a better boundary would be the South Orange Transit Corridor. This arterial will create a significant boundary which normally would obviate trans- portation for school children. Staff concurs with Mr. Hartline's observations and recommendations for Area 6 (Irvine Coast). Experience has shown that major arteries provide excellent boundaries between cities since they are more easily recognizable when delineating urban service area boundaries. In 1976) when the existing boundary was established, the County had not approved an alignment for the South Orange County Transit Corridor. Consequently, the ridgeline was used because of its topographical significance. By letter dated July 15, 1980 (copy attached), Mr. Kancock Banning III, President of Beeco, Ltd., opposed the inclusion of its property identified as Study Area No. 2 in the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Mr. Banning explained their objection was based on the fact that Orange County had developed zoning and other regulations which governed their oil operation. The City of Newport Beach on the other hand had specific charter provisions prohibiting oil production within its city limits. Mr. Banning further advised that the city was reviewing its policies on oil production in this area, and Beeco would be working with the city in this regard. Staff had recommended in 1974 that the Beeco property be included within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Rather, the Commission excluded the property from the sphere at the request of the landowner. The site still remains a County island completely surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach. The site cannot annex to any other city, and under existing statutes, the territory which surrounds it August 21, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review and Update of the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 7 cannot be deannexed from Newport Beach without the consent of the Newport Beach City Council. Incorporation of the site as a new city is not a viable alternative. At such time as the landowner plans to develop the site into other land uses, it is expected that he will annex the property to Newport Beach. Inclusion, then, of the Beeco property within the Newport Beach sphere of influence would be consistent with the legislative intent and definition of a'sphere of influence. Inclusion would not prevent the landowner from continuing oil production on the site or preclude him from further developing the property under the County. The Bay Knolls tracts (Area 4) was transferred from the Costa Mesa sphere of influ- ence to the Newport Beach sphere in 1974 to accommodate the residents wishes, but with the understanding by LAFCO that they would annex to Newport Beach. These residents have had six years to complete such an annexation. The initial annexation proposal failed because of the residents refusal to participate in a municipal assessment district by the City of Newport Beach proposed to correct the area's drainage problems. It has consistently been staff's opinion that Tustin Avenue should be the common boundary between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in this vicinity. It has been found that service area boundaries are more clearly defined and more easily recognizable along major arteries. Staff, then, supports the reaffirmation of Tustin Avenue as the sphere of influence demarcation between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in this area. By letter dated August 18, 1980, copy attached, Mr. Fred Sorsabal, City Manager of Costa Mesa, advised Costa Mesa does not seek the addition of Area 4 (Bay Knolls)' within the Costa Mesa sphere of influence, citing the location of a Newport Beach fire station and public library at Dover Drive and Irvine.Avenue as evidence of maintaining the existing sphere of influence determination. However, this logic would also apply to much of the existing city limits of Costa Mesa located easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. Staff, then, does not concur with Mr. Sorsabal's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the prepared negative declaration. 2. Receive submitted staff report and accept findings. 3. Revise the established sphere of influence for Newport Beach as follows: (a) Include study Area 2 (Beeco) within the Newport Beach sphere. ,J// (b) Exclude the Bay Knolls tracts (Area 4) from the Newport Beach sphere of influence. (c) Re -define the northerly boundary of Area 6 (Irvine Coast) as the centerline of the final alignment of the South Orange County Transit Corridor. R�ctfully s bmitted, Richar . Turner Executive Officer RTT:KWS:ff Attach cfnts cc C'ty off NCosta Mesa ityy of Lrvpinet Beach City of Laguna Beach July 16, 1980 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER - 640-2151 JU1.. 17 i98�-r'.,i rn Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civicta Center Plaza, Room 58 LOCAL AGENCfAtvJT'�11C^ �Ic� Attention: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Subject: Newport Beach Sphere of Influence - BEECO Property Gentlemen: On July 23, 1980 the Local Agency has scheduled a public hearing to Influence for the City of Newport is to advise you that the Newport at its meeting of July 14, 1980, oppose the inclusion of the BEECO port within the City's Sphere of Formation Commission review the Sphere of Beach. This letter Beach City Council, took a position not to property in West New - 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 oil leases in 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. S` cerely, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager RLW/kk City Mall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 LOCATION (SAP Study areas: (1) Centerline Santa Ana River (2) Beeco, Ltd. (3) County "Triangle" (4) Irvine -Tustin Corridor (5) Santa Ana Heights (6) Irvine Coastal Area Y O H. B. V/ m Y/ .o /y_'� jay ~'Tp �,� ``,� .d` IRVINE R 7, F •1 C E .�" x:••c=1t .ice;.:..; ..�f-. w;u •• _ F A C 1 ... .. _... .. .. .... .. ,r.„m..,...r..::.i...�:.~•.i.:.cranXskxc-..cax'"eei!L�'tr •..� _i.tirv.. ,. NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S . O . I . ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 ( I St. partial ) NEW MAP 10 / 13 /77 ADOPTED 11 / 2B / 73 ( 2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / 14 / ?4 (TUSTW AV) �Y _1 AMENDED 9 / B / '76 (,COASTAL AREA) scale 1:31000 I;t ' •'. G c E A N c ` � c � LAGUNA 'BEACH i' Z 1�ztp rj pjjiI-F NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S.O.I. ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 0st• partial) NEW MAP 10/ 13/77 ADOPTED II / 28 / 73 (end partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / 14 / 74 ( TUSTA AY.) i AMENDED 9 / 8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) scale 1:3,000 DIRECTORS: RICHARD JAHRAUS, President LOUISJ. ZITNIK, Vice President ALFRED R. HASTIE BRUCE R. SCHERER EUGENE M.SHIDLER OFFICERS: JOSEPH R. SWEANY General Manager & Secretary ROBERT L. JOYCE, Auditor JOSEPH A. SOVELLA District Engineer LEGAL CONSULTANT: RIME L& HELSING, INC. MA\JiN .A '00UT"J env 306 THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX 987, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 714/494.1041 Mr. Richard T. Turner Executive Officer LAFCO 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Dick: July 14, 1980 JU L15 19�� RICHARD T. TURfIER, WCUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FOMIATIOPI COmlmlSSIOiV We received your notification of a review of the adopted sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach. Please be advised that there may be some overlap in the spheres of influence presented by our District and the City of Newport Beach. As Trustee for the joint power water transmission main in Coast Highway, any development or change in ownership which will affect the flow in this line will inturn have an impact on our District. Please do not consider this in anyway an objection to the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. The statement is merely for the purpose of calling the attention of the commission to the fact that our District is impacted by the sphere. Very truly yours ���...•✓✓✓�.✓ Wr.. Joseph R. Sweany JRS:mf BEECO, LTD. 3990 WESTERLY PLACE. SUITE 288 P.O. BOX 1028 NEWPORT BEACH; CALIFORNIA 92883 1714)833.8701 July 15, 1980 County of Orange Local Agency formation Commission Hall of Administration Building 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Gentlemen: r M JUL 161980 RICNARD T. TURIIER, EXECUTIVE OFACCI �GCAI AGENCY FORMATION CMI1-IIS;10'• This letter is a response to your letter of June 30, 1980 stating that the Local Agency Formation Commission will hold a public hearing on July 23 to review the adopted sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach, This company owns the property shown as Study Area No. 2 on the location map attached to your June 30 letter. The property consists of something less than 500 acres largely devoted to a producing oil field with over 300 wells together with extensive supporting equipment (compressors, pollution controls, etc.) designed to maintain a very sophisticated "fireflood" secondary recovery program. Over the twenty-five years of the field's existence, Orange County has developed appropriate zoning and other regulations governing the oil operation. The City of Newport Beach on the other hand has specific charter provisions prohibiting oil production within its city limits. We are advised that the city intends to review the oil situation in this area, and we look forward to working with them in this regard. However, until there is a much clearer picture of how Newport Beach would relate to the oil field, our company feels that it is premature to consider placing the subject land in any sphere of influence. As Newport beach's oil review progresses along with development by the county of a local Coastal Plan for the area, we believe that all interested parties will have a clearer picture of what steps, if any, should be taken toward annexation of all or parts of the property into the City of Newport Beach. HB:DO Sincerely, BEECO, LTD. Hancock Banning I I, r14 MV 01 President BOARD OF EDUCATION A STANLEV coney, SuPounleMen( BRUCE GIVNE0. ATvnen(SupnnleMenr. SFN'.IP1Fgn a Fraluebon D..kA InI I RnaercO GENE BABNNE.Anwrme Supnnrerkent Suwes' Poa(SmmF DflABE RICHARDS Atunenr SON,nbndenl Ae..onm/sxeme. 2941 Alton Avenue • Irvine, California • Telephone (714) 556.4900 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 19535 • Irvine, California 92713 August 8, 1980 Mr. Kenneth W. Scattergood Acting Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission Orange County Hall of Administration Bldg 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Scattergood: rAUGn198O RICNARD TF TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Please be advised that the Irvine Unified School District Board of Trustees is considering the possibility of deannexing territory in the southern most portion of the school district. This area, cur- rently a part of Irvine Unified School District boundaries, is anticipated to be transferred to Newport -Mesa Unified School Dis- trict. Current occupied area involves Spyglass, Bren III, and Harbor View Ridge. Rather than using the ridgeline as proposed in your Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Study, we would recommend that a more logical boundary would be the South Orange County Transit Corridor proposed for adoption. This Transit Corridor will create a significant boun- dary which normally would obviate transportation for school children. We would hope that the commission would take this boundary into consideration as it views the possibility of establishing a newly defined Sphere of Influence for Newport Beach. If you have questions regarding the position being taken by the school district, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, \ ^ &i� Gene Hartline Assistant Superintendent Business Support Services dh/ cc: Stan Corey Dave King CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92626 P.O. BOX 1200 FROM TH E OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 18, 1980 Kenneth W. Scattergood, Local Agency Formation 10 Civic Center Plaza Room 458 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Scattergood: Acting Executive Officer Carmission AUG 19 1980 MCNARO I TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCK AGENCY FOMIATION COMMISSION Your letter of July 30, 1980, has been received regarding the continued Public Hearing on the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. It is my understanding that questions were raised at the July 23, 1980, LAFCO hearing concerning Area 4 (Irvine/Tustin Avenue corridor). In my letter to LAFCO on July 24, 1980, regarding the City of Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence, I indicated that we did not seek a reconsideration of our Sphere. The City does not seek the addition of Area 4 to the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence. This area seems to be logically oriented toward Newport Beach since several public facilities such as the fire station and public library at Dover Drive and Irvine Avenue are closer than canparable facilities in Costa Mesa. Thank you for your consideration. S' cerely, ' Fred Sorsabal City Manager FS:kh LOCAL AGENCY FVRMWTOGN COMMUSSM NEGATIVE DECLARATION (OF ORANGE CGCOUNTY DATE July 25, 1980 10 Civic.Center Plaza, Room 458, Santa Ana, California 92701 - Tel. 834-2239 Project Title: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence Project Location: Santa Ana River (west); city limits of Costa Mesa and Irvine (north)_ ridgeline of San Joaquin Hills and Muddy Canyon (east) Pacific Ocean (south) Project Description: Periodic review and update of established sphere of influence as required by Ca. Gov't. Code Section 54774 Persons or Agency proposing this project: Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County Phone: ( 714 834-2239 The Initial Study, as.attached and made part of this Negative Declaration, indicates that the above project will not have a'significant individual'or'cumulative adverse The project is a review and update of LAFCO's'approved sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach. This review does not consider or evaluate specific plans for development. Mitigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Project hearing date and time:, August 27, 1980 at 2;00 PA Project hearing placer an rillir r n±or Playa, Canta Ana California RICHARD T. TURNER EXECU.TIIVE OFFFyFII'CER' By: Date July 25, 1980 w ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes. (Attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No X 1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes -or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. X 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. _. X 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X, 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, alteration of existing drainage patterns, X 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. X 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 9. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) X 10. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and infor- mation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and -belief. Date_ July 25, 1980 J�Siggnature J For Richard T. Turner Executive Of icer RE: NEWPORT BEACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Page 2 AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1980 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION B. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ANNEXATION NO. 2-79 (Continued from meeting of April 23, 1980) Approximately 68.25 acres (county island) located southerly of Lampson Avenue between Dale Street and Josephine Street in the central Garden Grove area. Filed by Resolution No.' 5885-80 passed by the Garden Grove City Council. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.)- 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON LAMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 80 (Continued from meeting of July 23, 1980) Approximately 34.255 acres (county island) located east and west of Beach Boulevard, north and south of Lampson Avenue'in the south Stanton area. Filed by Resolution No. 79-1 passed by the Stanton City Council. (The city of Stanton prepared a negative declaration for the proposed annexation on January 2, 1979.) 3. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (Continued from meeting of July 23, 1980) The study area is bounded by 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. Initiated by action of the LAFC on June 25, 1980. (The Executive Officer prepared a negative declaration for the subject review and update.) 4. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF COSTA MESA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The study area is bounded by the Santa Ana River on the west, the city limits of Santa Ana on the north, the city limits of Irvine and Newport Beach on the east and the city limits of Newport Beach on the south. Scheduled by minute order of the LAFC on July 23, 1980. (The Executive Officer prepared a negative declaration for the subject review and update.) C. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 279 1980 2:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1980. A. CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS (Items Al - A3) ITEMS Al-A3 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS OF LESS THAN 50 ACRES AND ALL THE LANDOWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ANNEXATION 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE DANA POINT SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 79-2 Approximately 1.0 acre (Zone Change No. 5-78) located on the south side of Camino Del Avion, approximately 150 feet east of Shipside Drive in the Dana Point area. Filed by Resolution No. 79-10-10-2 passed by the Board of Directors of the Dana Point Sanitary District. (The County of Orange prepared Negative Declaration 18/01028 for Zone Change No. 5-78 on February 23, 1978.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 91 - SMITH ANNEXATION Approximately 1.19 acres located on the south side of Amapola Avenue between Orange Park Boulevard and Ranchwood Trail in the east city limits of Orange. Filed by Resolution No. 80-39-7 passed by the Board of Directors of of County Sanitation District No. 7. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITAITON DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 97 - GIMENO ANNEXATION Approximately 1.464 acres located northerly of Crawford Canyon Road and easterly of Daniger Road in the Cowan Heights area. Filed by Resolution No. 80-112-7 passed by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) PRELIMINARY AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 27, 1980 6� 2:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION E AUG13 1 9 $00.;I )' P GiY CF �� 4' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1980. Z ►+BMRiBEACtt, CALIF. C A. CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS (Items Al - A3) ` N; v� ITEMS Al-A3 ON THE. CONSENT CALENDAR ARE SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS OF LESS THAN 50 ACRES AND ALL THE LANDOWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ANNEXATION • Woe; CCPffS �Ni i8: [j Mayor ® Manager �j Attorney P W Director ccamey Directot Other C] Councilm PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE DANA POINT SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 79-2 Approximately 1.0 acre (Zone Change No. 5-78) located on the south side of Camino Del Avion, approximately 150 feet east of Shipside Drive in the Dana Point area. Filed by Resolution No. 79-10-10-2 passed by the Board of Directors of the Dana Point Sanitary District. (The County of Orange prepared Negative Declaration I8/01028 for Zone Change No. 5-78 on February 23, 1978.) PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 91 - SMITH ANNEXATION Approximately 1.19 acres located on the south side of Amapola Avenue between Orange Park Boulevard and Ranchwood Trail in the east city limits of Orange. Filed by Resolution No. 80-39-7 passed by the Board of Directors of of County Sanitation District No.'7. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATTON DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 97 - GIMENO ANNEXATION Approximately 1.464 acres located northerly of Crawford Canyon Road and easterly of Daniger Road in the Cowan Heights area. Filed by Resolution No. 80-112-7 passed by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.) Page 2 AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 1980 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . B. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED -ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ANNEXATION NO. 2-79 (Continued from meeting of April 23, 1980) Approximately 68.25 acres (county island) located southerly of Lampson Avenue between Dale Street and Josephine Street in the central Garden Grove area. Filed by Resolution No. 5885-80 passed by the Garden Grove City Council. (The Executive Officer determined the proposed annexation was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.)- 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON LAMPSON ANNEXATION NO. 80 (Continued from meeting of July 23, 1980) Approximately 34.255 acres (county island) located east and west of Beach Boulevard, north and south of Lampson Avenue in the south Stanton area. Filed by Resolution No. 79-1 passed by the Stanton City Council. (The • city of Stanton prepared a negative declaration for the proposed annexation on January 2, 1979.) 3. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (Continued from meeting of July 23, 1980) The study area is bounded by 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. Initiated by action of the LAFC on June 25, 1980. (The Executive Officer prepared a negative declaration for the subject review and update.) 4. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF CITY OF COSTA MESA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The study area is bounded by the Santa Ana River on•the west, the city 41 limits of Santa Ana on the north, the city limits of Irvine and Newport Beach on the east and the city limits of Newport Beach on the south. Scheduled by minute order of the LAFC on July 23, 1980. (The Executive Officer prepared a negative declaration for the subject review and update.) C. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 21., 1980 County of Orange Environmental •Management Agency P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, California .92702 Attention: Dan Kirtland, Environmental Analysis Division Subject: Banning - Newport Ranch; GPA 81-1 Dear Mr. Kirtland': The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to respond to your notification related to the preparation of the "Banning -Newport Beach; GPA 81-1" mailed pursu- ant to Section 15066 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the understanding of the Department that the purpose of the notice is to insure that the EIR will reflect the concerns of all responsible agencies which will issue approvals for the project. It is the opinion of the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach that the proposed project will have significant environmental effects. Further, that these effects will be not only immediately related to the project but will also include secondary impacts. It is further the opinion of the Planning Department that all "Mandatory Findings of Significance" as outlined in Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act will or are attribu- table to this proposed project. In order to assure that the County and City have all information - necessary to review this project, we request that an Environmental I'mpact Report be prepared and that it be focused as indicated'in the remainder of this letter. Further, in light of recent court decisions related' to CEQA (Woodland Hills Residents vs the City Council of the City of Los Angeles), we would request that you circulate a "preliminary Draft EIR" and hold a number of scoping sessions. In an effort to expedite your planning process, we have offered comments at this time related to your proposed scope of review. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 County of Orange Page 2 August 21, 1980 REQUESTED CONTENTS OF THE EIR I. Project Description: The project description should contain a etaile project description delineating the location and extent of all proposed uses within the project site, a cir- culation/transportation plan, a development phasing plan, and an implementing ordinance (ZC), if it is to be devel- oped concurrent with this project. 2. Earth: The Planning Department feels that a comprehensive somas and geologic study of the proposed area should be ac- complished. This investigation should focus future environ- mental documentation that might be required to process sub- division maps for the urbanized areas. The analysis should contain preliminary grading concepts for all areas to be urbanized, including roadways and active recreational areas. The analysis must be prepared to the degree necessary to determine the level of impact of all proposed uses. Prelim- inary erosion and siltation control plans should be accom- plished and analyzed. The impact of the proposed coastal residential developments on coastal bluff faces should be analyzed and the City of Newport Beach bluff ordinance's application as a mitigation measure for any potential adverse impacts reviewed. 3. Air Qualit The Planning Department feels that an in-depth, local -an regional air quality analysis of the proposed pro- ject should be accomplished. 4. Water: A hydrology study of the proposed project should Fe accomplished. The aforementioned should analyze all potential impacts on existing water resources. Storm drain- age systems that might eliminate impacts on the Seminiuk Slough and wetlands areas should be analyzed and incorporated Into the project. 5. Biological Resources: This section of the SIR should be accomp siished n sufficient detail so as to allow the decision -maker the opportunity to understand all trade- offs that are associated with development of the areas to be urbanized and those allowed for active recreation. Specific measures for the preservation and enhancement of significant biological resources should be outlined so that they might, if needed, be incorporated into implementation measures (ZC's). County of Orange Page 3 August 21, 1980 6. Cultural/Scientific Resources: It would be a prerequisite to City consideration of the Draft EIR that a Resource Management Plan be developed for the proposed project area. 7. Natural Resources: The EIR should be prepared in such a manner that -the decision -maker can readily understand the options that will remain upon adoption of the proposed project. The extent of recreation open space within all - proposed urbanized areas should be included. Public recrea- tional open space should be provided'in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach "Park Dedication Ordinance." To the degree possible, all areas to remain as permanent open space should be identified and the resources required to maintain them as such analyzed. The proposed project includes areas of potential regional and local recreational significance. The portions of the aforementioned to remain as natural open space should be identified and analyzed. The impact of these open space areas in terms of police, fire,, and other public services and facilities should be documented. Finally, it is anticipated that a substantial portion of the proposed area would be utilized as recrea- tional open space. These areas should be identified and their impacts noted and analyzed. 8. Aesthetics: We would request that the visual and aesthetic ana ysis include analysis from the City of Newport Beach and relationships of the existing City to the ,proposed urban- ized area. Additionally, a discussion of how the proposed expansion areas will visually and aesthetically relate to the adjacent communities should be accomplished. The Plan- ning Department is concerned with the overall bonding of the visual area and has concerns about maintaining the exist- ing diversity .of housing villages upon which the City of Newport Beach has developed. Energy: The Planni.ng Department desires that energy be addressed in terms of existing capacities, demands, and potential changes to existing systems that might be required by the proposed project. The EIR should focus future en- vironmental documentation as it relates to energy. Addi- tionally, the Draft EIR should discuss activity center placement and phasing. 10. Land Use: The Planning Department requests that the pro- posed land use, circulation, development phasing, and zoning County of Orange Page 4 August 21, 1980 concepts be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan. In order to accomplish a meaningful com- parison, we would request that the development concept be translated into use categories consistent with the Newport Beach Land Use Plan prior to analysis and then reviewed in terms of the following: A. Newport Beach General Plan: 1 Land Use Element 2 Residential Growth Element 3 Circulation Element (MPAH) 4 Recreation and Open Space Element (including hiking and bicycle trails plans) 5 Public Safety Element 6 Noise Element 7 Conservation of Natural Resources Element 8 Housing Element B. Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan It is of critical concern to the Planning Depart- ment that the area being proposed for urbanization be analyzed and ultimately developed in a manner that allows for mutually beneficial land use. As previously mentioned, it is further requested that all proposed land use contained within the project area be clearly defined as to nature and extent. This would include not only those areas proposed by the applicant for urbanization, but potential areas of public ownership. 11. Transportation/Circulation: Automobile: It is requested that the proposed project be analyzed using the City of Newport Beach "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" - Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and Policy S-1 - "Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance." It is further requested that the following be analyzed as they relate to the proposed project: A. The impact of the proposed project on Coast Highway from the most westerly boundary of the City of Newport Beach to Dover Drive; County of Orange Page 5 August 21, 1980 B. The timing of the implementation of the widening of Coast Highway and Santa Ana River Bridge, extensions of 15th Street, 17th Street, 19th Street, Balboa Boulevard, and the Route 55 Freeway; and C. The existing and' planned capacities of each roadway described in B. Using the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and City Policy S-1, the impact of the proposed project on the following intersections should be analyzed: 1 Coast Highway at Orange 2 Superior Boulevard/Placentia Avenue/15th 3 Coast Highway/Prospect Avenue 4) Coast Highway at Jamboree Road 5) Coast Highway at Bayside Drive 6) Coast Highway at Dover Drive 7 Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/Balboa 8 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 9 Newport Boulevard/15th Street/Industrial Street Boulevard Way Transit: It is requested that the Draft EIR analyze any potential for mitigation of adverse traffic impacts by expan- sion of the proposed Orange County Transit District Facili- ties. The Draft EIR should clearly analyze the proposed impact and opportunities for transit patronage in both the urbanized portions of the project area and areas proposed for active recreational uses. A discussion of the relation- ship between the OCTC Multi -Modal Study proposals and the proposed project should be accomplished. Air Transportation: The Draft EIR should analyze the impact of all aspects of the proposed project on regional and sub - regional -air transportation facilities. A detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the John Wayne/ Orange County Airport should be accomplished. A primary focus of the aforementioned should be secondary impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, air quality) related to air trans- portation impacts. 12. Population: Comments are contained within other sections. 13. Housing: The Draft EIR should provide the decision -maker with a detailed description of all housing proposed for the project site. It would be advantageous for the Planning Department to know the range of housing opportunities to County of Orange Page 6 August 21, 1980 be offered, product type, and estimated costs. The minimum information would be that required to prepare fiscal impact analysis and compliance with Coastal Act Policy. 14. Recreation: The Draft EIR while focusing on the regional an sub —regional recreational opportunities should also address localized recreational issues, The extent and location of all local recreational facilities within the urbanized areas should be documented. Additionally, the ability of existing community recreational programs in the City of Newport Beach to absorb the additional popula- tion should be analyzed. 15. Public Health and Safety: See Sections No. 2, 3 and 16. 16. Noise: The impacts of highway -associated noise from the proposed project site should be analyzed on all arterial roadway segments passing through the project as well as Coast Highway from the City's most westerly boundary to Newport Boulevard. Additional impacts analyzed in Sec- tion 11 on Air Transportation should be summarized in this section. 17. Services and Utilities: The existing, planned, and com- mitted capacities of the following public and quasi - public services, facilities, and utilities should be reviewed and determinations made as to which jurisdictions should provide each service: A. Fire Services: County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, City of Huntington Beach, and City of Costa Mesa. B. Police: County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and'Wty of Costa Mesa. C. Marine Safety: City of Newport Beach, City of Huntington each, County of Orange, and City of Costa Mesa. D. Water: City of Newport Beach, City of Huntington Beach, and Mesa Consolidated Water District. E. Sewer: City of Newport Beach or Costa Mesa Sanitary Districts. F. Governmental Administration: City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, City of untington Beach, and City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange Page 7 August 21, 1980 G., Telephone: Gas: Electricity: J. Parks and Recreation: City of ,Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and County of Orange. K. Health Care Facilities.and Emergency Response: Additionally, the EIR should discuss the impacts of the proposed project on the City of Newport Beach local commercial and employment areas. The location of personal and professional services and facilities related to the project should be analyzed. 18. Other Concerns: A. Fiscal Impa_c�ts: It is requested that a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed urbanized portions of the project be performed, assuming annexation prior to development and using both the City's "Average" and "Marginal" Cost/Revenue approaches. B. Governmental Support: It is requested that the EIR provide a detailed analysis of all options of providing governmental services and facilities to the proposed project area. C. Alternatives: It is requested that several alter- natives be evaluated as indicated below: 1) No Development: This would involve public acquisition of all areas designated for urbanization by the proposed project. 2) Development Phasing: A series of development phasing alternatives should be reviewed. These alternatives should include consider- ation of major aspects of the proposed circu- lation system such as: a) The extension of Balboa Boulevard to 19th Street; County of Orange Page 8 August 21, 1980 b) The extension of 17th Street to Coast Highway; c) The extension of 15th Street to Coast Highway; d) The extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River; e) The extension of the Route 55 Freeway to its terminus. Additionally, consideration of the development phasing as it relates to the following roadway improvements in the City of Newport Beach should be analyzed: a) Approved Circulation Systems' improve- ments of committed Newport Beach projects; b) Proposed improvements to the Coast Highway/Superior Avenue intersection; c) The proposed replacement of the Coast Highway bridge at the Santa Ana River; d) The proposed widening of Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Beach Boulevard. Additionally, development phasing alternatives should be reviewed and analyzed so as to provide timing for the following: a) Schools, b Local Parks, c Libraries, d Fire Facilities, e Police Facilities, f General Governmental Services, 9 Sewer, h Water, and i) Other Public and Quasi -Public Services and Facilities. 3) Design: Alternatives to the proposed project that might achieve designs compatible to the City of Newport Beach existing residential communities should be evaluated. A comparison with existing residential communities within the City of Newport Beach should be accomplished. County of Orange Page 9 August 21, 1980 4) Public Park Usage: A series of alternatives for public park usage should be reviewed. 5) Newport Beach General Plan: An alternative that would develop the project area in con- formance with the City of Newport Beach's General Plan should be prepared. The receipt of your "Notice of Preparation" of the Draft EIR for this project will allow the City and County an excellent opportunity to complete our evaluation of the environmental concerns that should be reviewed on this project. We look forward to workin with you. please contact me at (714� 640-2197. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMESID. HEWICKER Director by FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk If we can be of any assistance, cc: Mayor of the -City of Newport Beach - Jackie Heather Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Manager - Robert L. Wynn Newport Beach City Attorney - Hugh Coffin Newport Beach Public Works Director - Ben Nolan Phillips, Brandt & Reddick - Attention: Michael Brandman 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 1400-1401 CHARTER Article XIV Miscellaneous Section 1400. Definitions. Unless the provision or the context other - requires, as used in this Charter: (a) "Shall" is mandatory, and "may" is permissive. (b) "City" is the City of Newport Beach and "department," "board" "commission," "agency," "officer," or "employee," is a department, board, commission, agency, officer or employee, as the case may be, of the City of Newport Beach. (a) "County" is the County of Orange. (d) "State" is the State of California. Section 1401. Oil Well Drilling. No drilling for, exploration work of any kind, production or refining of, oil, gas or other hydrocarbon sub- stances shall be permitted within that area.of the City of Newport Beach as such limits exist as of the effective date of this Charter. The prohibi- tions shall include the City of Newport Beach. This Section shall not prohibit the drilling for, production or refining of oil, gas or other hydrocarbon •substances within any territory annexed to the City after the effective date of this Charter if such drilling, pro- duction or refining was being conducted in such territory at the date of the annexation thereof; but no such drilling, production or refining shall be permitted within any territory annexed to the City after the effective date of this Charter if such activities were not being conducted in such territory at the date of the annexation thereof. This Section shall not prohibit the continuance of production of any well slant drilled under property within the City from a location outside the City and in existence at the time this Charter takes effect. Nor shall this section preclude the City Council from permitting the slant drilling of wells under the surface of property within the City from sur- face locations located either outside the City or within future annexations to the City wherein the drilling for and production of oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances is permitted, provided that such slant drilling shall first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on such propo- sition at any special or general municipal election, and provided further that all of the following conditions shall be compiled with: (a) The holding of a public hearing upon any application for a per- mit to conduct such drilling; (b) The requiring of the removal of all derricks and other surface structures used in the drilling of such well upon completion or abandon- ment of such well; (c) The furnishing of a faithful performance surety bond and the JRKI t r +« MISCELLANEOUS 1402-1402(b) maintenance of public liability and property damage insurance by the per- mittee in amounts deemed adequate by the City Council; (d) The screening by landscaping and the beautification of any pro- duction and maintenance facilities used in the operation of any such well; (e) Provisions for the payment to the City of such amounts as in the sound discretion of the Council are adequate amount for the consideration or granting of such permit, the holding of such hearing, the making of ini- tial and periodic inspections, the granting of easements under City proper- ty and for royalties or rentals; (f) The requirement that no such well shall traverse any land under the area bf the City wherein drilling is prohibited at a vertical depth of less than 400 feet from the surface of the ground; and (g) ' Such other conditions as the City Council may prescribe by ordi- nance. (As amended effective April 23,1958). Section 1402. Water -front Property. The City Council shall not sell or convey any water -front or beach property, excepting to the State or to the County for use as a public beach or park. No such property owned by the City shall be leased by the -City unless and until the leasing thereof shall have been approved by a majority of the electors voting on such.proposition at any general or special municipal elec- tion, provided, however, that this Section shall not invalidate any lease of such property in existence at the time of the effective date of the Charter nor the future leasing or re -leasing of any such property under lease at the effective date of this Charter. There shall be reserved forever to the people the public use of a strip of bay front land above mean high tide not less than 85 feet in depth of the city -owned water front property bounded on the west by the southeasterly line of Nineteenth Street and bounded on the east by a line parallel thereto lying 349.90 feet northwesterly of the northwesterly line of Fifteenth Street, said frontage to be -bay front frontage. (As amended effective January 11,1957). Section 1402 (a). Exception to Section 14M. Notwithstanding the provi- sions of Section 1402, the City Council may sell and convey that parcel of City -owned property fronting on the Rivo Alto Canal described as Lot 4, Block 434, Canal Section, Newport Beach, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 98, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. (Add- ed by amendment effective January 25,1961). Section 1402(b). Exet-ption to Section 1402. Notwithstanding the provi- sions of Section 1402, the City Council may sell and convey that parcel of City -owned property fronting on Newport Bay described as follows: C-37 IH[MMRT WXACH ,e•144, Toro % Lr� JP t°'ti �t `' - OA j• :-'-.K `,a '-f�t.a ,M,. «ee.�ti ia.' �;'FOy' °vs ' s . £_ �.. 1, , �w:<.. ,s. ♦ �'�o U. E r unnorury of --- '• - - O ` F h 4 pp Calaornio J4i% # f: `e• _ ':1;=�"' - - y 4 Q fat ar Irvm.P' ^r ''',','f .a.•';'.- 4`92 a J soN/TA CANYON R 10 FLoa J Z O SPY. ' � � • RI2 E •', y'O �LA55 4J E 0 7 R 9NHILL TA MARI < o �� • SAN JOAOI)IN HILLS i:D 'qIV' O • • «'9 nc�'• of �� ' ' � (� ,� { • • •, •• oy MODIFY 14QIj A 0 \1` O �, • �71� at �' i vp �' j • • Sp \RD spas•' alp, I •\.`= 20/ - Q./ �: �Q . N��` ix 2 ccOSO+ / •� 140�� K 0 rl • Q !, `�O� ` a a • o - •vim � G.\� `V1� t �' • � � �Da� .( Z S, . ��� • ALISO CREE ,,�• N� CCq �c3' ' °1 � RD '• �P �LAVENDEr p J� LANE RD °• lacuna Base" PARK .rp\. M(1PNNGWE AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . OF ORANGE COUNTY, GALIFORNIA JULY 23, 1980 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 9, 1980 2:00 P.M. A. CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS ITEMS Al-A3 ARE SPECIAL -DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS OF LESS THAN 50 ACRES AND ALL THE LANDOWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ANNEXATION 1. 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.) PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT TRASK AVENUE NO. 5 ANNEXATION Approximately �.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 N0. 10 Approximately 0.984 acre (Site Plan SP-695) located in the southwesterly corner of liazard Avenue and Magnolia Street in the city limits of Westminster. Filed by petition of the landowner, California Medical Group Health Plan, Inc. (The City of Westmins-ter prepared Negative Declaration No. 79-66 for SP-695 on November 6, 1979.) 'A PAGE 2 AGENDA - JULY 239 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 acid 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.) _�A PAGE 3 AGENDA - JULY 23, 1980 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION C. SCHEDULE PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAFCO ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY (SUGGESTED REVIEW DATE - AUGUST 27, 1980) C. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS � OUN— Y OF 6 c S, kl�, UL 2 11980E Q RANGE rawc.. GE COUNTY OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 'IC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 > ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 834.2239 �� ,® LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COM b ��;y, •, '_. a - CHAIRMAN July 17, 1980 '£a &i�Y manager DONALD A. McINNIS �dy 0i NeW, Dtl Beaeh� COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Local Agency Formation Commission VICE-CHAIRMAN County Hall of Administration Building�-� ROBERT E. DWYER Santa Ana, California 92701' () REPRESENTATIVE OF - GENERAL PUBLIC In Re: Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence PHILIP L. ANTHONY SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT Ladies and Gentlemen: EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR By action taken June 25, 1980, your Commission scheduled July 23, THIRD DISTRICT 1980, for the review of the city of Newport Beach's -sphere of DONALD J. SALTARELLI influence. COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN - LEGAL AUTHORITY ALTERNATE ALICE J. MacLAIN California Government Code Section 54774 mandates ".....the - COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS commission shall periodically review and update the spheres o ALTERNATE influence developed and determined by them." The Commission's JOAN K.RIDDLE administrative policy on spheres of influence requires a periodic REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC review every three years. ALTERNATE HARRIETT M. WIEDER HISTORY SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT By Resolution No. 73-145 passed September 12, 1973, LAFCO fl)CHAflDT.TURNER determined a partial sphere of influence for the city of Newport EXECUTIVE OFFICER Beach. The unincorporated areas designated within this sphere of influence were the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel (Area 1), the "County Triangle" (Area 3) and the Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) as identified on the attached Exhibit A. In November, 1973, LAFCO considered designating the Banning (Beeco) property (Area 2) within Che 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 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 (Banning) property within the Newport Beach sphere. At the request of certain residents within the Bay Knolls' tracts (Area 4, Exhibit A), LAFCO 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 July 17, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 2 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 and the territory easterly of Muddy Canyon was in Laguna Beach's sphere. The Commission's decision was heavily influenced by the county's recently approved general plan for the Irvine coastal area. LOCATION The boundaries of the established 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 Exhibits A and B). FINDINGS Section 54774 of the Government Code specifies the factors which must be considered by the Commission when determining the spheres of influence of each local governmental agency and requires a written statement of their findings with respect to each of these factors. For your review these factors are discussed as follows: (a) The maximum possible service area of --The city of_Newport Beach is located within the urbanized central section 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 only undeveloped territory commonly known as the Irvine coastal area, The expansion, then, of Newport Beach is limited to certain county islands on the north and west and the Irvine Coast on the east. By Resolution No. 80-33 adopted April 23, 1980, LAFCO approved the annexation of the county "Triangle" (Area 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). The proposal has been referred to the County Board of Supervisors for final disposition. July 17, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission' Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 3 Neither the city nor the residents have expressed any interest in annexing the Bay Knolls tracts (Area 4) or Santa Ana Heights (Area 5) at this time. Area 6 (the Irvine Coast) has been the subject of much planning study in recent years. Currently, most of the territory is being considered for acquisition by the Federal Government as part of a proposed national park. Until the ultimate land use decisions are made, annexation of the Irvine Coast is not expected. (b) The range of services the agency'is'providing or'could provide. The city of Newport Beach is a full service municipal corporation. Table summarizes the major urban services provided by the city and how these services are financed. TABLE I Service Method of Financin Sewer Water Police Fire Library Park and Recreation Street Lighti.ng Trash Collection Street Sweeping General Revenues User Fee General Revenues General Revenues General Revenues General Revenues General Revenues General Revenues General Revenues (c) The projected future population growth of the area. Area 1 (Santa Ana River), Area 2 (Banning) and Area 6 (Irvine Coast) are uninhabited. There are no development plans for these areas and meaningful population projections are not available. Area 3 (County "Triangle"), Area 4 (Bay Knolls) and Area 5 (Santa Ana Heights) are developed. The city of Newport Beach is amending its general plan within the County "Triangle" area which will increase the residential density and the project future population. The city does not expect any significant change in the population of Bay Knolls and Santa Ana Heights. (d) Area 1 is the easterly half of the Santa Ana River channel. The property Is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District which uses the territory for flood control purposes. July 17, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 4 Area 2 is the Banning (Beeco) property which is in use for oil production. Ultimate development of territory is expected to be a mixture of land uses including residential and commercial. However, no new development plans have been offered. Area 3 is the County "Triangle" recently approved by LAFCO for annexation to Newport Beach. Current land uses within the territory include a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses, The city is considering an amendment to its general plan that would provide more higher density residential within the area. Area 4 (Bay Knolls) and Area 5 (Santa Ana Heights) are developed, mostly low density residential. The existing uses are not expected to significantly change. Area 6 (Irvine Coast) is presently vacant, undeveloped hillsides and canyons. Much of the area is under consideration by the Congress for acquisition as a national park. Some low density residential and tourist commercial uses immediately adjacent to the city of Newport Beach are being considered by the Irvine Company. South of the study area the State of California recently purchased Moro Canyon for use as a state park. (e) The present and probably future service needs of the area. The infrastructure for serving the unincorporated islands west and north of Newport Beach already exist with sufficient capacity to serve these islands if annexed. Development of the Irvine Coast is uncertain, but would require the extension of roads and utilities. However, the cost of extending capitalfacilities into this area would be primarily borne by the landowner. (f) The city of Newport Beach is considered a "full -service" city providing such municipal type services as police, fire protection, water, sewer, parks and recreation, street•lighting and maintenance and refuse collection. At the time the city's sphere of influence was adopted the city advised LAFCO that Its utility lines had been oversized to accommodate development down coast on the Irvine lands. Other agencies with facilities and service responsibilities within the subject sphere of influence include the County Sanitation Districts, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Comments were solicited of these agencies regarding the subject review, but none were offered. July 17, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 5 (g) The residents of Santa Ana Heights and Bay Knolls supported their inclusion in the Newport Beach sphere of influence citing their affinity with the city. Although surrounded by the city limits of Newport Beach the Banning property (Area 2) was excluded from the Newport Beach sphere because of the landowner's wishes. Area 3 (County "Triangle") was recently approved by LAFCO for annexation to the city of Newport Beach. LAFCO found the area would benefit from annexation. The Irvine Coast (Area 6) was included in the Newport Beach sphere because of its orientation to the city. The Commission found that whatever limited development was permitted it would most likely be adjacent to Newport'Beach. (h) The existence of agricultural preserves on the area. Approximately 1,426 acres within the Irvine Coast are under an agricultural preserve contract. The contract on 55 acres will expire in 1981 and the contract on the remaining 1,371 acres will terminate in 1983. COMPLIANCE WITH THE'CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAU QUALITY"ACT The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. CONCLUSIONS California Government Code Section 54774 requires your Commission to periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by you and specifies eight factors which must be considered. In 1974 the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted a sphere of influence for the westerly one-half of the city of Newport Beach as illustrated on the accompanying Exhibit A. Area 2(Banning/Beeco) was excluded from that sphere of influence at the request of the property owner. In 1976 the Commission considered the inclusion of the Irvine Coastal area within a city sphere of influence. The Commission rejected the city of Irvine's bid to place any of the Irvine Coast in its sphere of influence. The Commission determined that the territory westerly of Muddy Canyon was in the Newport Beach sphere of influence and that easterly of Muddy Canyon was in Laguna Beach's sphere (see accompanying Exhibit B). July 17, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission Re Review City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Page 6 The territory within the Newport Beach's westerly sphere of influence consists of unincorporated islands completely surrounded by city limits. The city has recently obtained LAFCO approval for annexation of the County "Triangle" (Area 3). Final disposition of this annexation is pending action by the County Board of Supervisors. The easterly sphere of influence within the Irvine Coastal area was decided by the orientation of the physical features and the county`s general plan which designated certain limited development adjacent to the city of Newport Beach. The city of Newport Beach is a full -service municipal corporation providing such urban services as police and fire protection, water and sewer, library, parks and recreation, street lighting and maintenance and trash collection. The city supports the reaffirmation of its established sphere of influence. Comments were solicited of the adjacent cities and special districts, the Irvine Company and Beeco, Ltd. Most of the agencies solicited did not offer any comment or opinion on this matter. The cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine support the reaffirmation of the existing sphere of influence. The Laguna Beach County -Water District by letter dated July 14, 1980 (copy attached) advised that it was a trustee for a joint power water transmission main in Coast Highway, and any development in this area would in turn have an impact on their district. The Laguna Beach County Water District did not oppose the existing sphere of influence for Newport Beach. By letter dated July 15, 1980 (copy attached), Mr. Hancock Banning III, President of Beeco, Ltd., opposed the inclusion of its property identified as Study Area No. 2 in the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Mr. Banning explained their objection was based on the fact that Orange County had developed zoning and other regulations which governed their oil operation. The city of Newport Beach on the other hand had specific charter provisions prohibiting oil production within its city limits. Mr. Banning further advised that the city was reviewing its policies on oil production in this area, and Beeco would be working with the city in this regard. The circumstances which caused the original spheres of influence determination for Newport Beach have not changed. Staff investigation of the sphere has not uncovered any issues or reasons that would indicate an amendment to the established sphere of influence of Newport Beach was warranted at this time. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive submitted staff report and accept findings. 2. Sustain determination that subject review was categorically exempt from CEQA. 3. Reaffirm the Newport Beach sphere of influence as illustrated on the accompanying Exhibits A and B. Respectfully submitted, Ke nefi th W!� `Sca`tter?o2 Administrative Assistant KWS:bd Atta�hr�ent CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER - 640-2151 July 16, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 JUL 17 1980 Ii1CHARU T. TUBNEti, EXECU11UE dFflCE3 tocAt AGENCY fORhltlft0�i E9;' ""0' 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 oil leases in 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 Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 I LOCATION MAP Study areas: (1) Centerline Santa Ana River (2) Beeco, Ltd. (3) County "Triangle" (4) Irvine -Tustin Corridor (5) Santa Ana Heights (6) Irvine Coastal Area d o•F• WWR, • •�i ~� as � _ a-� ,��� JJ� 0 `/Qy'j���ir . aye .w:.arcrc1anfoL o� .,� •.y ��.f• ..'1^ ..� � .. .�' ._ . •�..:;_•,:-....tar ws`��,-'-:-�• Xxpm'L�..'i' - ., .r A C 1: •'F. •4 .`. .. O _i . E '_.# u{, \;>M :N::::-i 'r•i.'� r_ �''`.ri'- i ... �. .. u..... .. .... .�`.xi..r.... ..'..,•.:F+:Jr.`y�1hi,Meq..Au�ZG'C t!:@r'm:+c%::c:-o::..::.;: "r.i.�: • _ NEWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ` BEACH EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY ADJACENT CITIES S . 0 . I . ADOPTED 9 / 12 / 73 (1 st. partial ) NEW MAP 10 / 13 /77 ADOPTED 11 / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED � 8 / 14 / 74 (TUSTIN AV.) �Y _1 AMENnF1 / R / 76 ( COASTAL AREA) scale 1 3,000 •'Ifti-0 IRVINE v i IRVINE. • NEWP©RT ' BEACH (IIRVINE COASTAL AREA) 0 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 II / 28 / 73 (2nd partial) SHEETS AMENDED 8 / 14 / 74 (TUSTIN AV) , AMENDED 9 / 8 / 76 (COASTAL AREA) LAGUNA 'BEACH fGG1f 10 scale 1:3,000 DIRECTORS: R ICHARD JAHRAUS, President LOUIS J. ZITNI K, Vice President ALFRED R. HASTIE BRUCE R. SCHERER EUGENE M.SHIDLER OFFICERS: JOSEPH R. SWEANY General Manager & Secretary ROBERT L. JOYCE, Auditor JOSEPH A. SOVELLA District Engineer LEGAL CONSULTANT: RIMEL & HELSING, INC. �� bJ bdr, 7ynL7 ry'M ;l�J��"rT��•�w'�" 306 THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX 987, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 714/494.1041 Mr. Richard T. Turner Executive Officer LAFCO 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Dick: July 14, 1980 JUL 15 1980 RICHARD T. TURII , EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGEICY FORMATIOPI C0h0111SSI0y We received your notification of a review of the adopted sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach. Please be advised that there may be some overlap in the spheres of influence presented by our District and the City of Newport Beach. As Trustee for the joint power water transmission main in Coast Highway, any development or change in ownership which will affect the flow in this line will inturn have an impact on our District. Please do not consider this in anyway an objection to the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. The statement is merely for the purpose of calling the attention of the commission to the fact that our District is impacted by the sphere. Very truly yours Joseph R. Sweany JRS:mf BEECO, LTD. 3990 WESTERLY PLACE. SUITE 255 P. O. BOX 1028 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92863 (714) 833-8701 July 15, 1980 County of Orange Local Agency Formation Commission Hall of Administration Building 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Gentlemen: VJUL _16 1960 �! BICHARD T. ToERCCUTIVE OFFiCC t LOCAL AGENCY FOilATION CGM?i"SS'Ot: This letter is a response to your letter of June 30, 1980 stating -that the Local Agency Formation Commission will hold a public hearing on July 23 to review the adopted sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. This company owns the property shown as Study Area No. 2 on the location map attached to your June 30 letter. The property consists of something less than 500 acres- largely devoted to a producing oil field with over 300 wells together with extensive supporting equipment (compressors, pollution controls, etc.) designed to maintain a very sophisticated "fireflood" secondary recovery program. Over the twenty-five years of the field's existence, Orange County has developed appropriate zoning and other regulations governing the oil operation. The City of Newport Beach on the other hand has specific charter provisions prohibiting oil production within its city limits. We are advised that the city intends to review the oil situation in this area, and we look forward to working with them in this regard. - However, until there is a much clearer picture of how Newport Beach would relate to the oil field, our company feels that it is premature to consider placing the subject land in any sphere of influence. As Newport Beach's oil review progresses along with development by the county of a Local Coastal Plan for the area, we believe that all interested parties will have a clearer picture of what steps, if any, should be taken toward annexation of all or parts of the property into the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, BEECO, LTD. Hancock Banning III, President NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk From: Local Agency Formation County of Orange Commission, Orange County 10 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 465 10 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 458 Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Secretary for Resources 1416'Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 Project Title Review -City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Project Location - Specific Santa Ana River to Muddy Canyon Project Location - City Project t Location - .ounty Newport Beach Orange Description oV Nature, Purpose and Bene•iciaM es o Project - +—�-- Commission's periodic review mandated by Ca. Gov't. Code Sec. 54774 Name of Public Agency Approving Project Local Agency Formation Commission Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project Local Agency Formation Commission Exempt Status:. (Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 15073) _Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a) ) Emergency Project (Sec.,15071 (b) and (c) ) X Categorical Exemption (State type and section number) Section 15106, Class 6: Information Collection Reasons why project is exempt: The purpose of the subject review is to collect information which may be used for recommending future governmental changes of organiza- tion or reorganization. Such review does not evaluate development plans or projects. Such review will not have a significant environ- mental effect. Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension Ken Scattergood (714) 834-2239 If filed by applicant: 1. Attached certified -document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes_ No — Date Received for Filing 3i, nature Kenneth W. Scattergood Acting Executive Officer CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL `C NJuly 14j 17ouINDEX PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Paul Balalis was assigned the red light, and Robert Ashton was assigned the green light; and Paul Balalis was reappointed. Helen McLaughlin was assigned the red light, d Jerry King was assigned the green light; an en McLaughlin was reappointed. 2. A letter dated Ju 2 from Richard N. Callahan, Jr, Towing License appealing the denial o is application for a (70) towing license was present A report was presented from>thePo Department. The City Manager informed tl that r Callahen 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 greseen _ted from the Planning Depart- LAFCO mefit regarding the Loca1„Agency_Formation Com- (21) mission'a review of the Citys Sphere of Influence WNev- hECrberty neat as it re ateBO - 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 He t & asking the Council to reconsider its action taken ensity on January 22, 1979 in adopting Ordinance No. 17 Regulations tegatding height limitations on structures o e (26) bluff aide of Kings Road and Kings Place, A letter from McDonough, Holland & en, the City's attorneys, was presented. William Nelson Gentry add;sed the Council re- garding his request in €half of his clients. Motion x Mr. Gentry was.g ted three additional minutes All Ayes for his press ation. Motion x No actip was taken because of the litigation All Ayes invb Ai the City in this connection. Volume 34 - Page 165 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN �� ROLL CAL \\\\July 14, 1980 MINUTES Motion x Ordinance No, 1859 was adopted. All Ayes 2. Ordinance No. 18601 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: 1. Board and Commission appointments. Bd/Comsn Appts The assignment of red and green lights was selected (24) as the method of voting, except for the Civil Service Board, which was handled individually; and the following appointments and reappointments were onfirmed for four-year terms ending June 30, 1984 b unanimous consent of the Council, BO OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES (a) omas Edwards was assigned the red light, and Ho ley Wilkinson was assigned the green light; an Thomas Edwards was appointed to succeed Span er Covert. CITY ARTS C I5SION (a) Janet En s was assigned the red light, and Jerrel Ri ards was assigned the green light; and Jerrel ichards was appointed to succeed Janet Ennis. (b) Patricia Gibbs was assigned the red light, and Novell Hendrick on was assigned the green light; and Notrel Hendrickson was appointed to succeed Patricia bbe. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD Motion x (a) Robert Bonner was rea ointed. Ayes x x x x x x Noes x Motion x (b) Pat A. Krone was appointed to succeed John J. Ayes x x x x x x McKerren. Noes x PARKS BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMI ION (a) Bruce Stuart was assigned the red light, and John Heffernan was assigned the gr en light; and Bruce Stuart was appointed to s cceed Gary B. Lovell. Volume 34 - Page 164 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER July 15, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Please prepare a letter to LAFCO, probably for my signature, stating that the City Council has no objection to the inclusion of the Beeco property within this City's Sphere of Influence. A member of your staff probably should be present on the 23rd to monitor the meeting and respond to questions. _2aw t� RObERT L. WYNN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER - 640-2151 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 Nest 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 oil leases in the area. The City'of Newport Beach recognizes that the Sphere of Irifluence is a tool for future planning and not an annexa- tion, and we would have no objection in inciudi•ng the BEECO, property in the City's Sphere at this time.., S' cerely, �---- ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager RLW/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER July 15, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Please prepare a letter to LAFCO, probably for my signature, stating that the City Council has no objection to the inclusion of the Beeco property within this City's Sphere of Influence. A member of your staff probably should be present on the 23rd to monitor the meeting and respond to questions. •2aw RObERT L. WYNN i RECFryF_ r'1�ni�i.r� D 1,. JUL 6 City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No 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 tool for future planning and not an annexation, and inasmuch as the BEECO property in West Newport is a County Island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach, the City Council may wish to go on record as not opposing the inclusion of this area in the City's Sphere of Influence while the review of the oil question and the follow-up on the oil leases continues. Respectfully submitted, JDH/kk 0 0 i l � , SEE4CO PROPERTY C fI ljjr � Q CRT w Ntwp Rf �f1CN 1 City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No 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 BEECC 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, PLANNINGG DEPARTMEN C. A S D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk Y r' � � 1 bs��'i ✓' a'i' / d � ii! BEECO PROPERTY cm a m Fos Kaol i City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. 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 review of the oil continues. rector Attachment: Vicinity Map JDH/kk SEECO PROPERTY 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, 1,980, 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 tool for future planning and not an annexation, and inasmuch as the BEECO property in West Newport is a County Island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach, the City Council may wish to go on record as not opposing the inclusion of this area in the City's Sphere of Influence while the review of the oil question and the follow-up on the oil leases continues. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT rector chment: Vicinity Map JDH/kk r�a c J �•�/ � 0.r 1 � ir1 ' 4� E� n � BEECO PROPERTY crtr arJarear �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER - 640-2151 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 has scheduled a public hearing to Influence for the City of Newport is to advise you that the Newport at its meeting of July 14, 1980, oppose the inclusion of the BEECO port within the City's Sphere of Formation Commission review the Sphere of Beach. This letter Beach City Council, took a position not to property in West New - 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 2,8, 1980; however, it'was not adopted pending further investigation by staff regarding oil production and oil leases in 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. S' erely, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager RLW/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER - 640-2151 July 16, 1980 Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Aichard 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 oil leases in 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. . S' cerely, ., w:c-`- ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager RLW/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663' City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. ulv 14. 1980 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 Newpor't 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 o-f 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, PLANNIS NG DEPARTMEN � A D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk r BEECO PROPERTY c / f F sIV, ii/ ti �^ � r ' t '`�� � +��-�"^.+. sue. �• � �! � S tM W JWWP lR MAN .. F 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 DEPARTMEN �� AT D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk BEECO PROPERTY ..+ q T c F � l l C � t ,d �sii f qTT OF NKWFM map" City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. F-3 Eft Emil =149Illd<i:14.11411 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 tool for future planning and not an annexation, and inasmuch as the BEECO property in West Newport is a County Island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach, the City Council may wish to go on record as not opposing the inclusion of this area in the City's Sphere of Influence while the review of the oil question and the follow-up on the oil leases continues. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMEN AT D. HEWICKER, Director JDH/kk Attachment: Vicinity Map ♦ 1 s ' ., e/" � - _ / /�#� �j � u "—\`•�—ma's INFO BEECO PROPERTY oil CRY w PF'FFdR FFAM 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 o-f 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 DEPARTMEN �� A S D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk d Stell t1 � 8EE4CO PROPERTY �`' { : �^ � ,�•, �,�. ,fir; 4; . yea . ®- ITS `% J CITT Gf J!1lORf KAW �a 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 BEECC 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 DEPARTMEN HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is• City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk P � � � . ,�� ".sue �• \ r � .P.y .-` �•�.� -tea, BEECO PROPERTY : *0,Xkrll, ` CfI70I1�1'ROR[Y�W � �- a`s City Council Meeting Agenda Item No ulv 14. 1980 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 nDEPARTM.EN A S D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk 0 BEECO PROPERTY a. r � jt uFw cm or propm vKw City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. 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 IN tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. rector Attachment: Vicinity Map JDH/kk d <,. fit" „� - '' �� �• ` " .,._ , f 1! �`-`\ , Jr'*O� * _r' '• 10 JI BEECO PROPERTY IL tf11 iitutuuRt trytttt s. • "..� �_ _ .., A 2 • * _� - r � ur C �T ♦ } _ l CITY OF MKf MJ101 '� ��-- City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. 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 BEECC 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 review of the oil continues. re c Attachment: Vicinity Map JDH/kk !a � � .ate � ";, �n ."„2 i� ! �L � it .� � - _� I't• t r,� _ "_ 8EECO PROPERTY r �S� 141 I i CIiY OF IIF�lOR[lUGI ='- 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 re c tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk Attachment: Vicinity Map C -•� '' \'49r BEE O PROPERTY �4i1ii(�uuseun ( A C ra wrt, r�� tiny \J� �Cti1. City Council Meeting Agenda Item No Julv 14. 198 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 DEPART AnS D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of whi'le the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk az $EECO PROPERTY '�� ' lam.— ,~ CITY or 11[� �f/ItN �♦ t R� 1f , F Q _!�• Ov Cwit City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 10, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO Property Suooested 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 fo-rmal 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 tool for future planning and not an annexation, and inasmuch as the BEECO'property in West Newport is a County Island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach, the City Council may wish to go on record as not opposing the inclusion of this area in the City's Sphere of Influence while the review of the oil question and the follow-up on the oil leases continues. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMEN A S D. HEWICKER, Director JDH/kk Attachment: Vicinity Map It r VV kit BEECO PROPERTY i cm w NKWPW SUM 1 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 14. 1980 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 oroaerty in the Citv'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 review of the oil continues. D. HEWICKER, Director chment: Vicinity Map JDH/kk rrr t �r4 a 8EECO PROPERTY IF LY lit • ' Y CRY w N� BEACH afsf�, f+ff�1 City Council Meeting July 14, 1980 Agenda Item No 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 Cocal 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 BEECC 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, PLANNINGG DEEP/ARTMEN C. za S D. HEWICKER, Director Ar Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk 8EECO PROPERTY •� aS�7 it ,C��1, 1 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 14, 1980 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 BEECC 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 t__, A S D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk t. ���111 ��l �'�T.J i' .mow .�.�_� rileL �••' � '_ `� r ,�-•mot.__+. �� .i 1 ��:� 17 7 1[ tl. 11� rllf ��N ♦ .. � (liar F 1�%1NSilii.:s».v_ ���-..\'Cf "•.��i�r 1 `. ,11 1 ' __ _ •il \ti.r ��'\'..3 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 Sphe-res 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 BEECC 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, PLANNINGnnDEPARTMEN �b/�� A S D. HEWICKER, Director Attachment: Vicinity Map tool for future planning and property in West Newport is City of Newport Beach, the opposing the inclusion of while the review of the oil continues. JDH/kk `�ri11-rr '. II L m A t4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 May 6, 1980 Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Dick: I have received your letter dated March•25, 1980, advising us of the need for a City Council Reso- lution in order to initiate a review of the City's "Sphere of Influence" relating to the BEECO property. A draft resolution was prepared for the City Council meeting of April 28, 1980; however, no action was taken and the matter was referred back to staff. At such time as the City Council takes action on the resolution, I will send you a*copy and we can con- tinue the review process. _ If -you have any questions on this matter, please call me at 640-2137. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ning Director JDH/kk xc: Bob Wynn, City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 C 14W a G E ICAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALOA.MeINNIS March 31, 1980 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Mr. James Hewicker GENERAL PUBLIC Planning Director _ PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 Newport Boulevard PI RST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Dear Jim: ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 453 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE:(714) 334.2239 DONALD J. COUNCLMANLTARELLI Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn CITY OF TUSTIN advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early ALTERNATE review of the city's adopted sphere of influence as it relates to cJ woM IN the Beeco property. (�..� • •' OF CYPRESS , There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an .. ALTERNATE JOAN K.RIDDLE amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. I am REPRESENTATIVE OF enclosing a c0PY of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which GENERAL PUBLIC states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere ALTERNATE ALTER HARRITT WIEDER• influence must be b resolution of our City Council. Upon Y SUPERVISOR receipt of a resolution I will present it to the Commission and SECOND DISTRICT recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the RICHARDT.TURNER resolution'you also include information supporting the request as EXECUTIVE OFFICER to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its _ adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very truly yours, Richard T. Turner - Executive Officer RTT'• bd • " Attachment QQC�?, �--� E f loc:.l ns,cury forus,tlinn s.ouh- h catnhlishiug lentntivr- funtru for two adhulaing cities did It deprive ow: of those pities of extend selvage disposal aorv. cwuiguuua unincorporated ter- t or Influence Jf Whistles are required to be a ,Ivo, detailed tannin` tool and should come. n, among- other Inventory of the maximum aerv- •d sorvice capacity of each local tat agency. 90 Ops.Atty.fien. GOVE111;it11,tNT Conn: § 54774.5 j 54774.1 Spheres of Influence; ad;VU4 amendment or public hear- Ing; notice The cautmisston shall adopt, amend`iAvise spheres of iuffnmim after a public hearing called and held for that purpo�+.. At least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive officer shell give mailed notice of the hearing to each affected local agpncy or county, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for such notice with the executive officer. In addition, at least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive officer,, shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in accordance with Section 6061 in n news- paper of general circulation which Is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of Influence proposed to be adopted. The commission may continue from time to: time any hearing called pursaant.to this section. At any hearing called and held pursuant to this section, the commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony Presented by any affected local agency or county or any Interested person who wishes to appear. The provisions of this section shall only apply to spheres of Influence Adopted. by the commission after the•effective date of this section. (Added by Stats.1914, a. 360, p. 693, j 1.) -Municipal Corporations C=48. - Corporations 189 «seq.-,�...�--••--.�. ' _C.J.S.'Municipal j 54774.2 Spheres of influence; amendment or revision; resolution of agency or county; hearing; reimbursement of costs r ' if any local agency or county desires amendment or revision of an adopted sphere C7 of influence, the local agency or county,, by resolution of its legislative body, may F file a request therefor with the executive officer who shall present the same to the ; commission at Its next regular meeting. The commission, upon receipt of such a resolution, shall set a time and date for hearing of the request and shall direct the executive off leer to sire notice of the hearing at the times and 1n the manner prescribed in Section 54774.1. At the hearing, the commission shall hear any 5 Interested persons and consider the requests for amendment or revision of the sphere of influence. The commission may continue the hearing from time to time i not to exceed 70 days front the date specified in the notice of hearing. At the { conclusion of the hearing the cohirmission shall deny or approve, In whole or in part, the request. Any local agency or county'making a request pursuant to this section shall rein-' , bursa the commission for the • • • actual and ' • a • direct costs • • • • Incurred by the commission In complying with this section; provided, however, that the commission may in Its discretion waive such reimbursements If It finds that the request for amendment or revision of a sphere of influence "can be considered and studied as a part of the periodic review of spheres of Influence required by Station 54794. (Added by Stats.1074, c. 360, p, 694, j 2. Amended by Stats.1976, e. 31, P. 60, j 2.), Libraryy palrefCorporations C,J.S, municipal Corporations p 88 et seq. \lunlclpnt Corpofatana (�4G. t 1 164774.5 Urban development patterns; preservation of open -space lands lion ant agency formation emend•- It is the Intcut of the Legislature that local ngpnr-yfonnatlon commksions establish thous ataty 109 aattorizadon w policies and exercise their powers pursuant td this chapter in such manner to ou- h action chattenging conetllu• allY resolutoh adupunn n srbwd courage :utd provide planned, well -ordered, efficient urban development Patterns „t1cY• Tinh, atgu r:ntrrnrisr•. trith ❑pprolirlate cmtshlcrttinn of preserving t�p,:h•spct•e lnnds withlu such patterns. of Santa itoaa (1979) 15e Cal• C.A.3d 877. (Added by Stats.1974, e. 531. p. 1222.5 2.) Library references - Zoning 0=12. C.J.S. Toning 124. I or additions by amendment Asterisks • • • indicate deletions by amendment 261 C C, F. s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 29, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: LETTER TO LAFCO Pursuant to the Council action of April 28th, please write to Mr. Turner and advise him that the City has placed a temporary hold on the resolution seeking revision of the City's Sphere of Influence in the Beeco property area. jg IN- ROBERT L. W NN VR. April28, 1980 Agenda item was a resolution requesting LAFCO to amend the City's existing Sphere of Influence to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by City boundary (BEECO property) Removed from the Consent Calendar by Heather. Heather Request we not move forward at this time, that it come back to the Council so that We can look at the oil question as a package with a little more staff input, and a little following - up on oil leases and the extra keys(?) we are developing right now, and so lookii at the whole project in the lihht of the oil question. Wynn Refer to staff. Heather OK. Refer to staff. CITY OF NEWPORT (BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 May 6, 1980 Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Dick: I have received your letter dated March•255 1980,. advising us of the need for a City Council Reso- lution in order to initiate a review of the City's "Sphere of Influence" relating to the BEECO property. A draft resolution was prepared for the City Council meeting of April 28, 1980; however, no action was taken and the matter was referred back to staff. At such time as the City Council takes action on the resolution, I will send you a copy and we can con- tinue the review process. If you have any questions on this matter, please call me at 640-2137. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ull ILJ V. I11�1.•v����. Pla Wing Director JDH/kk xc: Bob Wynn, City Manager City Hall • 3300 NLwport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 3 • CHAIRMAN DONALD A. McINNIS COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC PHILIP L. ANTHONY SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN ALTERNATE � WO AIN C$LWOMAN OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE JOAN K. RIDDLE REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERALPUBLIC ALTERNATE HARRIETT M. WIEDER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER • UNTY C)F= GE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION March 31, 1980 Mr. James Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Jim: ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-2239 Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early review of the city's adopted sphere of influence as it relates to the Beeco property. There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. I am enclosing a copy of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere of influence _must be by resolution of your City Council. Upon receipt of a resod—ution I will present it to the Commission and recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the resolution'you also include information supporting the request as to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very truly yours, Dom` y Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:bd Attachment 1v r, an- t for tw halo 4annticn IIttdid for Lo'e aJ1wn0,q olvlt mJ If d. tend r vnr of lhn.c ulna., of xvu nnv (INPOWLI serr- euntlBuunllgllu4x 4i114CUCpn1'a LeJ for- GX0VEIaVAIj'Eav'r cony; 3 54774.5 § 54774.1 Spheres of Influence; ad,titltli+, .Imendnivat or rc•,sl.,n; public hear. Ino;• notice The colmnirrinn M101 arlopt, nmcnd%'_fNvh,! pphpres of Inf)n(,am after it public hearing called and held for that purpr;;;n. At least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive officer shall give unlled notice of the IlearinK to pack affected local agpney or county, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for such notice n'Ith the executive offheer. in addition, at least 16 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive oftleer, shall cause notice of the hearing to be published In accordance with Section 4001 in a news- paper of general circulation which Is circulated within thu territory affected by the sphere of Influence proposed to he adopted. The com"11181ml may continue from time to• time any hearing called pursuant to this section. At any hearing called anti held pursuant to this section, the commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected local agency or county or any Interested person who wishes to appear. The provisions of this section shall only apply, to spheres of influence adopted by the commission after the effective date of title section. (Added by Stats.1074, c. 300, V. 603, 11.) Influence; amendment or revision; resolution of agency or hearing; relmbarsement of costs It any local agency or county desires amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of Influence, the local agency or county, by resolution of Its legislative body, may file a request therefor with the executive officer who shall prehent the some to the commission at Its next regular meeting. The commission, upou receipt of such a resolution, shall set a time and date for hearing of the request and shall direct the executive officer to give notice of the hearing st the times and In the manner prescribed In Section 54774.1. At the hearing, the commission shall bear any Interested persons and Consider the requests for amendment or revision of the sphere of Influence. The commission may continue the bearing from time to time not to exceed 70 days from the date specified In the notlea of hearlog. At the cronclu5lon of the hearing the commission sba11 deny or approve, In whole or In part, the request. Any local agency or county making a request pursuant to this section shall relm- burse the commission for the • • * actual and ' * * * direct costs * • * incurred by the commission In complying with this section; provided, however, that the commission may In Its diseretlon wale such reimbursements It It finds that Ule request for amendment or revision of a sphere of influence can be considered and studied as it part of the periodic revlew of spheres of Influence required by Section 04774. (Added by Stuts.1074, c. 300, In. 00.1, 1 2. Amended by Stats.1070, c. 31, p. 00, 1 2.) Library references Municipal Corporations 0=40, 154714.5 Urban development C.J.B. Municipal Corporations 198 at sea. patterns; preservation of open -space lands ruin agency formation eonuna,- It is the m149nt of the Legislature that local ageney formation commissions establish shout statutorff•• authorization to policies and vxerelsn their powers pursuant to this chapter In such manner to ca- t action challenglmr codetilu- •-ley resolution advptinga•rhwd courage .11111 provlde plunned, well -ordered, efficient urban development patterns 41cy. Thulnr;dnn tanmrprlers, With appropilnf.t con.4,1vi ttloa of pruserv'hng oprn:•psep lands n'lthla such patterns, of Santa nasa (1979) 10 CAI. C.A.sd e73. (Added by Stats.10T4, e. 531. p. 2222, 12.) Library references C ling C getting 1 24, I or addlltpns by amendment Asterisks * • • indicate deletions by amendment 261 • CJ i ry CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 29, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: LETTER TO LAFCO Pursuant to the Council action of April 28th, please write to Mr. Turner and advise him that the City has placed a temporary hold on the resolution seeking revision of the City's Sphere of Influence in the Beeco property area. + Ic Y�D-w ROBERT L. W PNN City Council Meeting April 28, 1980 Agenda Item No CITY.OF NEWPORT BEACH Apri 1 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 he Agency Formation Commission amend tCity's existing Sphere of Influence to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary. 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 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, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by B RT P. LE ARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments: 1) City Manager letter dated March 25, 1980 2) LAFCO letter dated March 31, 1980 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 640-2151 MAR 2 71980 March 25, 1980 taaW r, TWA POW Vr aFFIC�R LOCAL AWY FOA V03 COT-114110.' 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, fi yso— ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Dir. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 F G E iCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALDA.McINNIS March 31, 1980 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Mr. James Hewicker GENERAL PUBLIC Planning Director PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 Newport Boulevard FIRST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Dear Jim: ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834.2239 DONALD J. MSALTARELLI CCOUNCI Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn CITY OFTUSTIN advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early ALTERNATE review of the city's adopted sphere of influence as it relates to ALICE J. MecLAIN COUNCILWOMAN property. the Beeco P P erty. CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an JOAN K.RIDDLE amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. 'I am REPRESENTATIVE OF G ENERAL PU BLIC copy enclosing a co of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere ALTERNATE HARRIETT M. WIEDER of influence must be b resolu,tion of your City Council. Upon P SUPERVISOR receipt of a reso ul tion I will present it to the Commission and SECOND DISTRICT recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the RICHARD T. TURNER resolution you also include information supporting the request as EXECUTIVE OFFICER to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very VV.-k ruly yours, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT:bd Attachment 1•: ( l�.r,.l a1J 14 }' (.dla.if roll aUli/• t estnbi@hina r,-nit; CI :I urc fur two ll.- of h,g en t aW It .tend u li of l.ipo: fins,, Uf extend a0\l ffl arpnraa1 ticrr. evnlnauaUa unhn_ut•Dntuted mr. Gov] ItVA1,VNT cons, § 54774.5 1 54774.1 Spheres of influence; ad,hitl* .,:nandmunl or re,.sh,n; public hear- Ing; notice The cousnleslnn shall adept, mnend�\LLlvlre spllerrs of tufhb•nla after it public hearbtc called and held for that narnoo3l At least 15 days tutor to titr date or nmtled notice of the bearinjr to iterested party who bns filed a officer. III addition, at least e executive officer, shall cause e with Section 0001 In a news- rlthin Lite territory affected by Tile culntnisslon may continuo this section. s section, tit commission sball ed by silly affected local agency hear. :o spheres of influence adopted thin. dstch; resolution of Rooney or its or revision at an adopted sphere ton of Its legislative body, may to shall present the same to the alsidon, upon receipt of such d the request and shall direct the i the times and In the manner he eommisston shall hear any amendment or revision of the the hearing from time to time the nottrc of hearing. At the or approve, In whole or in part, t 1 suant to this section $hall relin * * * direct costa * * L :salon; provided, however, that reimbursements It it finds that of Influence can be considered phares of Influence required by by Stats.1070, c. 31, p, 150, 12.) dumlotpat Corporations 1.88 at seq. — — —._n of open -space lands cat agency formation cone+la• It Is the lnt,•nt of the hrgisluture (lint local agency tornmtlon commissions establish tmout statutoryy authorization to policies and exerehse tlielr powers pursuant to thin chapter In such manner to Ou- t netlnn chalianninR conetitu• •n>>` lesaiultau nduptmrl a nohwa courage and pruvlde piatmed, well -ordered, efficient urban development patterns -,R'cy. Tanb.r4W t'.n orprWo, hltit appropnlit tl Cun"bicttttioll of preSQrving all, IP:•pno? lands within such patterns. or Sanln Moan (1978) 150 tai. C.A.3d 873. (Added by Stats.1074, c. 531, p.1222,12.1 Library references ZJ$g ing C=12.121. i or Additions by amendment Asterisks * + + indicate deletions by amendment 261 City Council Meeting _ April 28, 1980 Agenda Item No. H-2(a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 23, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO Property Suggested Action 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 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 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, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by B RT P. LE ARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments: 1) City Manager 2) LAFCO letter letter dated March 25, 1980 dated March 31, 1980 CITY OF NEWPORT 13EACH (714) 640-2151 t.111L719804 March 25, 1980 MCWD I TWA DMIC OFFICER LOCAL AMITY FWAVON CM2,11331V Air. 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, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Dir. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 C) G E ICAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALD A. MONNIS March 31, 1980 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Mr. James Hewicker GENERAL PUBLIC Planning Director PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 Newport Boulevard FIRST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Dear Jim: ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-2239 CCONALD J. OUNCIILMANL7ARELLI Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn CITY OFTUSTIN advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early ALTERNATE review of the city's adopted sphere of influence as it relates to ALICE J. MaCLAIN COUNCILWOMAN the Beecoproperty. CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an JOAN K.RIDDLE amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. I am REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC copy enclosing a c0 of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere ALTERNATE HARRIETT M.WIEDER of influence must be b resolution of your City Council. Upon SUPERVISOR receipt of a reso ution I will.present it to the Commission and SECOND DISTRICT recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the RICHARDT.TURNER resolution you also include information supporting the request as EXECUTIVE OFFICER to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very truly yours, Richard T. Turner N' Lj Executive Officer RTT: bd • ' ' ` ' ' Attachment Aprt� I� .} 9 f ler .1 at.• it, y rurul.tm.n win- eatnhlL hU+g tentative futuro for two adjoining eitlea did it deprh'e ualr of Ula,m r1U0.1 of extend sowngn db;pornl serv- cumtunum unhstupolated ter. G0VrIlVAI,,VNT conga § 54774.5 5 54774.1 Spheres of Influence; ad,gdl% miloadnlont mr rt •stun; public hear. Ing; notice The enmmlFi4mn shall adapt, amend idvira spheres or lnflnouee after it public hearing called and held for that purpoa . At least 16 days prior to the ditto of any such hearing, the executive officer shill give mnlied notice of the llenring to each affected local agency or county, 111,11 to tiny hterosted party who has filed a written request for such notice nigh the executive Officer. Ilt audition, at least 16 days prior to the date of any such, hearing, the executive officer, shall cause notice of the hearing to be published In accordnneo with Sacllon 0001 In a news- paper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of influence proposed to be adopted. Tile colundssiml may continue from time to'thule any hearing called pursuant to tills section. At any hearing called and held pursuant to this section, the commission shalt hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected local agency or county or any Interested person who wishes to appear. The provisions of this section shalt only apply to spheres of Influence adopted by the commission after the effective ditto of tills section. (Added by Stats.1074, c. 300, p. 693, 11.) 1 as et sea. Spheres of Influence; amendment or revision; resatutloe of agency or county; hearing; reimbursement of costs If any Iocal agency or county desires amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence, the local agency, or county, by resolution of Its legislative body, may file a request therefor with the executive officer who shall present the some to the connulsclan at its next regular meeting. The commission, upon receipt of such a resolution, shall set a time and date for hearing of the request and shalt direct the executive officer to give notice of the hearing at the times and in the manner prescribed In Section 64774.1. At the hearing, the commission shall hear any Interested per.;ons and consider the requests for amendment or revision of the sphere of Influence. The commission may continue the hearing from time to time not to exceed 70 days front the date specified In the notice of hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the commission shall deny or approve, In whole or In part, the request. Any local agency or county making a request pursuant to tills section shall rctm- bursa the commission for the It * * actual and ' * * • direct costs * • * Incurred by the commission Ia complying with this section, provided, however, that the, commission may In its discretion valve such reimbursements If It finds that the request for amendment or revision of it rphere of inf►uence can be consldered and studied ns a part of the periodic review of spheres of Influence required by Section 64774. (Added by Stuts.1014, c. 300, p. 004, 1 2, Amended by Stat4.1979, c. 31, p. 60, 12.) LIl unll bial Corporations 0=40. 1 54774.E Urban development C.S.s. Municipal Corporationd 1 Ye et Yea. patterns; preservation of open -splice lands enl agency formation coianit.- It is the hntrnt lit file Toglsluture that local ugvnry fornation commissions establish trout statutoryy autuorlmtten to policies and exercise their powers pursnnnt to tills chapter In such manner to oil- , action etlallangint: eonattta- It 1e3o11ttlnllatWpunnaarhW11 courage and pruvide planned, well•ordered, effIchnit urban[ development Itatterns ,got selrtn liusni o Ie 1+J lie . a9rh nppropl9nt? coin. Mviation of preserving ep,,W.%pare Innis within such patterns, C.A.3d 813, (Added by Stats.1074, c. 531, p. 1222, 12.) Library rMcreaCes C J 9 .Zoning 124. I or additions by amendment Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by amandmant 261 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 2719 a . March 25, 1980 t RICHARD T. TURNER, E EOUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AMY MOTION CUR.113810"1 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, ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Dir. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ORANGE COUNTY /f( \ HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 ITTO F NY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703 RANGTELEPHONE: (714) 834.2239 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALD A. MONNIS March 31, 1980 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Mr. James Hewicker GENERAL PUBLIC planning Director PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 Newport Boulevard FIRST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Dear Jim: DONALD J. COUNCILMAN LTARELLI Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn CITY OFTUSTIN advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early ALTERNATE review of the city's adopted sphere of influence as it relates to ALICE J. MacLAIN COUNCILWOMAN the Beeco property. CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an JOAN K.RIDDLE amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. I am GENERALPUBLICE OF enclosing a copy of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which ALTERNATE states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere HARRIETT M.WIEDER Of influence must be by resolution of your City Council. Upon SUPERVISOR receipt of a resolution I will present it to the Commission and SECOND DISTRICT recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the RICHARDT.TURNER resolution you also include information supporting the request as EXECUTIVE OFFICER to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very truly yours, L W-64 Richard T. Turner �g Executive Officer RTT: bd S C .L Attachment tr i G. E tion ' cal agency formation commis- ohaction tciienenelnSor eon tltu- Olt yY resolution adopting a school iollly. Tlmeerldgs EnterGGrise*. • of Santa nos& (1e78) lz Cal. C,A.Bd 878. - t or additions by amendment. GOVE NT CODE § 54774.5 § 54774.1 Spheres of Influence; Pail it , amendment or revision;,'•pubilc'hear. .. • . InB; -notice -The commission shall adopt, amend vise spheres of influence after a public .. hearing called and held for that porno At least 15 days prior to the date of any such bearing, the executive officer shall 'give mailed notice of the hearing to each affected local agency or county, and to any -interested party who has filed a - written request -for such notice with the executive officer. In addition, at least 15 _days prior to -the date' of. any such hearing, the executive' officer, shall cause notice of the hearing tq�be.published in accordance with'Seetton 6061 in a news- paper of general.eirculation which is elreulated within the territory affected by the sphere,o;„influence proposed,to be adopted..- The commission may:contluue from time to;-tlme any hearing called pursuant 'to this section. •.�,i„,,.j;ry�-st, ` At any hearing called and held pursuant to this section, the commission shall (tear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any, affected,local,agency or county or any interested person who wishes to appear. ••• .,.f:. :,4=:; <•'ti b, ;xg.Csx The provisions -of thlw6etion shall only apply -to spheres of influence adopted. by -the ,commission after the,effeetive date of thls,sectton. - , •„ .„^•,: l "nnnDad3" + •) (Added by Stats.1974, c. 360, p'693, § SJ':•' •+%, ..,::c:::''t..-.:C �'; .kA:hed:<5.`f �..�'h•r.r r•1: iuza .y tx 1 q la a: • `:�%ngq .0 4'; ,� t i Library references , Municipal Corporations C=49. - •; m" ^T '>•�' 'rt• a •:�Gi.ti, ?i;"..-,' .,_ C.J.S. Corporations 9 88 ataeq.• ,i,�.�-;1 ,7,• a:yo, e; r , § 547742 Spheres of influence; amendment or revleloti;-resolution of agency or• ,. S ... ^county , - . P. ; hearing; reimbursement of costa'I ,�,,, .,•,,,�,.,,,, . • If any local agency or county desires'amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of Influence, the local -agency or county,'by resolution of its legislative body; may file a request therefor with the executive officer who shall present the same to the commission at Its next regular meeting. The commission, .upon receipt of such a resolution, shall' set a time and date for hearing.of the request and shall direct the executive officer 16 give notice, of the hearing,at the times and In,the manner Prescribed in Section 54774.1. At the hearing, the commission shall hear any interested persons and consider the requests for amendment or revision of the sphere of influence, The commission may continue the hearing from time to time nof'to exceed 70 days from the date "specified in the notice of hearing. At the conclusion of the bearing the commission shall deny or approve, in whole or in part, the request. _3., '.z, t.. ^• as-•:, v, , •r-^,. =.ar, - Any local agency or county'making a request pursuant to this section shall retm• bursa the commission for the + ' ! ° '+ .actual and" + + " direct costs "• " -" Incurred by the commission in complying with this section-, provided, however, that the commission may in its discretion waive such, reimbursements if it, finds that the request for amendment or revision of a sphere of influence can be considered and studied as a part of'the periodic review of spheres of influence required by Section 54774.. •. ... . ,-: , (Added by Stats.1974, c. 360, p. 694, §2..Amen ded by Stats.1976, e. 31, p. 50; § 2.),, Libraryy references - .. •• • . • ' • - a • o Municlpal Corporations (3=4e. C.J.S. Municipal Corporatlons,9,88 at seq. , 9 5477-4.5 Urban development patterns;'preservatlon of open•apaoe lands ; • �,� It 1s the intent of the Legislature that local'agency formation commissions establish Policies and exercise their powers pursuant to this chapter in such manner to en- courage and provide planned, well -ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open -space lands within such,patterns. (Added by Stats.1974, c. 531, p. 1222, § 2.) : , , - , . , Library references Zoning (3=12. C.J.S. Zoning, 1 24. Asterisks * + * Indicate deletions by amendment::'1_;,�! 261' - rl t • City Council Meeting _April 28, 1980 Agenda Item No. H-2(a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Apri 1 23, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence on BEECO Property Suggested Action If desired, adopt Resolution No, requesting that the Local he Ci Agency Formation Commission amend tty's existing Sphere of Influence to include all lands in West Newport presently surrounded by the City boundary. 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 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, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by B RT P. LE ARN D Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments: 1) City Manager 2) LAFCO letter letter dated March 25, 1980 dated March 31, 1980 NEWPORT BEACH MAR 2 71980 MOVE 0MV Ano►a 0011211010111 Mr. Richard Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza - Room 458 Santa Ana, California 92701 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, O fi a ROBERT L. WYNN City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 I r ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, ROOM 458 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-2239 G E ICAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN DONALD A. MciNNIS March 31, 1980 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN ROBERT E. DWYER REPRESENTATIVE OF Mr. James Hewicker GENERAL PUBLIC Planning Director PHILIP L. ANTHONY City of Newport Beach SUPERVISOR 3300 Newport Boulevard FIRST DISTRICT Newport Beach, California 92663 EDISON W. MILLER SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Dear Jim: DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN Response is made to a letter dated March 25, 1980 from Bob Wynn CITY OFTUSTIN advising that the City Council of Newport Beach requests an early ALTERNATE review of the cltyls adopted sphere of influence as it relates to ALICE J. MwLAIN the Beecoproperty. COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS There are no standard application forms to fill out requesting an ALTERNATE JOAN K.RIDDLE amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence. I am REPRESENTATIVE OF GENE RAL PUBLIC 9 a copy enclosing of Section 54774.2 of the Government Code which states a request for an amendment for review of an adopted sphere ALTERNATE HARRIETT M. WIEDER of influence must be by resolution of our City Council. Upon Y Y p SUPERVISOR receipt of a reso�n I will present it to the Commission and SECOND DISTRICT recommend a hearing date. I would suggest when submitting the RICHARDT.TURNER resolution you also include information supporting the request as EXECUTIVE OFFICER to why the city feels such an amendment for revision of its adopted sphere of influence is necessary. If you have any questions on this matter please call me at 834-2072. Very truly yours, L 4 Richard T. Turner —I•d` Executive Officer RTT:bd •• Attachment f lur,d :, ,m }• fnnnalam aun- t estnbll>�nna IentgU ci future for t+ru ndlondng a ell es (lid If d�+p, h'r um• n! Ihm.;a rltleu if extend uoaage dlapo>al vorr. ounitgeuaa milneUrpulated ter. GOV RVAI,VN'i+ CODE § 54774.5 § 54774.1 spheres of Influence; addptlAA, mocndmmnl or re. -shun; public hear. Ing; notice The romolL•:riuu Shall adopt, mnenrl\ill-be cpllpre;, of lufllwom fitter a public hearing culled and held for that purp%w . At least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive officer shall give nmlicd notice of the hearing to each affected focal agrney or county, find to nut' Interested party win has filed a written request for such notice a•Ith the executive officer. In addition, At least 15 days prior to the date of any such hearing, the executive officer, shall cause notice of the hearing to 14 published in iWorihmm with Section 0001 In it hewn - paper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of Influence proposed to be adopted. The commission may eontillue from time to time any hearing called pursuaut•to thhu section. At any hearing ealled and held pursuant to this section, the Commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by ally affected local agency or county or any Interested person who wishes to appear. The provisions of this section shall only apply to spheres of Influence adopted by the commission after the effective date of tills section. (Added by Stats.1074, e. 300, p. 603, 1 1.) Spheres of Influence; amendment or revision; resolution of agency er county; hearing; reimbursement of costs It any local agency or county desires amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of Influence, the local agency or county, by resolution of its legislative body, may file a request therefor with the executive officer who Shall prcrent tit* same to the emnffisslon at its next regular meeting. The commission, upon receipt of such a resolution, shalt tot a time and date for hearing of the request and shall direat the executive officer to give notice of the ]tearing at the times and in the manner preseribcd In Section L4774.1. At the hearing, the commission shall hear any Interested persons and consider the requests for amendment or revision of the sphere of Influence„. The commission may continue the hearing from time to time mot to exceed 70 days from the date specified lit the notice of hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the commission shalt deny or approve, In whole or in part, the request. Any local agency or county making a request pursuant to this section shall rehn- hurse the commission for the • + + actual and 'a + * direct costs * e Incurred by the commission in complying with this sectlon; provided, however, that the commission may In Its discretion walve such rehutbursements if it finds that the, request for amendment or revision of a sphere of Influence can be considered And studied as a part of the periodic review of spheres of Influence required by Section 54774. (Added by Stats.1074, c. 300, p. 004, 1 2. Amended by Stats.1070, P. 31, p. G0, 12.) Libraryy references .Municipal Corporations 0-+40, C.J.B. Municipal Corporations 163 et seq. 154774,5 Urban development patterns; preservation of open -space lands fit anenry tormntimt cmund►• It in the intcut of the Legislature that localagrncy fornmtlon commissiolln establish snout atnletory auntorlralion w policies and exercise their powers Pursannt to this chapter In such manner to on. t action cho'Ienxtnlr conetllu- uy resauuott adopuna n arhw+t courage :m4 Provide planned, well -ordered, efficient urban development patterns "ia(c}•. •rnubtrlanr 1'nlrn+rhrq With apprepilafe run'-bicl.ittml of preserving opvn:.pnra lands within such patterns. or Banta lioart t1973) I+e t"I• C.A.3d 313, (Added by Stats.1074, c. 531, p.1222,12.) Library references Zoning a s g7.oning 124. 1 or additions by amendment Astariaks + + + Indicate deletions by amendment 261 \:J BANNING \• 13 3. o\ _o , / swcoR.IorBi) F " STA•I48 1 wus 62 \ p r.92 AC � .. )�t�9? t - � }71Gn•v/AY 0 _ " 34 \ 9h y fs3 9.27i Air, S 65- 3/�36/AV. C % I72 0/ A0. 1, ; \ `\4• 150.2.gAC. e TA 45-06 \ 2 ' !/4 GOR. z r. 45-05 r os.2i�°ia I J RIt ER 45-07 45-11 45-01 POR.LOTI NO. 46J �/5-1Z /f 0Ly 42 4 =0 V- IHOLO 0 EOGE OF a�<' IIII H/GHWAY,6RANGE BANNING TRACT ` CO. U411V WATER oisr. TRACT NO. 463 M. At 32 - 2' NEWPORT ALES,=: TR. U ill. 5- I A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 4, 1980 TO: City Attorney FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Resolution of City Council requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission review the City's Sphere of Influence in the westerly portion of the City on the BEECO property. On March 24, 1980 the City Council requested that a letter be prepared requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission's early review of our Sphere of Influence in the westerly portion of the City on the BEECO property. On March 25, 1980, Bob Wynn addressed a letter to Dick Turner making that request. On March 31, 1980, I received a letter from Dick Turner indicat- ing that the request would have to be in the form of a resolution from the City Council. (See attached letter dated March 31, 1980 from LAFCO and our staff"report of February 20, 1980.) The City.Manager has asked that this matter Council agenda for its meeting of April 14, resolution be prepared by your office. For is to be placed in the resolution, you may City Council minutes of March 24, 1980 and Chairman of the LCP Committee dated January which is attached. JAMES D. HEWICKER Planning Director JDH/kk Attachments be put back on the 1980 and that the the information.that wish, to refer to the the 'request of the 7, 1980, a copy of ba�c_o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 February 21, 1980 Mr. Richard Munsell Assistant Director, Advance Planning Environmental Management Agency P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Munsell, The portion of the Santa Ana River Mouth Area known as the BEECO Property has always been of interest to the City of Newport Beach, since it is totally surrounded by the City. Because of this traditional concern regard- ing any plans for this area, the portion of the County Local Coastal Program for this area is of particular interest to us. We, therefore, request that the City of Newport Beach be notified of all Local Coastal Program discussions and hearings on this property, and be in- volved in the planning process to the greatest extent possible. Information may be sent to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Patricia Temple We will appreciate your attention in this matter and look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RPL/nm City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ff; f i ��� F�rFi�•ro 16 FE812 798 0�. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH "•xcH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 12, 1980 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: REPORT ON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Attached is a letter from the local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee requesting that this City establish a Sphere of Influence on the Beeco parcel. The Council considered this letter and requested a report back from the staff on the procedure and details of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you would prepare this report and have it, if possible, for the February 25th City Council meeting. Attachment � RO)BERWTL. W� YNN I