Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION111111111 lill 111111111111111111111 lill 1111111111*NEW FILE* BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION -7 SA-NTA ANA AVENUE 302 ♦> N N V 4 I •� V V V N V N V �. 1 V N m 300 � D- 306 3s:0f:.5. 30^ 30309 30a no ia3S,'--.^,L >377 310 320 305 1/2 313 s%l 2rArERMAISVAr 320 i/31J ,LZ➢v.aLz>� 316 1'8 319 319 I32l321 yaz> 320 �Svy.i�� 315. K pp m 326 325 324 325 > 324 PROPOSE Do CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY H " 321 323 325 D� G G G 327 330 329 330 331 330 a N uo N uo G G N N w i, s .. 'm o� v mGi 1�dJ m v z JJS JJ9 333 336 335 334 337 336 N N �° x,(j 2j'7 S n 9�4 z y g4� > c 228) LA LfNDA - PLACE II o a n m 3q0 2336 0 341 < 340 341 340 341 c N 348 `ac '!q2 LA LrxDA Cr ., m 2 344 n u ♦ns' .Lg'L7' o 0 0 "' V <" T u U u a� a N N M N O °' N m Ja 345 m 350 40 o m ; LP N z fD REDLANDS DRIVE m [354 N N V G4 2316 4m N m36 DOVA,, 2247 REDLANDS DR REDLANDS DRIVE z ROAD 363 364o G�' wmV '<J N 52246 NO umv • NwG ch 370 369369 N 376 375 �m _L2O 375 376 370373 No GN 4J GwON N (,�` -O 360 379 GO o 21 37 8 379 > 361 382 zym iRNlLL DRIVE J 0 AGwp 23,63 3t 383 c 87 386 � m 390 388 372 D 3882 9 393 392 p 0 z cm o�9 Ym20vA O 373 c 9 m 398 39m 397 74 V t 397 398 G N 4 Z N N N !D V C 375 n AVENUE ' TUSTfN AVENUE TUSTlN AVENU o No 0 0 D 25 m EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY 2522 G 4 > 2520 C2 O N c o O 0 m m N n U Or A 2«O 2515 A > 2572 �' 2535 c 253a > 2516 2SJ4 tO N a fi 2515 2572 JS S` q426 ff 2529 s 2528 o a 1a S 'JJJJ�.r�, 208 2 J0? 2 c °' i 2507 2506 i " 25,0 JJ 2318 N o y i 2507 2506 244` N u 2523 2522 ;i NNYT2`10 l > ; 250, X z 2500 No '' ' ?J 06 `�iJa S o a�� 2�4 Al, > 2516 > S a'�y 2J00 �J2J 9 uS i 2475 2476 ` 22J ,1 - 9 2 P`t 2420 2510-- 2411 2412 i 2v06 2414 ^y0� N y 230i L �.-T�� :. e mr_�—'-�-'-- { � '.� � I� r r � -- D � Z ` Z ..�� X �' D � a "� � Q 1, e Z ,. - ;a �� . l � a �� ,'r., s r^.� y e /• - .....v �_..e .4.. C.�. �^. _ .:.:a= aBAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION AREA (ANNEX TO NEWPORT BEACH) COUNTY UNINCORPORATED (ANNEX TO COSTA MESA) *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Muradliyan Jack Parcel :119 332 01 Site :2346 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/28/1991 Mail :PO Box 188 Laguna Beach Ca 92652 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:5,402 Ac:.43 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Gerral Et Al Parcel :119 332 02 Site :2340 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/02/1990 Mail :PO Box 2671 Newport Beach Ca 92659 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:4,180 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Garthwaite Robin/Charlene H Trustees Parcel :119 332 03 Site :2316 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/10/1995 Mail :527 20Th St Huntington Beach Ca 92648 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:700 Ac: *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Vaughn Jane Tr Parcel :119 332 04 Site :2314 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/19/1985 Mail :2052 La Cuesta Dr Santa Ana Ca 92705 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.50 TotRm:S YB:1940 Pool:No B1dgSF:972 Ac:.43 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Galbraith Alexander/Andrea E Parcel :119 332 07 Site :2310 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/19/1995 Mail :16909 Mount Gale Cir Fountain Valley Ca 92708 Price :$950,000 Full Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,508 Ac:.69 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :James Will R/Anne B Parcel :119 332 08 Site :2308 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/30/1995 Mail :2308 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$210,000 Full Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone :949-645-5549 Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1940 Pool:No B1dgSF:751 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hoover Samuel T Parcel :119 332 10 Site :320 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/17/1992 Mail :728 W 18Th St #B Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$215,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:775 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Mc Kee James W Tr Parcel :119 332 11 Site :322 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/17/1983 Mail :1021 Tiller Way Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Price Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,084 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :King Fmly Lp Parcel :119 332 13 Site :2301 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/19/1998 Mail :PO Box 8691 Santa Ana Ca 92728 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,612 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------* Owner :Hirahara Shigeru Parcel :119 332 14 Site :2303 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/11/1972 Mail :2303 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$36,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-9479 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB: Pool:No B1dgSF:1,597 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Rypinski Donald F Parcel :119 332 15 Site :2305 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/24/1977 Mail :2305 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$112,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-5366 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But IS Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wolfe Margaret G Parcel :119 332 16 Site :2307 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/28/1992 Mail :2307 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1960 Pool:No BldgSF:1,957 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Bartolone Vincent S Tr Parcel :119 332 17 Site :2309 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2309 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No BldgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Siecinski Kenneth;Byrd-Siecinski Shelly Parcel :119 332 18 Site :2311 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/14/1995 Mail :2311 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$63,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,571 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Chernack Harvey Jay Parcel :119 332 19 Site :2313 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/20/1998 Mail :2313 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$431,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,072 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Czajkowski Mike Tr Parcel :119 332 20 Site :300 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/20/1989 Mail :300 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$258,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-6895 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,325 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Klein Luanne M Parcel :119 332 21 Site :308 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/27/1989 Mail :1134 19Th St Hermosa Beach Ca 90254 Price :$280,000 Partial Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1953 Pool:No BldgSF:1,423 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Khalaf Harry/Kathy Parcel :119 332 22 Site :2301 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/22/1993 Mail :2301 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$272,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-0624 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1965 Pool:No BldgSF:1,728 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----* Owner :Chung Gary Carl Tr Parcel :119 332 23 Site :2305 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/12/1966 Mail :2305 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$34,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,214 Ac:.19 *----------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Ross Robert J Parcel :119 332 24 Site :2309 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/08/1972 Mail :2309 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$41,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-6609 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:No BldgSF:2,022 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Palencar Mia Rosemary Parcel :119 332 25 Site :2313 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/16/1988 Mail :2313 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$122,000 Unqualified Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,043 Ac:.19 *------------------------ MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kent Minnie S Tr Parcel :119 332 26 Site :2317 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/06/1990 Mail :2317 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-5727 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,022 Ac:.19 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Davies Thomas Ray Tr Parcel :119 332 27 Site :2321 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/26/1967 Mail :2321 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$36,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TOtRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,066 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Watson James C Parcel :119 332 28 Site :2325 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/28/1966 Mail :2325 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$36,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6275 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,043 Ac:.19 *----------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kumamoto Masanori Tr Parcel :119 332 29 Site :2329 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/23/1966 Mail :2327 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$36,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,372 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Brown Richard C Parcel :119 332 30 Site :2333 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/03/1968 Mail :2333 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$37,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,664 Ac:.32 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :St Sure Kenneth F Tr Parcel :119 332 32 Site :2336 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/07/1988 Mail :1818 Commodore Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,260 Ac:.28 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Takata Michio Parcel :119 332 33 Site :2332 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/14/1965 Mail :2332 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$38,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7958 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,043 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Marchese Dennis J/Laura J Parcel :119 332 34 Site :2328 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/29/1997 Mail :2328 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$398,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,146 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wheeler Bradford/Lorene Parcel :119 332 35 Site :2324 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/23/1994 Mail :2324 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$360,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,316 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :De Voy Michael Parcel :119 332 36 Site :2320 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/26/1987 Mail :2320 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$246,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,178 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Tanner Theodore R Tr Parcel :119 332 37 Site :2316 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/29/1984 Mail :2316 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7482 Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,214 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Seng Paul R Parcel :119 332 38 Site :2312 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/25/1972 Mail :2312 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$38,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,728 Ac:.19 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ------* Owner :Sykes John/Leslie Parcel :119 332 39 Site :2308 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/01/1994 Mail :2308 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$315,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,214 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ---------------* Owner :Kelly Michael/Sara Trustee Parcel :119 332 40 Site :2304 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/05/1999 Mail :2304 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$489,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,345 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ------------------------* Owner :Mc Namara Eileen Parcel :119 332 41 Site :2300 La Linda P1 Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/21/1989 Mail :2300 La Linda Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,043 Ac:.20 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Elder Bonnie Kathryn Parcel :119 332 42 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :01/15/1981 Mail :339 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.05 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Machoskie Edward J Parcel :119 332 43 Site :2337 La Linda Pl Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/19/1996 Mail :2337 La Linda PI Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$357,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,043 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Tipton Jean Webb Tr Parcel :119 332 44 Site :2312 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/27/1989 Mail :30 Mission Bay Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1968 Pool:No B1dgSF:9,931 Ac:.83 *----------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Reynolds Randy Parcel :119 333 01 Site :2318 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/07/1987 Mail :2318 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$155,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-6727 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,591 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ------------------* Owner :Viada Edward R Parcel :119 333 02 Site :2316 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/30/1986 Mail :2316 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$240,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,280 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Farrell Lawrence J/Vicki L Parcel :119 333 03 Site :2314 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/25/1993 Mail :2314 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-6615 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Mc Kee Gary F Parcel :119 333 04 Site :2312 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/19/1986 Mail :2312 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$207,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,764 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Boehringer Roger Jr/Irma Parcel :119 333 05 Site :2310 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/16/1996 Mail :2310 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$370,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Sharp Scott/Tracy Parcel :119 333 06 Site :2308 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/17/1998 Mail* :2308 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$454,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,614 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Stroup Paul E Parcel :119 333 07 Site :2306 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/28/1972 Mail :2306 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$38,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-1939 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------* Owner :Levine David Tr Parcel :119 333 08 Site :2304 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/10/1987 Mail :2304 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$135,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-0157 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:-1960 Pool:NO B1dgSF:1,626 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Short Steven H Parcel :119 333 09 Site :2302 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/02/1995 Mail :2302 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$370,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,571 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Angell Robert G Parcel :119 333 10 Site :2300 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/07/1977 Mail :2300 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$98,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-3033 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hinkelman Eric/Kerry Parcel :119 333 11 Site :370 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/12/1994 Mail :370 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TOtRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,789 Ac:.15 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wishmyer Caryl R/Durie S Parcel :119 333 12 Site :378 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/16/1998 Mail :378 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$325,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1954 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,225 Ac:.15 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Woodall Richard S Tr Parcel :119 333 13 Site :2303 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/25/1990 Mail :2303 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,480 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Wood Rosemary Trustee;Wood Rosemary R Re Parcel :119 333 14 Site :2305 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/23/1994 Mail :2305 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-1653 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,687 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Mitchell Charles T Parcel :119 333 15 Site :2307 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/07/1983 Mail :2307 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$183,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,713 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Carolan T Robert Tr Parcel :119 333 16 Site :2309 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/11/1987 Mail :2309 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-1067 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,687 Ac:.18 The Information Provided IS Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Lean Gregory Jan Parcel :119 333 17 Site :2311 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/19/1982 Mail :2311*Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$78,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-8384 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,743 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Bendheim Peter W/Debra S Parcel :119 333 18 Site :2313 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/04/1998 Mail :2313 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-5596 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TOtRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,713 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Gray Enid A Parcel :119 333 19 Site :2315 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/22/1988 Mail :2315 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,646 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :White Jennifer Parcel :119 333 20 Site :2316 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/24/1996 Mail :2316 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$248,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1959 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,728 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Regan Timothy/Robin Parcel :119 333 21 Site :2314 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/03/1999 Mail :2314 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,662 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Hayes Mildred P Tr Parcel :119 333 22 Site :2312 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/14/1989 Mail :2312 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4910 Bedrm:3 Bath: TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,743 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Sales Michael Anthony/Janet Eva Parcel :119 333 23 Site :2310 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/04/1999 Mail :2310 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,662 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Walsh Brian A/Lynda Parcel :119 333 24 Site :2308 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/12/1993 Mail :2308 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$58,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-1852 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,005 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Britton James Parcel :119 333 25 Site :2306 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/28/1977 Mail :2306 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$113,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-9849 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,713 Ac:.16 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Malzo Raymond G Parcel :119 333 26 Site :2304 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/31/1992 Mail :2304 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$350,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,731 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Bock Robert Charles/Josefina Trustees Parcel :119 333 27 Site :2302 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/01/1999 Mail :2660 E Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,765 Ac:.17 The Information Provided is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Eimers Richard A Parcel :119 333 28 Site :2301 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/08/1980 Mail :2301 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$39,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-5949 Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1975 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,156 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hochner David/Diane Parcel :119 333 29 Site :2305 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/28/1992 Mail :2305 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$435,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:2.50 TotRm:10 YB:1976 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,206 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hoskins Monte L Parcel :119 333 30 Site :2311 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/19/1971 Mail :2311 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$32,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,471 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Vanholt Barbara Trustee Parcel :119 333 31 Site :2315 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/27/1998 Mail :2315 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4820 Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:S YB:1955 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,896 Ac:.41 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Smith Robert B Parcel :119 333 32 Site :2319 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/30/1991 Mail :2319 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,489 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Farley George H/Sharon L Parcel :119 333 33 Site :2327 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/07/1998 Mail :2327 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,808 Ac:.27 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Auerbach Stephen M Tr Parcel :119 333 34 Site :2331 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/12/1988 Mail :2331 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,536 Ac:.33 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Behpoor Pirooz Parcel :439 231 01 Site :303 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :01/15/1999 Mail :303 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :38 Res,Duplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,016 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hall Steven G/Michael A/Renee M Parcel :439 231 02 Site :2390 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/24/1993 Mail :2390 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$247,000 Full Use :38 Res,Duplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,944 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Robertson Gene H Tr Parcel :439 231 03 Site :305 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/12/1972 Mail :536 Seaward Rd Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Price :$11,000 Full Use :38 Res,Duplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1973 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,704 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Ripley John A Parcel :439 231 04 Site :311 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/09/1977 Mail :1233 Devon Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$53,500 Full Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone :949-642-8737 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,665 Ac:.17 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------* Owner :Gardner Robert S Tr Et Al Parcel :439 231 05 Site :315 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/01/1978 Mail :PO Box 11963 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,384 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Mc Namee Lawrence Michael Parcel :439 231 06 Site :318 Meadowlark Ln Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/30/1986 Mail :44739 Corte Valencia Temecula Ca 92592 Price :$95,000 Full Use :38 Res,Duplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1949 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,183 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Lam Cheong Kwong Tr Parcel :439 231 07 Site :310 Meadowlark Ln Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/09/1987 Mail :3518 W Lake Center Dr #C Santa Ana Ca 92704 Price :$184,000 Full Use :135 Res,Triplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1948 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,796 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Ball Sybil J Parcel :439 231 08 Site :2388 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/13/1975 Mail :2388 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1955 Pool:No B1dgSF:886 Ac:.14 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Pfeifer Daniel/Peggy Parcel :439 231 09 Site :2380 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/13/1995 Mail :2380 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$267,000 Full Use :135 Res,Triplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,181 Ac:.24 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Pfeifer Daniel W Parcel :439 231 10 Site :2378 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/25/1987 Mail :2378 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$165,000 Full Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,192 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ------------------* Owner :Wendler Harry Enis Tr Parcel :439 231 11 Site :2374 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/21/1990 Mail :18472 Durfee Cir Villa Park Ca 92861 Price :$1,070,000 Full Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1950 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,292 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Harbinger Homes Parcel :439 231 12 Site :2368 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/10/1998 Mail :3400 Avenue Of The Arts #G104 Costa Mesa Ca 92626 Price :$405,000 Full Use :76 Vacant,Multi Family Acreage Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:576 Ac:.41 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Winter William Parcel :439 231 13 Site :2364 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/05/1978 Mail :504 Redlands Ave Newport Beach Ca 92663 Price :$83,000 Partial Use :96 Res,Quadruplex Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,554 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kirby Sara Jane M Parcel :439 231 14 Site :2354 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/18/1985 Mail :425 W Virginia Ave Glendora Ca 91741 Price Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kamiya Tadao Tr Parcel :439 231 15 Site :2350 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/14/1984 Mail :4423 E Olive Branch Way Anaheim Ca 92807 Price :$305,000 Full Use :15 Res,Apartment Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:4,327 Ac:.41 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------* Owner :Cowley James Parcel :439 231 16 Site :327 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/21/1989_ Mail :327 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.50 TotRm:4 YB:1958 Pool:No BldgSF:1,264 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Roberts Thomas L/Cheryl Anne Parcel :439 231 17 Site :333 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/23/1997 Mail :333 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$255,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,378 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Boswell Rose Trustee;Udt Parcel :439 231 18 Site :341 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/22/1993 Mail :341 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-515-2914 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,613 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Silverman Samuel L Tr Parcel :439 231 19 Site :2399 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/22/1986 Mail :2364 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$250,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,946 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ---------------* Owner :Eason David C Parcel :439 231 20 Site :342 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/29/1983 Mail :342 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$180,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-8028 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,009 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Robinson Edith B Parcel :439 231 21 Site :340 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/10/1979 Mail :340 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-6618 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:S YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,503 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Cherry Joseph Vincent Jr Tr Parcel :439 231 22 Site :338 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/14/1967 Mail :1183 Riviera Ave Banning Ca 92220 Price :$5,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :909-769-1959 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,252 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Evans Nancy H Tr Parcel :439 231 23 Site :336 Peach Tree In Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/13/1973 Mail :336 Peach Tree In Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-9605 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,611 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -* Owner :A R Adams Family Limited Partnership Parcel :439 231 24 Site :337 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/14/1996 Mail :3305 Spring Mountain Rd #60-A Las Vegas Nv 89102 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,715 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Rudolph Bertram F Jr Parcel :439 231 25 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered Mail :PO Box 2302 Carmel Ca 93921 Price Use :31 Com,Commercial Lot Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac: *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Seiber Christopher J/Joanne N Parcel :439 231 26 Site :339 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/25/1998 Mail :339 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-1591 Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,400 Ac:.18 The Information Provided IS Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ---------------* Owner :Miller David Wayne/Lori Ann Parcel :439 231 27 Site :341 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/28/1997 Mail ':341 Peach Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$372,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,415 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------* Owner :Jurinek Wolfgang E Tr Parcel :439 231 28 Site :2385 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/15/1980 Mail :2385 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,027 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :O'Donnell Stephen/Michelle Parcel :439 231 29 Site :2375 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/30/1998 Mail :2375 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$375,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,668 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Reed Valerie B Parcel :439 231 30 Site :340 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :340 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:7 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,898 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Lawrence Esther Tr Parcel :439 231 31 Site :338 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/22/1987 Mail :338 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4673 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1959 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,512 Ac:.18 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Maxwell Marveen Parcel :439 231 32 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered Mail :336 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :31 Com,Commercial Lot Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Stary Paul E Parcel :439 231 33 Site :336 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/14/1983 Mail :336 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$78,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,308 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Premer T Anthony/Colleen K Parcel :439 231 34 Site :337 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/02/1994 Mail :337 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$400,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1975 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,638 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Emc Mortgage Corporation Parcel :439 231 35 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :09/19/1994 Mail :222 Las Colinas Blvd W #600 Irving Tx 75039 Price :$412,500 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:N0 B1dgSF: Ac:.01 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------------------* Owner :Gaddis Alan/Mary/Stuart Parcel :439 231 36 Site :339 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/09/1998 Mail :339 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:6 YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,333 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Graafmans Adrian J Parcel :439 231 37 Site :341 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/04/1995 Mail :341 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$380,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-8746 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,003 Ac:.19 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Rubenstein Randi Parcel :439 231 38 Site :345 Cherry Tree Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/03/1995 Mail :345 Cherry Tree Lri Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$315,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-2700 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1962 Pool:No BldgSF:2,124 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Jensen Rosalie Darlene Tr Parcel :439 232 01 Site :2398 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/24/1981 Mail :2398 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6034 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No BldgSF:1,844 Ac:.15 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Harmes Giles J Parcel :439 232 02 Site :2396 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/21/1972 Mail :2396 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$40,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-2501 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,780 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Hagele Ernestine R Parcel :439 232 03 Site :2392 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/12/1991 Mail :2392 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No BldgSF:1,427 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------* Owner :Valdez Murella A Parcel :439 232 05 Site :2384 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/19/1995 Mail :2384 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :714-545-5438 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:7 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,178 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Silverman Samuel L/Cheryl L Parcel :439 232 06 Site :2364 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/01/1993 Mail :2399 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$325,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1951 Pool:Yes BldgSF:3,282 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert L Parcel :439 232 07 Site :2356 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/02/1974' Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$28,000 Unqualified Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1979 Pool:No BldgSF: Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert L Parcel :439 232 08 Site :2356 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/08/1972 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,604 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ----------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert Parcel :439 232 09 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :10/14/1982 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No BldgSF: Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert Parcel :439 232 10 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :10/14/1982 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No BldgSF: Ac:.03 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert Parcel :439 232 11 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :10/14/1982 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No BldgSF: Ac:.37 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert L Parcel :439 232 12 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :11/08/1972 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.29 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert L Parcel :439 232 13 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :04/02/1974 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$28,000 Unqualified Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.29 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Arik Huseyin Parcel :439 232 14 Site :2364 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/08/1988 Mail :2364 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.29 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Valdez Murella A Tr Parcel :439 232 15 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :10/30/1970 Mail :2384 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$61,000 Unqualified Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :714-545-5438 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF: Ac:.29 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Hagele Ernestine Parcel :439 232 17 Site :2392 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/12/1991 Mail :505 N Tustin Ave #150 Santa Ana Ca 92705 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.29 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------------------* Owner :Laib Howard L/Pamela S Parcel :439 232 18 Site :365 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/25/1998 Mail :365 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$385,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1976 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,874 Ac:.25 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Yack Ralph Parcel :439 232 19 Site :369 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/19/1996 Mail :369 Santa Isabel Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$385,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TOtRm:6 YB:1976 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,874 Ac:.23 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hagele Ernestine R Parcel :439 232 20 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :06/12/1991 Mail :505 N Tustin Ave #150 Santa Ana Ca 92705 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.23 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Ryder Kenneth A Parcel :439 232 21 Site :379 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/21/1986 Mail :379 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,108 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----* Owner :Kreuter Sue/Robert Parcel :439 232 22 Site :383 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/12/1998 Mail :383 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-6755 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1964 Pool:No BldgSF:2,276 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Machin Doran Parcel :439 232 23 Site :389 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/31/1989 Mail :11 Sea Ter Newport Coast Ca 92657 Price :$360,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,108 Ac:.17 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Draganza Wm P Tr Parcel :439 232 24 Site :395 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/27/1986 Mail :395 Santa Isabel Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price . Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-9871 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,486 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Gatehouse Holly Parcel :439 232 25 Site :2399 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/17/1994 Mail :2399 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,166 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Brown Rodney E/Josephine A Trustees Parcel :439 232 26 Site :2397 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/24/1998 Mail :177 Riverside Ave #F Newport Beach Ca 92663 Price :$450,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:8 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,047 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Vinson William G Parcel :439 232 27 Site :2395 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/15/1972 Mail :2395 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$45,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-7176 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1956 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,100 Ac:.24 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wagenseller Richard N Parcel :439 232 28 Site :2393 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2393 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-2074 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1958 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,978 Ac:.59 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hughes Janet Parcel :439 232 29 Site :361 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/28/1992 Mail :361 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1980 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,016 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Finch Gary J Parcel :439 232 30 Site :363 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/09/1991 Mail :363 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$620,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:9 YB:1980 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,296 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Shafonsky Kurt/Sharon Kay Parcel :439 232 31 Site :365 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/05/1998 Mail :365 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$335,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1980 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,524 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wynn Mary Parcel :439 232 32 Site :367 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/27/1998 Mail :367 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$435,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1979 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,524 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Corral Rodolfo Parcel :439 232 33 Site :369 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/26/1986 Mail :369 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$107,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-722-2946 Bedrm:3 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1980 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,016 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Warwick Delbert L Parcel :439 232 34 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :12/22/1988 Mail :2095 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$3,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-7771 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.10 The Information Provided is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Pagano Joseph Site :371 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :371 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1980 Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Pllp Site :373 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :12132 Baja Panorama Santa Ana Ca 92705 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:3 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1980 Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Wood Randy D Tr Site :375 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :375 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:9 YB:1980 Pool:No *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange Owner :Newport Glen Estates Community Assn Inc Site :*No Site Address* Mail :14600 Goldenwest St #102 Westminster Ca 92683 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Dimassa Ernani Site :374 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :374 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1958 Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Caruthers La Vey Tr Site :372 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :372 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:3 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1979 Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Lavoie Donald Penny Site :376 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach 92660 Mail :376 Newport Glen Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1953 Pool:No *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Kettley Richard M Site :2390 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Mail :2390 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: •---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 35 Xfered :07/21/1989 Pride :$470,000 Full Phone B1dgSF:2,524 Ac:.18 --------------------------- Parcel :439 232 36 Xfered :03/14/1995 Price :$220,000 Phone B1dgSF:3,016 Ac:.18 :---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 37 Xfered :09/08/1987 Price :$430,000 Full Phone :949-631-0684 B1dgSF:3,296 Ac:.26 :---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 38 Xfered Price Phone B1dgSF: Ac: --------------------------- Parcel :439 232 39 Xfered :03/23/1998 Price :$640,000 Full Phone B1dgSF:1,926 Ac:.23 :---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 40 Xfered :02/19/1988 Price :$490,000 Full Phone B1dgSF:3,000 Ac:.17 :---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 41 Xfered :01/17/1997 Price :$620,000 Full Phone B1dgSF:778 Ac:.17 :---------------------------* Parcel :439 232 42 Xfered Price Phone :949-646-5332 B1dgSF: Ac: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ------------* Owner :Willcox Peter Sylvester Tr Parcel :426 041 01 Site :344 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/12/1987 Mail :344 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-2249 Bedrm:2 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1937 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,177 Ac:.42 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ------------------* Owner :Selufsky Gary Parcel :426 041 02 Site :350 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/13/1986 Mail :350 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$174,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-1182 Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:S YB:1937 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,344 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Robinson Oscar T Tr Parcel :426 041 03 Site :348 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :348 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 B:1971 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,617 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / orange '---------------------------* Owner :Neja T J Tr Parcel :426 041 04 Site :300 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/10/1989 Mail :3301 Via Carrizo #B Laguna Hills Ca 92653 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.51 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Cook Joseph S Parcel :426 041 05 Site :336 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/24/1988 Mail :336 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$282,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-8755 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1956 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,775 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Elder Alonzo A Jr Parcel :426 041 06 Site :330 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/02/1986 Mail :330 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$210,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,704 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----* Owner :Neja T J Tr Parcel :426 041 07 Site :326 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/10/1989 Mail :3301 Via Carrizo #B Laguna Hills Ca 92653 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1954 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,767 Ac:.45 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Overlees Virginia S Tr Parcel :426 041 08 Site :320 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/31/1988 Mail :320 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-1711 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1951 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,520 Ac:.25 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Jimenez Pete R Parcel :426 041 09 Site :316 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :2090 Marian Way Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6553 Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:826 Ac:.25 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Cummins Kenneth Trustee Parcel :426 041 10 Site :310 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/31/1995 Mail :2909 Laurel Ave Manhattan Beach Ca 90266 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,246 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Sanchez Leo Tr Parcel :426 041 11 Site :302 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/08/1968 Mail :302 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$10,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,767 Ac.:.18 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *------------------------ MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Malik Family Trust;Malik Rudolph John/Jo Parcel :426 041 12 Site :2208 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/27/1992 Mail :14 Monte Carlo Irvine Ca 92614 Price . Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.50 TotRm:7 YB:1955 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,368 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------* Owner :Keeler Michael P Jr Trustee;Keeler Micha Parcel :426 041 13 Site :2212 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/07/1999 Mail :2212 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:l Bath:1.00 TotRm:3 YB:1954 Pool:No B1dgSF:597 Ac: *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Neja T J Tr Parcel :426 041 14 Site :2216 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/10/1989 Mail :3301 Via Carrizo #B Laguna Hills Ca 92653 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1948 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,317 Ac:.41 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Neja T J Tr Parcel :426 041 15 Site :*No Site Address* Xfered :04/10/1989 Mail :3301 Via Carrizo #B Laguna Hills Ca 92653 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Purcell Jean Parcel :426 041 16 Site :2220 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :2220 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:l Bath:1.00 TotRm:4 YB:1948 Pool:No B1dgSF:730 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Dalton Charles T Tr Parcel :426 041 17 Site :303 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/07/1988 Mail :303 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6232 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,102 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Parker Stephen J Parcel :426 041 18 Site :307 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/25/1987 Mail :307 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:885 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Vujnovich Hugh/Laura Parcel :426 041 19 Site :311 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/25/1998 Mail :311 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$325,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,816 Ac:.19 *------------------------ MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Defeo Kenneth/Lori Parcel :426 041 20 Site :315 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :01/27/1994 Mail :315 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$218,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:S YB:1953 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,014 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Buggeln John/Doreen Parcel :426 041 21 Site :321 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/29/1999 Mail :321 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$285,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:885 Ac:.19 *----------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Gato Anaranjado Parcel :426 041 22 Site :325 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/10/1998 Mail :325 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,505 Ac:.19 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Loats Timothy/Norman Parcel :426 041 23 Site :329 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/15/1995 Mail :329 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$195,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-9281 Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,017 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Martini Christine M Tr Parcel :426 041 24 Site :335 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/05/1990 Mail :335 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,403 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Allsup Delbert D Tr Parcel :426 041 25 Site :341 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/28/1988 Mail :341 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-3207 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:885 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Schader Pamela Anne Parcel :426 041 26 Site :343 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/09/1988 Mail :343 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-4116 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,534 Ac:.25 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Rorden Gary Parcel :426 041 27 Site :344 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/17/1987 Mail :344 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$178,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-1679 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:885 Ac:.26 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :James George R Tr Parcel :426 041 28 Site :340 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :340 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-4580 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,494 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :De Geare Ramsey R Parcel :426 041 29 Site :334 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :334 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-8440 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,617 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wattson Gregory A/Judith M Parcel :426 041 30 Site :330 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :01/22/1993 Mail :330 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$292,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,973 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Perrault Richard M Parcel :426 041 31 Site :324 Colleen PI Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/14/1986 Mail :324 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$150,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:885 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Berg Nancy M Parcel :426 041 32 Site :320 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/08/1999 Mail :320 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,102 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Welter Leroy E Parcel :426 041 33 Site :316 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/03/1967 Mail :316 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$20,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-2656 Bedrm:4 Bath:1.00 TotRm:8 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,253 Ac:.19 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Orr Norma Parcel :426 041 34 Site :310 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/24/1995 Mail :310 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,370 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Kravitz Marvin Tr Parcel :426 041 35 Site :306 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/15/1984 Mail :306 Colleen Pl Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-1162 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,397 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Tyler Robert J Tr Parcel :426 041 36 Site :302 Colleen P1 Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/08/1986 Mail :2008 Centella Pl Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,102 Ac:.21 *- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Badenoch William/Bonnie Parcel :426 041 37 Site :301 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/30/1993 Mail :301 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$286,500 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,702 Ac:.22 *----------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Roberts James C Parcel :426 041 38 Site :309 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/15/1969 Mail :309 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,588 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Tong Brian K;Dickens Judith A Parcel :426 041 39 Site :313 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :01/29/1999 Mail :313 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$396,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,934 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Brown Scott Matthew Parcel :426 041 40 Site :319 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/19/1998 Mail :319 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,577 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Woolfolk Clifford A Parcel :426 041 41 Site :325 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/28/1972 Mail :325 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$42,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:5 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,943 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Mizell James Trustee;Mizell Living Trust Parcel :426 041 42 Site :331 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/04/1996 Mail :445 E 17Th St #C Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.50 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,974 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Redmon Eileen M Parcel :426 041 43 Site :337 Vista Bays. Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/25/1984 Mail :337 Vista Bays, Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$152,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4167 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,709 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Daily James D Parcel :426 041 44 Site :341 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/20/1999 Mail :2600 Michelson Dr Irvine Ca 92612 Price :$522,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1962 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,245 Ac:.25 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Zs Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Bein Steven Parcel :426 041 45 Site :347 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/17/1999 Mail Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,174 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----------------------* Owner :Birmingham Robert W/Marie P Parcel :426 041 46 Site :346 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/22/1994 Mail :346 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$330,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1967 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,834 Ac:.26 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Winter William J Parcel :426 041 47 Site :342 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :02/13/1976 Mail :504 Redlands Ave Newport Beach Ca 92663 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1962 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,729 Ac:.25 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Glauthier Roy;Parker M Nicole Trustees Parcel :426 041 48 Site :336 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/31/1996 Mail :336 Vista Bays Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-5608 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,929 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hardenbergh James F/Pamela Haines Parcel :426 041 49 Site :330 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/26/1993 Mail :330 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$298,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,437 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Emc Mortgage Corporation Parcel :426 041 50 Site :324 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/23/1996 Mail :222 Las Colinas Blvd W #600 Irving Tx 75039 Price :$112,259 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:1.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,939 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Courcelle Benoit M Parcel :426 041 51 Site :318 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/24/1990 Mail :318 Vista Baya. Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$290-,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6132 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,948 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hartwigsen Mildred Parcel :426 041 52 Site :314 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/22/1995 Mail :314 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-1559 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1962 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,994 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Mas Investmets Parcel :426 041 53 Site :308 Vista Baya. Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/17/1991 Mail :1560 Superior Ave #A2 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,835 Ac:.21 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Bisgaard Christopher P Trustee Parcel :426 041 54 Site :302 Vista Baya Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/19/1993 Mail :302 Vista Baya Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,593 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Salvati Louis Eugene Tr Parcel :426 041 55 Site :2280 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/20/1981 Mail :2280 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,630 Ac:.14 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Palanjian Jerry Parcel :426 041 56 Site :2286 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/12/1976 Mail :603 Kings Rd Newport Beach Ca 92663 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:7 YB:1963 Pool:No 131dgSF:1,663 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Woolley Dale C Parcel :426 041 57 Site :2292 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/03/1967 Mail :2292 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-2130 Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:6 YB:1963 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,733 Ac:.16 *----------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Tyson Terry Parcel :426 041 58 Site :2298 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/05/1998 Mail :2298 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-1857 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,486 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Davidson Shawn W Parcel :426 041 59 Site :303 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :03/24/1999 Mail :303 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:2.50 TotRm:10 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,088 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --* Owner :Cattanach David Parcel :426 041 60 Site :313 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/16/1999 Mail :313 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$369,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:5 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,374 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hansen Mark Victor/Patricia Jean Trustee Parcel :426 041 61 Site :2287 Waterman Way Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/10/1996 Mail :321 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$252,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,486 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Hughes Gregory K Parcel :426 041 62 Site :2283 Waterman Way Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/09/1983 Mail :2283 Waterman Way Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$188,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1963 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,718 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Bluell Craig T/Charolette Parcel :426 041 63 Site :2282 Waterman Way Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :08/28/1992 Mail :2282 Waterman Way Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$330,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:7 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,663 Ac:.16 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Adler Jason A Tr Parcel :426 041 64 Site :2290 Waterman Way Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/05/1987 Mail :2290 Waterman Way Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,505 Ac:.14 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Innerbichler Leo J Tr Parcel :426 041 65 Site :2298 Waterman Way Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/15/1980 Mail :2298 Waterman Way Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$77,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,468 Ac:.14 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Cheng Chin -Hsiang Parcel :426 041 68 Site :2297 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/26/1982 Mail :2297 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$146,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-2009 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,844 Ac:.16 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Little Robert N Parcel :426 041 69 Site :2289 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/10/1979 Mail :22$9 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$200,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-3814 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,882 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Mckasson Richard K Parcel :426 041 70 Site :2283 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/04/1992 Mail :2283 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-722-6367 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,335 Ac:.12 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Church Edgar M Parcel :426 041 71 Site :2281 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/27/1997 Mail :2281 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$470,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-0269 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,844 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----* Owner :Zimmer Robert J Parcel :426 041 74 Site :2284 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/11/1988 Mail :2284 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:B YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,335 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Hipsher Tod/Deborah Parcel :426 041 75 Site :2290 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/13/1998 Mail :2290 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$565,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1977 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,882 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----* Owner :Frost Susan E Tr Parcel :426 041 76 Site :2298 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/01/1989 Mail :2298 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1947 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,140 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----* Owner :Hansen Mark Victor Tr Parcel :426 041 78 Site :321 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/19/1989 Mail :321 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1978 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,492 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :May Ruby S;Aka Wood Ruby K Parcel :426 041 80 Site :325 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/17/1996 Mail :325 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool:No B1dgSF: Ac: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Hansen Mark Victor Tr Parcel :426 041 81 Site :323 23Rd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :10/13/1982 Mail :321 23Rd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$116,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:5 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:720 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Sequeira Gary Parcel :426 041 82 Site :2282 La Linda Ct Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2282 La Linda Ct Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: B1dgSF: Ac: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ------------------------* Owner :Irwin Ralph J Tr Parcel :426 091 01 Site :354 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/03/1987 Mail :354 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6620 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1953 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,611 Ac:.29 The Information Provided is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Ortberg Elder Tr Parcel :426 091 02 Site :2213 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2213 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6023 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No BldgSF:2,329 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Buchanan John Parcel :426 091 03 Site :2215 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/08/1990 Mail :2215 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,167 Ac:.21 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Julian Donald E Parcel :426 091 04 Site :2227 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/26/1978 Mail :2227 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$141,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1962 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,287 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Yerkes Gregory;Cringan Eleanor A Parcel :426 091 05 Site :2231 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/18/1995 Mail :2231 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$362,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,125 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Krone Robert W Tr Parcel :426 091 06 Site :2237 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/18/1979 Mail :2237 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-4161 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,228 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Corngold Richard Parcel :426 091 07 Site :2241 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/14/1975 Mail :2241 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-5914 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1967 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,565 Ac:.28 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kawamura Matthew/Deana Parcel :426 091 08 Site :2247 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/16/1992 Mail :2247 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$565,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:7 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,685 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Marder John F Jr Parcel :426 091 09 Site :2246 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/28/1986 Mail :2246 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$287,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-7816 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1972 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,083 Ac:.29 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Killian Walter Tr Parcel :426 091 10 Site :2242 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/12/1985 Mail :2242 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-5879 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:9 YB:1961 Pool:No BldgSF:3,232 Ac:.30 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange o---------------------------* Owner :Brockhoff Bailey C/Christina M Parcel :426 091 11 Site :2230 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/08/1999 Mail :2230 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$485,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1965 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,161 Ac:.20 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Crosby Family Trust;Crosby Leonard A/Mar Parcel :426 091 12 Site :2222 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/13/1995 Mail :2222 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:9 YB:1974 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:3,877 Ac:.22 The Information Provided is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Van Beek Felix Tr Parcel :426 091 13 Site :2220 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/18/1987 Mail :2220 bonnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1962 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,203 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Johnston Robert D Parcel :426 091 14 Site :2216 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/01/1978 Mail :2216 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$160,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1963 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,232 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Ricketts Joan M Parcel :426 091 15 Site :2212 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/31/1991 Mail :2212 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:l Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,223 Ac:.24 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Renda Karin 2 Parcel :426 091 16 Site :2204 Donnie Rd Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/23/1985 Mail :2204 Donnie Rd Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:6 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,221 Ac:.23 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Slouka Mary Parcel :426 091 17 Site :376 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/08/1997 Mail :376 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-2716 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,606 Ac:.26 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ---------* Owner :Thomas Veronica Abb Parcel :426 091 18 Site :380 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/01/1997 Mail :380 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$335,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,555 Ac:.17 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Thomas Danny/Devon Austin Parcel :426 091 19 Site :382 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/05/1999 Mail :382 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1953 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,413 Ac:.20 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Brown Douglas W Parcel :426 091 20 Site :390 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/06/1985 Mail :390 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$210,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-6676 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,684 Ac:.20 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Moran Frances Parcel :426 091 21 Site :398 22Nd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/12/1998 Mail :398 22Nd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1934 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,544 Ac:.25 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Davis Troy/Barbara Parcel :426 091 22 Site :2211 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/13/1997 Mail :2211 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$353,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,598 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Wilson Paul E Parcel :426 091 23 Site :395 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/09/1977 Mail :395 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$120,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:Yes BldgSF:2,269 Ac:.20 The Information Provided IS Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Lee Shin Hae;Shin Yang Parcel :426 091 24 Site :389 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/29/1998 Mail :389 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1981 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:3,410 Ac:.29 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -------------* Owner :Stearns George W Parcel :426 091 25 Site :385 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/01/1976 Mail :385 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-2172 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1957 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,690 Ac:.34 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Kelly Sadie Parcel :426 091 26 Site :384 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/03/1991 Mail :384 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1957 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,026 Ac:.28 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------* Owner :Neeme Emil Tr Parcel :426 091 27 Site :386 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/02/1989 Mail :386 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-0316 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1957 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,692 Ac:.37 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Martin James Michael/Heather Parcel :426 091 28 Site :388 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/06/1998 Mail :388 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$485,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,180 Ac:.29 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Larson Gregory O/Hilary B Parcel :426 091 29 Site :396 Meadow Ln Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/29/1997 Mail :396 Meadow Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$332,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1957 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,936 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Bechtel Mary H Trustee;+ Parcel :426 091 30 Site :2235 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/25/1991 Mail :2235 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-2363 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:6 YB:1958 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,854 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------------* Owner :Gerard Joseph S Parcel :426 091 31 Site :2255 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/28/1987 Mail :2255 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$260,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:10 YB:1964 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,935 Ac:.25 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ------------------------* owner :Blackney Gary/Diane Parcel :426 091 32 Site :2249 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/09/1997 Mail :2249 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$298,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,589 Ac:.25 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Sansam Cheryl L Trustee Parcel :426 091 33 Site :2245 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/04/1997 Mail :2245 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-4428 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:9 YB:1949 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,535 Ac:.50 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Conrad Stacie;Gaut Tommy Parcel :426 091 34 Site :397 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/13/1996 Mail :397 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$417,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:9 YB:1975 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,605 Ac:.22 The Information Provided IS Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ---* Owner :Camm Joan J Parcel :426 091 35 Site :393 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/24/1983 Mail :393 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,775 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ------------------------* Owner :Dobson Les/Pamela C Parcel :426 091 36 Site :387 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/05/1993 Mail :2336 La Linda P1 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$365,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1967 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,308 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Pacific Middle Trust Parcel :426 091 37 Site :381 Vista Bays. Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/26/1998 Mail :PO Box 19941 Newport Beach Ca 92659 Price :$387,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1967 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,925 Ac:.22 *------------------------ MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Heaton John A/Angela W Parcel :426 091 38 Site :375 Vista Bays, Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/02/1998 Mail :375 Vista Bays. Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$447,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,910 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ----* Owner :Johnson Bruce C Parcel :426 091 39 Site :369 Vista Bays. Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/07/1972 Mail :369 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$46,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-3185 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1964 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,684 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -----* Owner :Davis Hallock Derickson Parcel :426 091 40 Site :363 Vista Bays. Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/30/1988 Mail :363 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$375,000 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1967 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,198 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Perron Edmond M/Bertha N Parcel :426 091 41 Site :355 Vista Bays. Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/15/1992 Mail :355 Vista Bays. Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-0596 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:7 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,979 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------------------* Owner :Friedman Jeffrey A Tr Parcel :426 091 42 Site :350 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/17/1986 Mail :350 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$290,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-0582 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1936 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,750 Ac:.27 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Reese Willard/Claudia Parcel :426 091 43 Site :354 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/31/1998 Mail :354 Vista Bays. Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$700,000 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1976 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,551 Ac:.33 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Wright Harry Ward Jr Tr Parcel :426 091 44 Site :356 Vista Bays, Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/14/1964 Mail :356 Vista Bays. Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$40,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1963 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,892 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Carroll Brian/Clare Parcel :426 091 45 Site :364 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :04/22/1999 Mail :364 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$450,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1963 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,139 Ac:.25 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Gragg Lois M Parcel :426 091 46 Site :370 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/19/1994 Mail :370 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-5146 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,751 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Reese Willard Parcel :426 091 47 Site :376 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :10/16/1990 Mail :376 Vista Bays, Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$425,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No BldgSF:1,882 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange -------* Owner :Rieden Daniel/Christina Parcel :426 091 48 Site :382 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/12/1998 Mail :382 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$510,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,009 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------* Owner :Slick Maureen Parcel :426 091 49 Site :386 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/16/1994 Mail :386 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1957 Pool:Yes BldgSF:2,174 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange ---------------------* Owner :Gibson David W Parcel :426 091 50 Site :392 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/09/1970 Mail :392 Vista Bays. Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$43,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-7313 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No BldgSF:1,859 Ac:.22 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Wiesinger Rudolph A Parcel :426 091 51 Site :398 Vista Baya Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/30/1986 Mail :398 Vista Baya Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$239,500 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,191 Ac:.22 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -------------------------* Owner :Cagle Howard B Parcel :426 091 52 Site :2291 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :02/28/1973 Mail :2291 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$51,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1954 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,678 Ac:.15 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------* Owner :Norr Hugo P Parcel :426 091 53 Site :2285 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/27/1990 Mail :2285 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$250,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-642-5766 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1954 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,743 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange --* Owner :Petersen Theodore L Parcel :426 091 54 Site :2279 Tustin Ave Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/06/1971 Mail :2279 Tustin Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$19,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4572 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1957 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,582 Ac:.19 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange -----------------------* Owner :Yeargain Jeffrey C Parcel :426 091 55 Site :397 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :06/13/1988 Mail :397 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1949 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,332 Ac:.23 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------* Owner :Mossler Michael C Parcel :426 091 57 Site :383 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/19/1993 Mail :383 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-631-7523 Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:5 YB:1942 Pool:No BldgSF:1,000 Ac:.45 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------* Owner :Mclaughlin Christine Parcel :426 091 58 Site :379 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :09/30/1993 Mail :379 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$365,OOO*Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:1.00 TotRm:7 YB:1942 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,360 Ac:.45 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Troegner Paul F Tr Parcel :426 091 59 Site :373 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2401 Via Marina Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-645-9876 Bedrm:3 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1942 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,040 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange •---------------------------* Owner :Warsnop Peter/Kimberly Parcel :426 091 60 Site :375 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :03/25/1996 Mail :375 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$323,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1955 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,153 Ac:.23 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :George Susan Parcel :426 091 61 Site :2298 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :12/18/1998 Mail :2298 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$390,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm.3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.17 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Teale Mark/Steinke Parcel :426 091 62 Site :2290 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :05/18/1998 Mail :2290 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$368,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,628 Ac:.18 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Hamilton Paul H Jr Tr Parcel :426 091 63 Site :2284 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/11/1989 Mail :2284 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-8512 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange -----------* Owner :Stanzak Ronald S Tr Parcel :426 091 64 Site :2282 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :08/03/1984 Mail :2282 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,597 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Palmer John/Kelly Parcel :426 091 65 Site :2281 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :01/16/1996 Mail :2281 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$300,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,614 Ac:.19 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange :---------------------------* Owner :Muran Joseph W Tr Parcel :426 091 66 Site :2283 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered Mail :2283 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-646-5826 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,606 Ac:.18 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange------------ ---------------* Owner :Licavoli Lisa;Thomas Cheryl A Parcel :426 091 67 Site :2289 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :07/29/1992 Mail :2289 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$321,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1961 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,571 Ac:.18 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Mulvihill Robert Parcel :426 091 68 Site :2297 Redlands Dr Newport Beach 92660 Xfered :11/10/1994 Mail :2297 Redlands Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 Price :$9,500 Partial Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-650-3615 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1960 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,012 Ac:.17 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Tennison Lance/Maribeth Site :391 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Mail :391 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Hassel Marlene Site :389 23Rd St Newport Beach 92660 Mail :389 23Rd St Newport Beach Ca 92660 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: •---------------------------* Parcel :426 091 69 Xfered :03/11/1996 Price Phone B1dgSF: Ac: •---------------------------* Parcel :426 091 70 Xfered :05/24/1999 Price Phone B1dgSF: Ac: *---------------------------- ' MetroScan / Orange --------------------* Owner :Woods Peter Tr Parcel :426 171 08 Site :359 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered Mail :2179 Tustin*Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone :949-548-4715 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1953 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,428 Ac:.24 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Rima Kermit W Tr Parcel :426 171 09 Site :2183 Tustin Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :12/21/1979 Mail :2183 Tustin Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,585 Ac:.33 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ---------------* Owner :Blackledge D/Teresa Parcel :426 171 10 Site :2189 Tustin Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :09/20/1994 Mail :2498 Fairway Dr Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$478,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1953 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,393 Ac:.30 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange ------------------* Owner :Everhart Valerie J;Everhart Trust Parcel :426 171 11 Site :2191 Tustin Ave Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/28/1992 Mail :2191 Tustin Ave Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:5 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1976 Pool:No B1dgSF:3,174 Ac:.28 *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Rollins Charles J Parcel :426 171 12 Site :385 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/11/1991 Mail :385 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$395,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1953 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,228 Ac:.27 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange ----------* Owner :Pelletier John M Tr Parcel :426 171 13 Site :381 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :06/28/1983 Mail :PO Box 92990 Chicago I1 60675 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:1.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,723 Ac:.45 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Heryford David E Tr Parcel :426 171 14 Site :375 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :01/21/1988 Mail :375 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1956 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,586 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Swift Timothy/Anita Parcel :426 171 16 Site :365 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :05/27/1994 Mail :365 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$400,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:1975 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:2,858 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :Mitchell Stephen/Nancy Parcel :426 171 17 Site :361 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :04/18/1997 Mail :361 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$345,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1955 Pool:Yes B1dgSF:1,504 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange '---------------------------* Owner :O'Connor Johnny/June Parcel :426 171 18 Site :359 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :11/07/1994 Mail :359 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1972 Pool:No B1dgSF:1,639 Ac:.41 *---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange --------------* Owner :Kiech James H/Jeannie L Parcel :426 171 19 Site :355 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Xfered :07/17/1995 Mail :355 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Price :$275,000 Full Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1965 Pool:No B1dgSF:2,183 Ac:.41 The Information Provided is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Leisher Kenneth R Site :369 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Mail :369 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: *----------------------------: MetroScan / Orange Owner :Murray Michael S Site :371 22Nd St Costa Mesa 92627 Mail :371 22Nd St Costa Mesa Ca 92627 Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB: Pool: •---------------------------* Parcel :426 171 20 Xfered :10/07/1997 Price Phone B1dgSF: Ac: --------------------------- Parcel :426 171 21 Xfered :05/20/1996 Price :$550,000 Full Phone :949-548-8128 B1dgSF: Ac: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Zs Not Guaranteed. CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 18, 1999 TO: Dave Kiff Assistant to the City Manager FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Bay Knolls Annexation Scot Farris and I field reviewed the proposed annexation area this morning and came up with the following items that need to be addressed: Retaining and garden wall located on the westerly side of Redlands Drive at Dawnview Lane: The retaining portion of this wall is approximately 8 feet high with an additional 3.6 feet of garden wall on top of the retaining wall. The retaining wail leans approximately one foot into the street right-of-way. I recommend that the County have a structural report prepared to determine the walls stability and repair the wall in conformance with the report (see attached pictures). 2. Curb and gutter work: Missing curb and gutter should be constructed on the northerly side of 23`d Street westerly of Fairhill Drive and on the southerly side of Santa Isabel Avenue adjacent to 379 Santa Isabel Avenue. The deteriorated curb and gutter should be reconstructed on Meadow Lane. Water ponds in front of 389 Meadow Lane and the deteriorated curb needs to be replaced on the Meadow Lane frontage of 396 Tustin Avenue. 3. Storm Drain systems in the area: The storm drain systems on Redlands Drive, Fairhill Drive and La Linda Place all appear to have corregated metal pipe (CMP) connecting to the existing catch basins. The CMP should be inspected and if deteriorated replaced with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) or lined as approved by the Public Works Department and General Services Department. A large reinforced concrete storm drain pipe crosses Santa Isabel Avenue, outlets behind the properties on Santa Isabel Avenue and feeds the drainage course above Cherry Lake. The maintenance responsibility for this storm drain outlet should be determined as well as for the upstream system. Attached is a sketch showing the areas of concern. These items should be addressed prior to the City annexing the Bay Knolls area. Richard L. Hoffst9c1t Development Engineer CC: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Bay knolls .7 �I I SANTA ANA AVENUE '302 30+ <.1l N m 30^u m [i � °' m o > m m306 � : a • "� � I ,^�- , 3..' 309 m 37^ b 303 308 a n J r > ' a 1J2�N,L3J O S3/i757 311 z 110 r 313 320 313 31 � MAY 320 1/2rATERNAN • " 316 F1552.• 379 S9 322 =y321 7315 co a-Zi 326 325 324 325 > 324 PROPOSED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY ;'_ 9 a w c- 327 323 325 327 0 330 331 330 U o329 y. [336 • 2 �aJ N s s 8� T+• 333 335 334 337 33 6 m m 27 9 = g4• 'n 'n < 22ei LA LINDA PLACE o a m 340 2336 341 K 340 341 y 3a0 3a1 c 346 3<I LA LINDA Cr N N N m i 344 p <,, \nC g'I.T' O O O N ,\G'j T`'j V a,j N N q N o L+ > N O A m o - m 0? 345 4 J G T ,p,L O m Z N m 2 35D 40 v REDLANDS DRIVE E (., G �" N O O O ✓+ GV�'' NN p 2J ZB) O L, m2316O4 t V J lJ, V JS •S Y DOIyA,�e 2247 S REDLANDS DR REDLANDS DRIVE ROAD N 2246 363 364 Q 1 ti N N U u u w u U w cJ 6` b y 365 o m m O N N_ N N N N y O N pOj m 9 a No N wo 369 370 a ci 369 i s 375 v d U Q 375 376 37D N G t., u N L, r b 79 m380 m a 381 382 378 2315 0 379 > s 2 A1gRILLzP DRIVE 2316 a O c S � ' 363 3( 383382 m .387 K a 386 =372 v ma 'x1 39D 369 ;t 388 391 389 o O N ? D 389m a m M O m m 392 O N y y m c 393 g 373 v� 0 395 m tn G 74 VV) 9197 5 396a 97 396 L 1m " C 375 M x °' O •-1 G O m 0 AVENUE R TUSTIN AVENUE `a TUSTIN AVENU 2522 4 G i 2 520 4 A� W m EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY o No o tN., �„ 4 � 25 �„ O O x N G G A 2440 Na i 2535 2S7y 2J eo 2515 2512 1� co,i 2534 , 2515 i 2512 2516 �426 2529 a i' m i•4. `DS , 08 2J 7 C N i i ' 2507 2506 7 2528 , , 0 2510 �� �� 0> 2318 N N P1 A ,' 2507 2506 2 SOO �v.'� ' 2523 , i Rx rT .D`a 2`30 > ', - 2522 x � J i 2501 2500 o a �. {�� 0S 22q �Oa.D -01ac ; " 43� OJ2 ly13 2415 2418 2? i1 190 J 9 2 2420 J) 2510-- 24,1 2412 ' O\ .may 2414 o ' y 2408 N ' $1 REDLANDS DRIVE AT DAWNVIEW LANE 426-09 04 TRACT / ' 3 . J s z TRACTS r TRACT C h ,ra •• ' nr w ,. n j u.., O �f - • r..' raREOGAROS' h DRIVE R ` R NAE ROAD O ° ac. r ® i i /s e i ,... .0 a , a rr �n � t Q err r,. s NO. 36'09 F`Ire NEwPORT "• ©4 N© - li O OM i i. r ® i Q i R ® .f ^ a .41 le PAR P@ I r ° �7 • NO. 2819 ,f,„ PY., i .47 Ih . J ri. M 9 IB TRAC.r ® R ^£31 091 _ 37 48 for JPB or zRB (9 If tl- 10f • /I fH A O PM 66-6 • f4/RIVE • r O q1/Y[ ry:r R 1♦ SZ Q . +-°. - 36 ® /la PAR i �' PM )YIi Mgt. l nrn $9 ® Q ® 'or 5" Z ® \ /TTx � ° .u+. u H£/GHTS re NO. /832 N£/GNTS R a°' a NO. 2609 IGHTS ,. w e•u I a. +s ay B r.r e' .q as 'a 11I'll co x' n sew' I 7US7/N ` •r ` dV£NE/E R I A AS �� i� NEWPOR7 HEIGHTS ARM 4-83 10 TRACT NO 18M MARCH 1979 TRACT NO. mg MAR 57-20 MM 80. 35 NOTE ASSESSORS RIOCK 6 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO M19 ACM //7-3/ PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK426 RAGE04. CDTRACT fRACT'NO. 3G09 PARCEL MAP MM /2G-29,30 PM 30. ,, 273-93 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANGE 439-23 13 Y W 4 SANT4 /S48EL — AVENUE p ; , TRA T x ... <e O TRACT O O E O I i ® ® ( + ® a• O 21 22 23 24 ,e AS. SO.,?< < Z ` t9 .<.. tB N a rr ' ' ,•••• zi •• t< is r+ W ^ ,•x•, , ' rI0 ,f ♦ O Lor Loa 10 ;ip% „� PEACH TREE $ <Lor Las TRACT " r L ANf i ® I � e • s m ® 41 ae z 231 zs m ' 20 ,r L9 Le I _ I z • li ® oWtAc/r✓NFW .I,• « e WSW Q „• CHERRY TREE � • � POgz. �EN sr Q2 P 14 qu ^ LANE .9 O i 1J 12 I S ... ,, rr/ J 9 v 2 ' I 33 NO. 300 „® N0.3062 N0.300 t • ��- ----- NOT 76 10 ` Its-33 MARCH /976 TRACT NO 300 M M /4 - //, /2 NOTE ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP O TRACT NO M 3062 M 92-/9,20 PARCEL NUMBERS 80OK439PAGE 23 TRACT NO 9776 MM 426-/5,/6 RECORD SURVEY RS 65-/6 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE 11y' JJ / 439- 23 /' /oo' \ I et' 42 yr ro g .es SLY 9 B - y e< TRACT ` aTRACr TRACT TRACT S 1 ,� tu e. ' 2 a OAWIWICW ANE ,i e O > = 'A CODA l LV ]r J v .ue � 4' • � � � 3 e /]s' y" „ � bo ¢.: for > a•' B I {bq LOr /OZ Le .eL' 11 60 /OL" n • 2 0 ® O n � B rf O • POA cor ,Ql M B N as n • ,f] q O 11 a e ® N t "/ �-�^X• POP l�%.3%Zi 3 2O ZI ee �^y„�®CC�`.,�� 561✓ LD a�,3Q/v f{Je 4. Att l01� iio AV J]I l0 e' -NV ,S' J 1J'�.Lav' .F tIID /lll' � � �••lp«T �4� � .. a,ryl a is �i � g a26-04 • azs-09 • TRACT NO 3OO M.M. /4-/1,/2 NOTE ASSESSORS BLOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH l%O TRACT NO• TRACT NO n7 34T6 MM t22-26 2 MM -4 27 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 119 PAGE 33 COUNTY OF ORANGE O TRACT NO 56'/5 MM 209-42,43 20 SHOWN IN CIRCLES m 426- O4 08 eW W /'=J00 ¢� 2� hp l"'ia 44 =4 AVENUE A SANTA ANA T 1 9 A Ass- - zQ A. Ak _srj-- 6O- TRACT °� se '+ O �. TRACT ^L •>t _TRACT, w `o ae : 54 : 55 5fi e, a 56 i IOZ I I O i 12 M NEW ORT 8 15 o M i6 x IB 4 0 35 0 a R .,r- 9S9 z+ h 0 0 ) I) ]S.r 1 O •]9, ]NfW.9iNr (.� y O e o P 15 ,s O O O9 s O O s ss.z _ M2T£RAIAN I WAY F C Oa W 0 T�i �'' 0E H IGHTS O raAcr r u H n,or 'O] , r r • ] •''b 7Q n a..'. 2 `ri c[ s o MARCH I978 ARI- O P M 30-Pr PAR 1 n O L O2 HEIGHTS NEWPORT HEIGHTS TRACT NO 1556 TRACT NO, 3457 TRACT NO 4787 TRACT NO 9353 PARCEL MAP .e 26 27 NO 1556 M M. 4-8J 09 M M 46- 2/ At M J12- 3.i AL N 167- JA M AY 4IS- rr 9 JNG PAT 3--,E7 9T 'k BP NOTE - ASSESSORS BLOCK B PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN IN CIRCLES ti LA LINO4 COURT (rAURU.f OR. ® ,J� NO 9353 r e ASSESSORS MAP CDBOOK 426PAGE04 COUNTY OF ORANGE 426-17 16 NE IMPORT I Is ~ I I W H I KAISER fLEMENJARY SCHOOL � w 06VN/C RO GFRCN I O I O • LN I I 6.SOAC. 1 1 i t cor 286 TR �'T I6 37 9 A S Y PAA.I lady • P.Y. 283-1 oao 30' io' TO 236 LOJ 166 1 LOT 2J6 a = 33 21 20 PAR.I cm/ I ass m• / ! 30 - Tb IO!.,0165AC vea014B AC. 29 LO! 36� A. 14 o O 171 6 28 . 34 PAR 5 N fl 13 n 23 TUST/N AVENUE PARK _15 93 sn,s n i.0 35 12 /• 40/ .40• 1. 191 Af. 2w J O ® O n 4 � n • O N O 1,IlAC. A24dr. o = F.u. 29a_;y 26 = w O WPA.A. t 1 25 7 p k �.3ti O II 3 4. 0.386 A. E/GHTS W TUSTIN AVENUE u ¢ F 0o N 02 3 1 PRfvAiF SfflfE! MARCH 1979 'V-83 YAC, RT HFIrH15.'93TS MM. 745- M-7 A St S"O. '_ R. SIC ASSESSOR'S LEAP RAC. L 1.5.'93 M.M. 3-1;29 - BOOK 426 PALE 17 1 A�'CEL MA" P.M. 283-/:292-45 �� RJp •l1 �N M! '[ COUNTY OC ORANLC 0 LAFCOLocal Agency Formation Commission Orange County August 9, 1999 CHAIR RANDAL J. BRESSETTE AGENDA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS CHARLESIV. SMITH RE: Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Cities Meeting regarding annexation of SUPERVISOR boarder islands FIRST DISTRICT SUSAN WILSON REPRESENTATIVE OF A. INTRODUCTIONS GENERALPUBLIC PETER HERZOG MAYOR CITY OF LAKE FOREST B. HISTORY OF ISLAND AREAS JOHN B. WITHERS DIRECTOR • Costa Mesa IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT • Newport Beach CYNTHIA P. COAD SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT BILL DIRECTORDW[N C. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR EACH CITY LOS ALISOS .. WATERDISTRICT ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF D. GENERAL OVERVIEW — NEWPORT BEACH ANNEXATION PLAN GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE TOM HARMAN Bay Knolls COUNCILMAN ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • Santa Ana Country Club/Pegasus ALTERNATE ARLENESCHAFER DIRECTOR COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT Santa Ana Heights ALTERNATE JAMES W. SILVA SUPERVISOR E. ANNEXATION PROCESS SECOND DISTRICT DAIVA M. SMITH EXECUTIVE OFFICER F. NEXT STEP 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 235, Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 834-2556 FAX (714) 834-2643 http://oclafco.ca.gov J ., »• S..©�'\te it 5�3^r�Ji`%r,r: � n«.'�,'.� •r Wv`A �,, .'�. �O .A ,� p ,k"".n Y � -; tY pei;.9' O �•s::SF,; ^"1� t�: lNdC"•'A:r: ^�`^i"!: ,fa0`` �c •rn ,—;: ss+r ��a . y j:f ,• •, ly; e• - rNrtp. .» t, i'� Y. F" ;...''.S°: �.2� <'Ia tp�;"i•. ,.,.: av', F,^'�1>i• r�� 11 ern n Sphere of Influence COSTA M ESA 01fY Boundary i _AUNTY OF ORANGE Local Agency Formation Commission NORTH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Scale: 1" = 4000' r K•qr Y.�,.,�,f .ro ' �I axu SAN Ir Y ry .axes oe 9 0 Nka w•..,..r ai., e9 x; ,w '..t_ .tiu ^;i.'r,�"' A+y`�y�,,• .rz .••' _:nip ;y •r C .,, i a � Y to NEWPORT BEACH .:UNTf OF ORANGE Local Agency Formation Commission SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Sphere of Influence City Boundary A NORTH Scale: 1" = 7000r Santa Ana Country Club DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 15, 1974 TO: Finance Fire General Services Parks, Beach and Recreation Police Public Works Marine Safety FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation The residents of Bay Knolls have intitiated a request for annexation into the City of Newport Beach. On August 14, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission (L.A.F'.C.O.) adopted resolution number 74-100, amending the•"sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls area and 74-99, approving the proposed annexation. The proposed Bay Knolls Annexation is located in an unin- corporated "corridor" of the County of Orange, lying between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. It is comprised of approximately 46 gross acres of land containing 153 lots. 30.96 net acres are developed with single family residences and 5.22 net acres' are undeveloped. On September 30, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council received a letter from the residents of Bay Knolls requesting that annexation proceedings commence. The request was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. The Department of Community Development is in the process of pre- paring this report for the Planning Commission. I would appreciate any comments your department may have as to the desirability of this annexation in general and is it specifically relates to the services you provide. Attached is•a copy of the Council Policy Statement on annex-; ation,to assist you in your evaluat.fon. Thank you, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By em4n44 R.P. Lenard Associate Planner RPL/jkc ATT: Council Policy on annexations Vicinity Map Det0.led Map showing lots t 0 C-1 ANNEXATION GUIDELINES It is recognized that the City of Newport Beach has certain "spheres of influence" and that said areas may be considered for annexation to the City. In evaluating a proposed annexation of a "sphere of influence" to the City of Newport Beach, a number of guidelines should be utilized to assist in a determination of whether the annexation is in the best interests of the City of Newport Beach. By 'way of illustration, but not limitation, examples of these guidelines to test a proposed annexation proposal areas follows: 1. Public Reaction Attitude of public agencies and private organizations in•and around the area that may be -affected by the annexation. . ✓ 2. Over -lapping Taxation - Degree of double taxation resulting from the annexation and what may be done to eliminate any such condition. 3. -Duplication .Extent to which duplication of services would exist or could be eliminated as a rdsult of the annexation. 4. City .Standards ' ' 15. Tax Base 0 Planning e c 7., Transportation 8. Boundaries ;- Ability of the City to require annexed areas to be raised to City standards, ie, by assessment districts. i Ability to broaden the tax base by annex- ation of land with existing or potential !.for high revenue producing improvements. Ability to continue an orderly program of City development based upon general plan' implementation projections. - Ability to correct inter -area street circulation deficiencies and inadequacies, thus promoting a more efficient flow of people and goods. Opportunity to realign boundaries that, more closely approximate logical man- made or natural physical barriers. C 0 r-I u I0-1 0 . O ANNEXATION GUIDELINES - Page Two 9. Safety 10. Service 11. Homogeneity 12. Control - Ability to better control fire, police, public health and safety oriented problems which respect no municipal boundaries. - Ability to eliminate awkward and irregular boundaries causing difficulty and ineconomies in supplying utilities and city services. - Ability to add residents who, in terms of social, ethnic, cultural, economic and political interests and habits already are -related to the City. - Ability to protect City taxpayers against future costs incurred to correct prior ' improper land development. 13. Public Facilities. - Ability to provide space for specialized public uses which are inappropriate in central locations. 14. Elimination. - Ability to eliminate existing or potential land uses and improvements considered a blighting or deteriorating influence. 15. Preclusion 16. Image 17. Cost Benefit Analysis u Adopted - February 27, 1967 Aeaffirmed�- November 12, 1968' Reaffirmed - March•9, 1970 ° Reaffirmed = February 8, 1971 Amended - February 14, 1972 Probability of the elimination or oppor- tunity for county areas to incorporate to the detriment of existing cities. - Ability to increase City stature by annex- ation of land and/or improvements with exceptional characteristics. - Ability on the basis of cost benefit analysis !, to produce excess revenue over cost of govern- ment services. Examples of revenues to be considered and evaluated are property taxes, . sales taxes, licenses, permits, service charges, and other similar and typical taxes and fees. These are to be considered as "benefits" in the cost benefit analysis. An example of services which reflect cost to governmental agencies are: street maintenance, trash pickup, libraries, parks, fire and police protection, schools, flood control facilities, similar governmental services, and'attendant amortized capital outlay costs. ,00 l Q e w ' i', ��Dooa� pGipo a e e� ..� � Gf �' % �6�fUU©�17©a�©� <, �¢ a•.-.. 0 � � ��®Q�417L7Oppp© �. .-� A � '. �..y s� e.+ Illl 1{IliltT'Ij • it -� �,. ;9 .', t��'_ 'C4. i�T` ©f1�jpDB©QlJ©©®� �� J \ � 7'� —'�= '•���e� �� � �9•, "���pp�k87 'W?.�. �_ ti _yT: _......��11 e� argB�QQ©ii8p�� �, � >rti�d ���`" _' �o��'=WOp�oeg�.�.✓ �'R •d06��, � n�,�• .e l _ i�-_e _ o�o's'� % ��. � � �Y YX JV .�W � � A /�/ )/'•.ry aVO�\� � pp�pf-srJ�%-,A�✓ 1.��==��{� � _ � v ��_�.r = =� Clir OF NEWPo� BEACH FROP06W e)AY EC 40L.LS ANt ley bTlom 1 L SANTA ANN AVENUE C O r 1,7- . r,-4 - m t m Z COSTA, K*spiO N C uN�Y j A � N 0 D r ''' y > tLINOA PLACE �_ D Z ;t7 � Til u+ ' v O ou COSTA MESAREDLANDS DR r 77711 -+ DON E RD REDLANDS DR in < �A t rn , FAIRHI�L DR r II TusTIN AVE I TU 1N AVE. r.mw mm NEWPOILT BEACH City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 4) Authorize the Mayor and City Cleric to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers (C- 2935) to compensate for additional engineering services to perform extra work beyond the original scope of work, for a fee of $56,343. Counci ember, Glover, Council Member Thomson and Mayor Debay spoke in concurr [lee with Council Member Noyes. Council MeXHedgesoted that the contract price is $1.6 million plus $178,000 fol services agreement with Daniel Boyle to field public queslaints. He said he feels the City is missing an opportunityr repair other pump stations. The motion carried by the foll3t�l Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Noes: Hedges Absent: Edwards Abstain: None CURRENT BUSINESS roll call vote: , Noyes, Mayor Debay 0'1 18. APPOINTMENT OF JQHN SAUNDERS TO -VHE ECONOMIC I EDC (24) DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Motion by Council Member Glover to confirm the appointmalsnt of John Saunders to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Harry Wolo n as the Airport Area representative on the Economic Development Com ittee. With Mayor Pro Tern Edwards absent, the motion carrie by acclamation. , 19. BAY KNOLLS REQUEST TO CHANGE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. 21. -hAL STATUS REPORT ON NE, COAST ANNEXATION. Motion by �cil Member O'Neil to continue Item 19 to November 24, 1997 at the request o h applicant and to continue Items 20 and 21 to November 10, 1997. With May ro Tem. Edwards absent, the motion carried by acclamation. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - ADJOURNMENT- 12:40 a.m. to an Adjourn Regular Meeting on Monday, November 3, 1997 a 9:30 a.m. for the purposes of holding a closed session eting. Annexation LAFCO (21) Upper New Bay Sediment Control C-2987 (38) Volume 51- Page 481 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October27,1997 The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on October 22, 1997 at 3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary tt or INDEX Volume 51- Page 482 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER JANUARY 229 1990 TO: MAYOR -AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ACTION: If desired, approve correspondence from the Mayor to the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: At .the Study Session of January 82 1990, Council Member Hart raised the issue of County development agreements for areas within the City's Sphere of Influence. She noted that County planning in areas such as the Newport Coast and the Banning property does not correspond to City standards for such development. The attached correspondence was suggested to draw the attention of the County to this problem. KENNET J. DELINO KJD:mb Attachn CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor fti ielyn Munn 51 M Ca mil Msrbe's a" C. Cox, Jr. . Evelyn R. Hart Donald A. Strauss Claore oe J. Turner Jean H. Watt Mr. Don R. Roth, Chairman Board of Supervisors Orange County Administration Building P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702-0687 Subject: County Development Within City's Sphere of Influence Dear Chairman Roth and Members of the Board: The City of Newport Beach has a certain Sphere of Influence approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Most notably, this sphere includes the Newport Coast to the east of the City, the Banning property in the west part of the City, and Santa Ana Heights in the northern part of the City. The City of Newport Beach fully expects to annex these areas and provide all municipal services to them. The City's general plan and infrastructure master plans provide for these areas. The County of Orange is currently in the process of reviewing and approving developments in both the Newport Coast and the Banning property. The City's experience with the County -approved and City - annexed Bay View project creates concerns for the County approval process in these other portions of our Sphere of Influence. In the Bay View project, the City has experienced difficulties pro- viding services to this area where the density, parking, street width and drainage facilities are not consistent with City standards. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Page 2 The City Council is concerned that the County -approved developments in other areas of our Sphere of Influence will experience similar problems. Because the City of Newport Beach will bear the ultimate and long- term responsibility for providing municipal services to the areas within our Sphere of Influence, the City Council desires to have these areas developed in accordance with City standards. By direction of the City Council, I therefore respectfully request the Board of Supervisors to instruct County staff to coordinate the development of areas within our sphere with City staff. This request is particularly urgent when the County is contemplating development agreements which will limit the future discretion of the Newport Beach City Council. Cooperation between the County and the City on such planning will insure that future residents will receive efficient and convenient public services. Your prompt consideration of this request and the courtesy of a reply would be most appreciated by the City Council. Sincerely, Ruthelyn Plummer Mayor RP: KJD:mb cc: Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder Gaddi H. Vasquez Thomas F. Riley Chairman, LAFCO AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY DECEMBER 6, 1989 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION MINUTES OF A PREVIOUS MEETING OR MEETINGS A: SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 2:00 p.m. 1. REVIEW AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA Property owner's request for an amendment to the City's adopted Sphere of Influence to exclude territory generally located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Way, west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue, in the east Costa Mesa area. 2. REVIEW AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Property owner's request for an amendment to the City's adopted Sphere of Influence to include territory generally located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Way, west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue, in the east Costa Mesa area. 3. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LAFCO RESOLUTION NO._ 89-53 APPROVING ANNEXATION NO. 89-02 TO THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA B. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 1. FINDINGS - SPECIAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATION ON LAFCO 2. SCHEDULE OF LAFCO HEARING FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS DECEMBER 8, 1989 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 C. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off - agenda items unless authorized by law. A iir-a Locol Agency Formation Commission CHAIRMAN EVELYN R. HART COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN GADDI H. VASOUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA DAVID DORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE JOHN KANEL MAYOR PRO•TEM CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR VACANT JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER December 6, 1989 Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: 1200 N. MAIN STREET. SUITE 614 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 568-4181 FAX: (714) 669.1173 RECEIVED NOV3 01989P City Manager City of Hewport Beach IN RE: Review and Possible Amendment of the City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence IN RE: Review and Possible Amendment of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence BACKGROUND On November 1, 1989, your consider a periodic review sphere of influence. Your policy on city spheres of every three years. Commission was scheduled to and update of the Costa Mesa Commissions's administrative influence specifies a review In an October 17, 1989 letter, two owners of property in an unincorporated island currently included in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence (SOI) requested an amendment to detach the island from the Costa Mesa SOI and include the property within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. California Government Code Section 56428 provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence, and that upon receiving such request the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda for public hearing. On November 1, 1989, your Commission scheduled today -'s public hearings to consider this request as part of a review of the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Spheres of Influence. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CE A A negative declaration has been prepared for both the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach SOI reviews in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Your Commission is responsible for reviewing and approving the December-6, 1989 Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Spheres of Influence Page 2 environmental documentation prior to acting on this proposal. ANALYSIS The subject property is an unincorporated island generally located west of Tustin Avenue, east of Santa Ana Avenue, south of Santa Isabel Avenue and north of Thetford Way between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The October 17, 1989 letter from property owners John Buchanan and Roberta Costa (copy attached) provides the justification for your Commission's consideration of the proposed sphere of influence amendment request. In summary, the letter states that because the territory has both a Newport Beach mailing address and zip code, and because all public services are provided by contract through the City of Newport Beach, the property should be deleted from the Costa Mesa Sol and included in the Newport Beach Sol. Staff received letters of comment (copies attached) from both the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa with respect to the subject sphere issue. Both cities stated that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue have historically been the dividing streets between the two cities' spheres of influence. In addition, staff has contacted the City of Newport Beach regarding service provision to this area. Newport -Beach has indicated that the City does not currently provide any contract services to the subject territory other than fire and police mutual aid. The Costa Mesa City Council has recently directed staff to initiate discussions with the City of Newport Beach planning staff regarding the future of all unincorporated islands bordering the two cities. In addition to the subject property, there are several other unincorporated islands which border Costa Mesa and Newport Beach that can create public confusion regarding the delivery of services, particularly police and fire protection. The proposed cooperative study will be useful in defining which jurisdiction can most effectively and logically serve these areas. CONCLUSIONS The subject property, located westerly of Tustin Avenue, has historically been considered a part of the Costa Mesa Sol. Staff has not been presented with any substantial evidence which would justify recommending your Commission remove this property from the Costa Mesa Sol at this time. As stated previously, the City of Costa Mesa has initiated a cooperative study with Newport Beach on all unincorporated islands located along the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa border. Once this study is completed, and as annexations are initiated, your Commission can then re-evaluate sphere of influence boundary issues in this area. Staff recommends that your Commission deny the subject request to December 6, 1989 Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Spheres of Influence Page 3 amend the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach SOI, and reaffirm the existing SOI boundaries for both Costa Mesa and Newport Beach as established by Commission Resolution No. 83-38 (May 11, 1983) and Resolution No. 89-18 (April 19, 1989), respectfully. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt the attached resolutions reaffirming the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence and Newport Beach Sphere of Influence as determined by your Commission on May 11, 1983 and April 19, 1989, respectfully. Respectfully submitted, VVVF dam�estJ. Co xecuive 0 Attachments: Location Map Buchanan/Costa letter - 10/17/89 City of Newport Beach letter - November 13, 1989 City of Costa Mesa letter - November 20, 1989 cc: Allan Roeder, City o Robert Wynn, City of Kenneth Delino, City R. Michael Robinson, John Buchanan Roberta Costa crosoiba f Costa Mesa Newport Beach of Newport Beach City of Costa Mesa �L urL$S+^ L �tir.^,4i•'t`: e.,.. srn. �' z",Ir 1{n sa S seal / r/'P+ Pp r °'I i SE ATE 5i dl"Sr llniErnl ct.:.?�s., d NGRESS Si r r P L.,p GOJERNOR St , ¢�;' PROPOSED AMENDMENT AREA vnP sr t d n I .� L,j N qa.> su'.R a1d//r I NG . a n 8qPwM nldL ' a j .. C d r {" ° r} •-•-_ _ U" ;11 N � • m e $T HAMIL70N x 3, SOp g v r nllGnis `L `qq •a. F a i > I �r NOWELL PL $ I ¢ fif n"L•. 6.: t/,. sa I••t `l' ! ' _ �1 r rLa3 e,•� GrtOnE z C o z " _ _ n - " 8 04Y ST �..!+ ^AIMPC, L ST COVE ST ORpSNIREm o e[a v t u fi^ o Q I ST 4 i/ii; A( �$�' [� eq �,n ff molar.¢ Ev[PGREEu tt ROSS ST a a = pp� a0/ ,p 5Jr N .S I.Nrn `a -DOG MO si .Ila �S�1RF STa '� L. - /''t`" lq'. B,� •. �• \[� h /I �' .v3[nV, .J Xpr PNARO. �pIBTH WAR sa. COSTA MESA ' :.,. ENTEp SPHERE OF 4cybsa v\`s • —. 7"»A� •.< (�—;'-may A. 'tGwNE sT wrEl. INFLUENCE /r�sr'J' a^+ .. �'R•,;��C 1�� \ ,^ EI 8 B "T. ,w!* �O SUNSET DR — As _ S _ — .l r f,P— •w-ir L '�"ty�`t �- r \ _ -. 1 0 ; i$' "•• "•' NFrrtaN 9 8 I `^ "1 0 4J AAi 9Q d� aC Gr\s,- •v,�t•'^"< ' •i - >'i'. °�•� 5r S Q4.4<[0 �� �e, a .� - y�(a''ri:Cr. i•-. 9n0 roc o r \\a_ '. i y e o 1 sr tf 7 ' uEwxau sT m Enpno 57 l> } EE,Mswr: ST i r PpO i'DU[TION r r p ` Sr 4. f'�ry 'S7 TrD'tY>'S ESF. EiIE VI fin ` ' `.� i:.o °'T I S= "" < as • .M I MGIS } "j. Ifa _ h a s 8+a —'a` '4 4r >• �[ :ado s1'%' :EL. C�Y R�=�'� }`' � j.v'.it. / w'+.�P , I I \�""+y ��'7 ��l� :"" Sp��E�•f9 e f � b��r,�F S)°R,f<`\� x".`".�Tav / ga �^, el \' pP._ P''Pis '�W � AI+ F .w�'' . :.J�� . "� �, ao a`?Y r $.• / C� 4y \qr a '°=^O M1 i y4 I OAFa[r � °+•� aft Yi s o` r S �i\�/ //Ek• r r� rr � Ec __ l � CS7 � an`' m�ti...r 'T. "5� a a�NP e9a' ./+/ti4 e•.� 14Ft°,a O �s �v5,/i�r te' �:l W. p 1"Tp lY5EE ' s. P _a`'f F NAIS .n. ya v .• .,r yti` �� J, !e l �`MIPIO.. oA' j.. v MJ .'•i4 ' ' w ex qr + " z; s >•�, =q Hlvy��GGpp I .w�� a'" �r„ Q .' r. NE14PORT BEACH _ SPHERE OF INFLUENCE � s y .a r;.s , . ,r` S ♦+; :e..".• •p 1 b:„ 4ea I-- \ 1 T1 F • r _ T� { , (1 1 ...«. Et°i r yy re '� S w I' I\ �,,l!6 r `Eh"\�✓j • �rt.>� �{'� ' aYl � •' � 00�" a � 4 Y is 's < r. `: ° ♦,b � ' 3op}' - lL lrnrtaop J _ 0 r:, � f.' _r _ �'CT r.. 4.`i ;'._ SJ �R , r s'/ '��\:a .aye �- uu"o �� - _ p ,a ;6 �•1 NE4VPORi �i T .. •'... t :5y w^ to - /\, acute hJP wN5,g5 +7 r a S s' je 1 ar _uewoo rrstd'n�r. .t.bIAV a} \coaus se,ICOSTA MESA/NEWPORT BEACH cra i- �q•• Y\>; � SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEId so Bs r (_ ' d q rt^ — ^ °.'r•r r ' ° a (>e�j a���e���°0°n " ; \, 4�a� � � � x *�' .!• � F` wv tt�.,�� /�h�. r (�<;� L EE,I r}�'•, '11 i IBC i Ul L I13� _u October 17, 1989 Mr. James Colangelo Executive Director Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main St., Suite #614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY - CITY OF COSTA MESA Dear'Mr. Colangelo: We recently purchased a home and currently reside in an unincorporated county island (known as Upper Newport) between the city limits of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach (map attached). We have been advised that our property is located in a portion of the island within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. It is our understanding that LAFCO will review the sphere of influence boundaries for the City of Costa Mesa at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 1, 1989. We're unsure as to where the sphere of influence boundary lines are currently established in this island. However, our property, and all other properties on our street (Donnie Road), are addressed as "Newport Beach, 92660." All public services are provided on a contract basis from the City of Newport Beach. Those properties currently addressed or serviced by City of Newport Beach should be included within the sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach, rather than Costa Mesa. Therefore, we are requesting that you re-evaluate the sphere of influence for this portion of the island and that you find it appropriate to amend the boundary. In the event of annexation, this is a critical element in maintaining our property's value. Also, disruption would be minimized since the proper address and services are already, in place. We are looking forward to your decision at the November 1, 1989 meeting to re-evaluate the boundaries. Sincerely, Jo n Buchanan Roberta Costa 2215 Donnie Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 cc: Supervisor Tom Riley Planning Department, City of Newport Beach 7Poz 10�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n i ��• z c9�iFORN`r (714) 644-3000 LS�L�I115 �;. November 13, 1989 N OU 1 ?939 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Director Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Jim: iO."A i!GEA11 N:ii;;GiiOil OOyram alv Thank you for your letter of November 9th concerning the LAFCO hearing to consider this City's sphere of influence and specifically to explore whether part of Costa Mesa's sphere should be modified to place some of the property within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that I have written to Costa Mesa's city manager outlining my understanding of the agreement between the two cities and requesting Costa Mesa's input on this matter. As soon as I hear from Costa Mesa I will be in a better position to formally respond to your letter of November 9th. Sincerely, ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager RLW:kf City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard 0 P.O. Box 1768 0 Newport Beach, California 92638-8913 D7P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 13 1989 Mr. Allan Roeder City Manager NOV 1 u 153� P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 LCCnL 115''ilC, i?Clyiii 1 CCt�? til!SSI011 Dear Allan: Attached is a copy of a letter received from LAFCO concerning certain unincorporated County island property West of Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Historically the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue would be the dividing streets between the two city's sphere of influence. Everything West of Irvine Avenue and portions of Tustin Avenue where the County's islands are located should be in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and everything East should be in Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The attached letter indicates that LAFCO will consider a possible change in our City's sphere of influence on December 6th. The purpose of this letter is to inquire about Costa Mesa's position with respect to this request. It should be understood that the City of Newport Beach does not seek any of the County islands on the West side of the line. This City has not determined, however, if they will acquiesce to the request of property owners on the West side of the line. In my opinion Costa Mesa' position would be seriously considered in establishing Newport Beach's position on this subject. Therefore, it is requested that you review the attached and send me your position so that in turn Newport Beach can reply to LAFCO. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sin ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager cc: J. Colangelo City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 F i - CITY OF COSTA MESA j ;�a9 CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 2 2 as,.sr,+eam.xerse.eaveme�.�u�emm�ra+m.�mrnwovw.a,..mv....a,moa+ ICCiIL )',CEi10 A?RLi11NN CCMi �3!$SiON FROM THE OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER November 20, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Review of City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Colangelo: Thank you for your correspondence of November 9, 1989, regarding the above subject. I believe you are in receipt of the correspondence directed to me by Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach, on this subject. In reviewing the stated position of the City of Newport Beach, and pursuant to recent action by the Costa Mesa City Council, I would respectfully request that LAFCO take no action at your December 6, 1989, meeting on the request to amend the existing Sphere of Influence for the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. As stated in Mr. Wynn's correspondence, the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have historically agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue would be the dividing streets between the two Cities' Sphere of Influence. Although there has been no recent action to incorporate these areas by either City, the City of Costa Mesa continues to support Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue as our respective border with the City of Newport Beach. I do want to add that very recently the Costa Mesa City Council' requested that our staff initiate discussions with the Planning staff of the City of Newport Beach on this very issue. As you know, there are several unincorporated County islands bordering between the two cities. This does occasionally create confusion on the delivery of services to the residents of these County islands, particularly in the area of Police and Fire protection. While we have no particularly firm and fixed position on the requested annexation, we do feel that it would be most inappropriate to begin "piecemealing" annexations on this basis. To date, we have "not been provided with any information that would indicate that there is a particular time 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327 Mr. Jamee J. Colangelo November. 20,,1989 Page 2 constraint on this request. We would, therefore, request that LAFCO either continue this request to a later date or deny it until such time as the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa can submit an application for annexations involving all of the existing County islands in this area. Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and we look forward to working with you and your staff over the course of the next few months in this area. Sincerely, 1.4.,- C=P��- ALLAN L. ROEDER CITY MANAGER ALR/jlw cc: City Council Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach Deputy City Manager/ Development Services Director LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE'COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE 11/10/89 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614, Santa Ana, California 92701 - (714) 568-4181 Project Title: Review and Possible Amendment to the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence Project Location: Generallv located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Way, west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue in the east Costa Mesa area. Project Description: Review and possible amendment to the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence to remove subject property from the Costa Mesa sphere. Persons or Agency proposing this project: Local Agency Formation Commission Phone: ( 714 ) 969 41.93 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 effect on the environment for the followinq reasons: The proposed project does not evaluate any specific plans for development. Mitigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Nnna Project hearing date and time: 19/6/89 at 2:00 p.m. Project hearing place: 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER By:&W�dZdA,( fit -- Date fl i0 8 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614, Santa Ana, California 92701 - (714) 568-4181 Project Title:. Review and Possible Amendment to the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence Project Location: Generally located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Wd west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue in the east Costa Mesa/west Newport Project Description: R to add subject property ble amendment to the New Persons or Agency proposing this project: T ; ZQJ:m nien Cemnissan Phone: ( 714 ) 568-4181 Beach of Influence 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 effect on the environment or t e roi owing reasons: The proposed project does not evaluate any specific plans for development. Mitigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Project hearing date and time: 191rign at 2:00 p.m. Project hearing place: 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California JAMESEXECUTIVE J.IV COFFICER 'P)9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER �• - , Date o Ito /y� By: &j� W`.4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 c 25 N 26 N N 0 27 E RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 6, 1989 On motion of Commissioner duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 56425 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution No. 73- 86, adopted June 13, 1973, Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 14, 1974, and again on August 27, 1980, Resolution No. 80-74; and WHEREAS, Section 56428 of the California Government Code provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, this Commission did receive such a request and did review a report prepared by staff analyzing said amendment request; and WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration issued by the Executive Officer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER as follows: Section 1. This Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration. Section 2. This Commission reaffirms the City of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence as previously determined. AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Resolution No. 89- ss n I, JAMES J. COLANGELO, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation commission of orange County, California hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of December, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of December, 1989. DAMES a. COLANGELO Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of orange County, California By Secretary Resolution No. 89- ., t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 W, Wr oZ; 15 �0 W 0 U 4 W 16 LLMU 0Z4 0 0 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C 25 26 N N O 27 LL W RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 6, 1989 On motion of Commissioner duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 56425 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach by Resolution No. 73- 145, adopted September 12, 1973, and subsequent review and amendments thereto by Resolution No. 74-100 adopted August 14, 1974, Resolution No. 80-73 adopted August 27, 1980, Resolution No. 83-48 adopted July 27, 1983, Resolution No. 87-80 adopted December 2, 1987, and Resolution No. 89-18 adopted April 19, 1989; and WHEREAS, Section 56828 of the California Government Code provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, this Commission did receive such a request and did review a report prepared by staff analyzing said amendment request; and WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration issued by the Executive Officer. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER as follows: Section 1. This Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration. Section 2. This Commission reaffirms the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence as previously determined. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Resolution No. 89- 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I, DAMES J. COLANGELO, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of December, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of December, 1989. Resolution No. 89- JAMES J. COLANGELO Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California Hy Secretary 2. CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P. O. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 20, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Officer Local Agency -Formation Commission 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Review of City Of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Colangelo: RECEIVED N NOV2 71989s� City Manager City of Newport Beach Thank you •for your correspondence of November 9, 1989, regarding the above subject. I believe you are in receptityt of the correspondence directed to me by Robert L. Wynn, Manager, City of -Newport Beach, on this subject. In reviewing the stated •position of the City of Newport Beach, -and pursuant to recent action by the Costa -Mesa City Council, I would respectfully request that LAFCO take no action at your December Influencemforing on the the Citiesrofuest to amend Newport Beachthe andeCostanMesa. of As -stated in Mr. Wynn's correspondence, the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa -Mesa have, historically agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin -Avenue would be -the dividing streets between the •two -Cities'•• Sphere -of- Influence. -Although there has been no recent -action to incorporate these areas by either City, the City of Costa -Mesa continues to support • Irvine - Avenue!Ecnd Tustin Avenue as our respective border with the City of Newport Beach. - ' I-do•want to -add that -very recently the Costa Mesa City Council requested -that our staff initiate discussions with the Planning staff of -the City -of Newport Beach on this very issue. As you know, there are several unincorporated County islafids bordering between -the two -cities. • This does occasionally create confusion on -the-delivery of services -to the residents Of these County islands, particularly in the area of Police and Fire protection. While• we have• no particularly firm and fixed position on -the -requested annexation, we do feel that it would be most inappropriate -to begin "piecemealing" annexations on this basis: To date, we have not been provided with any information that would indicate that there is a particular -time 77 FAIR DRIVE (714)754-5327 Mr. James J. Colangelo November 20, 1989 Page 2 constraint on this request. We would, therefore, request that LAFCO either continue this request to a later date or deny it until such time as the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa can submit an application for annexations involving all of the existing County islands in this area. Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and we look forward to working with you and your staff over the course of the next few months in this area. Sincerely, ALLAN L. ROEDER CITY MANAGER ALR/j lw cc: City Council Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of New—'` Deputy City N Development October 25, 1989 Mr. James Colangelo Executive Director LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1200 N. Main Street, Suite #614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 LS RE: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY CITY OF COSTA MESA Dear Mr. Colangelo: I recently purchased a home and currently reside in an unincorporated county island (known as Upper Newport) between the city limits of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach (map attached). I have been advised that our property is located in a portion of the island within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. It is my understanding that LAFCO will review the sphere of influence boundaries for the City of Costa Mesa at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 1, 1989. I am unsure as to where the sphere of influence boundary lines are currently established in this island. However, my property, is addressed as "Newport Beach, 9266011 and all public services are provided on a contract basis from the City of Newport Beach. Those properties currently addressed or serviced by the City of Newport Beach should be included within the sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach-, rather than Costa Mesa. Therefore, I am requesting that you re-evaluate the sphere of influence for this portion of the island and that you find it appropriate to amend the boundary. In the event of annexation, this is a critical element in maintaining my property's value. Also, disruption would be minimized since the proper address and services are already in place. I am looking forward to your decision at the November 1, 1989 meeting to re-evaluate the boundaries. Sincerely, Steve Layton /`� v"�! New E. 23rdBea Street T Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCT 311989 E=4"W7 9M � C1:1HW:A �ti C;, Q,ty tt C•:M1n SEE mE 41 �K N.•PI > R• jn CD •" 'Fi n > J PI „ P� p " a '''q'G� c•ov[ u � s � 1�t'ROO � ...,.. � '\.. � BAY � cww • r. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM: FrOM EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO. ... POLICE -,-._FIRE__&. UTILITIES. DEPARTMENTS NOVEMBER, 20................ 19_89 In an effort to have the area shown on the attached map annexed to Newport Beach, residents there have represented to LAFCO that the City provides contract services to them. Please check your records and let me know if your department provides any service in the area whether or not on a contract basis. Thank you. Reply wanted ❑ Reply not neceaeary ❑ NI•2} By.....1................j/:...N..Y.... —...... KENNETH J. DELINO Iz- "; ,`•'ii`� : a i '•.:: i (� '�i� • cp, •;y 34p;j 3 D ! • ii;. `; ; t li:: .i<: i�i ' .: t y ,t, i{.to,t:'•,ly • n.: i{h.: .,c N �r ' October 25, 1989 Mr. James Colangelo Executive Director LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1200 N. Main Street, Suite #614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY CITY OF COSTA MESA Dear Mr. Colangelo: I recently purchased a home and currently reside in an unincorporated county island (known as Upper Newport) between the city limits of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach (map attached) I have been advised that our property is located in a portion of the island within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. It is my understanding that LAFCO will review the sphere of influence boundaries for the City of Costa Mesa at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 1, 1989. I am unsure as to where the sphere of influence boundary lines are currently established in this ,island. However, my is addressed as "Newport Beach, 92660" and all public are provided on a contract basis from the City of Newp Those properties currently addressed or serviced by the City of Newport Beach should be included within the sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach, rather than Costa Mesa. Therefore, I am requesting that you re-evaluate the sphere of influence for this portion of the island and that you find it appropriate to amend the boundary. In the event of annexation, this is a critical element in maintaining my property's value. Also, disruption would be minimized since the proper address and services are already in place. I an looking forward to your decision at the November 1, 1989 meeting to re-evaluate the boundaries. Sincerely, �-�- Steve Layton .0 E. 2/ New Bea Street HE D Newport Beach, CA 92660 S OCT 311989 `�, e -b� / I 0 .ts: -r.. M WEI M OO 12 AN D U M DATE: November 27, 1989 TO: Kenneth J. Delino Assistant to the City Manager FROM: Jeff Staneart Utilities Department SUBJECT: LAFCO Services Request IVOV22, 1989) - I am responding to your memo of November 20, 1989 regarding services provided by the City to the area highlighted on the attached Thomas Bros. Map Page. The Utilities Department does not provide any water, sewer or street light services to the area in question. Along that particular strip, the westerly limit of our services is Tustin Avenue. If you have other questions, please call me at extension # 3011. JS: sdi Attachmen CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM: FTOm EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT. Tp.... POLICE -,_•_FIRE• -&.UTILITIES, DEPARTMENTS NOVEMBER• 20 ................ , 19,89•. In an effort to have the area shown on the attached map annexed to Newport Beach, residents there have represented to LAFCO that the City provides contract services to them. Please check your records and let me know if your department provides any service in the area whether or not on a contract basis. Thank you. Reply wanted ❑ Reply not neceseary ❑ Ne-m- YrrNr••IflM wn[•i.wrv�'1i�•�•�-'.WI•!7rh1N!.r re. u7t=:{$•.>_:} .:i'. -. ., '.;• ,,,p.,f;:i:;jiStti ;; . •f , f , it f •?' •: t`r'f.'::':' £.;:`.,;,.<;,.,,£,, `,it{}{t `t:•t•t`Ni+tttt, >:;, ........ ..'F t,..,..::jp: ;,,aE,;; :.: _ .,44ii,<y;4 . ;f{: ,;{t`6.4;F${tIt4tt:'4{ ..t n•-.q�g.; a,;r,�`t3if;fr`-=ryd,i; .ti-(o. ,,a)oF4.;. :S. lit KENNETHIJ. DELINO tiri.rr+f,*�`-'T•rt:,.,.::F£o.�uu,ryAahwAA>-ifii '�i. '•):' ''):. (' :(4{:lip •. t'} :i4ttti, `` •,€i!{t}t}„ I�I:i)a:€`�.. :d, .��{pI!}�� ,f.:1,7 }ia{t'i€'L;tcfc;€�}`•;< ?,ft{t: IN. . {2;€{ui{E{ii of{fi' "°°t°'.ii};}gi ?€!:.{04;{({f'it {'#€�;e:;,i°Eiig< ? • ;t4{a{4' ;[;;€`€`.t i}8 :•t . 't. , ,€ice;° �£?; ._.,`. � =??., ' . , f 4{R iXi< t , •' €-�:} :: .ti . i,t}?;',,+t",;j`;;.•r{2'af{tt;�i?;;R;;{;;.€sf{�%;tt?{t;4;:=:i:i=°'. ,.,,�,.....;.:,;{;;�{ur. i• ::tat`: ';'t•'• •'t t;• { h {;�::f;h:-;,,„-'i'• ?,2t' ,{`iiEtiEiii: tall '€<`i,, ,iEt,.R},F{it t{.Eft{;� .• ''),,,%�{', '4, 2 -i+t .,q. '4({tom � ;tot:•`{a. ti , ff-::. :.. Ei�'a:oi. f �`,•i`. 21. i . ,vta t`ri,• � , t t .•t•i,,,, ., ,.i , <S ;",;et t'i ii{t , £,(i{t •:r1t} ?;iii 3jry �t;f' %'f' %4Rdrfi))'•#ii:;, ?''• .��'Fj:i•f€?>�•�.,{�t•nn''�i?4'),7S`}f�:,` _.i,''f :,,,.,y tt sty a?it E,i' :<; ;& ,i• •i{'' `: �i ,, �ft3°`4{;{t"E%#'(•"'tv`tt �'t:'{',,, t€t„'<;;,` 't'E'a t¢•o•;'I •.{<,,, ,'.1:•:€i't`''.#}°{t,„4€}i{4. +{ .)1t'; ;{, �`nt` ... �'i%f,: `{ p4 •iq`t , . ,E. t ;;}t(„ .. s:...:Rf',,.ic.... ..., .,..ae.,...Eiiai.... e:.. ,.. u, I i Local Agency Formation Commission November 1, Local Agency 1200 N. Main Santa Ana, C 1989 Formation Commission Street, Suite 614 4 92701 �' 4\ ' • 12 N SANTA �N 'r ACT 261989 y � :.1 �Y•a n„A„� / STREET, SUITE 614 t`ALIFORNIA 92701 141 568-4181 Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: CHAIRMAN EVELYN R. HART IN RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF Influence NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN LEGAL AUTHORITY GADDIH.VASOUEZZ California Government Code Section 56425 states ., the SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT commission shall periodically review and update the spheres of influence developed and determined by them." The DON R.ROTH SUPERVISOR Commission's administrative policy on city spheres of FOURTH DISTRICT influence specifies a periodic review every three years JAMES H. FLORA unless circumstances warrant an earlier review. COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA BACKGROUND g Resolution No. 73-145 adopted September 12 1973 LAFCO y p p > > REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC determined a sphere of influence for the City of Newport ALTERNATE Beach. The sphere has been reviewed and amended by JOHN KANEL Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 14, 1974, Resolution MAYOR PRO-TEM CYPRESS CITY OF CYPRESS No. 80-73, P 9 adopted August 27, f esoon o. 1980 Resolution N83-48 , adopted July 7, 1983, Resolution No, 87-80, adopted December ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS 2, 1987, r and Resolution No. 89-18, adopted April 19 1989. REPRESENTATIVE OF The boundaries of that sphere are generally described as the GENERAL PUBLIC city limits of Costa Mesa and Irvine on the north, the ALTERNATE northwestern boundary of Crystal Cove State Park on the east, ISOfl VACANT VACANT the Pacific Ocean on the south and the centerline of the � Santa Ana river on the west. The SOI review earlier this JAMESJ. OELO EXECUTIVEIVEOFFICER year amended the sphere to include the area known as the Irvine Coast to the boundary of Crystal Cove State Park. Mr. Kenneth J. Delino, Executive Assistant to the City Manager, reports that the City desires no changes in its Sphere of influence at this time. The City is engaged in cooperative planning with the County of Orange regarding the area known as Santa Ana Heights. The City and the County have adopted identical general plans and agreement on the area's inclusion in a community redevelopment agency and eventual annexation to the City. The other unincorporated area within the SOI is being studied for development by the property owner, and the City is prepared to cooperate with the provision of services when the planning has progressed to that point. In a letter received October 23, 1989, Mr. John Buchanan and Ms. Roberta Costa, owners of property in an unincorporated island included in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence, have requested an amendment to that SOI, and inclusion of that island within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. The owners cite as reasons for the request that the present address of that property on Donnie Road is Newport Beach, Newport Beach Sphere of Influence - November 1, 1989 Page 2 with a Newport Beach zip code, and public services are provided by contract with Newport Beach. California Government Code Section 56428 provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence, and that upon receiving such request the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda for public hearing and publish legal notice of the hearing in a local newspaper. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The subject review is not a project as defined in CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Schedule a public hearing for December 6, 1989, to consider the review and possible amendment to the Sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. espectfy ubmitted, mes J . Col ang 1 l/.� E ecutive Offi er JJC:CWE:mj cc: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Kenneth J. Delino, Executive Assistant John Buchanan Roberta Costa Locol Agency Formation Commission November 9, 1989 CHAIRMAN EVELYN R. HART COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN GADDI H. VASQUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA DAVID SORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE JOHN KANEL MAYOR PRO•TEM CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR VACANT Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Dear Mr�raPTRh 1200 N. MAIN STREET. SUITE 614 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 568.4181 FAX- (714).569=1It IN RE: Review of City of Newport Beach's Sphere Influence *01/ `rQ �., 131gB�i �r�w'�A.n�ayY As you are aware, property owners residing in an unincorporated county island which is presently within the sphere of influence of Costa Mesa have requested that the Commission amend the sphere to exclude that island, and to place it within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. The island in question is that lying between Camelia Street and Santa Isabel Street and between Santa Ana and Tustin Avenues. The owners cite as reasons for the request that the present address of the properties is Newport Beach, with a Newport Beach zip code, and that public services are provided by contract with Newport Beach. California Government Code Section 56428 provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence, and that upon receiving such request the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda for public hearing. I have scheduled a public hearing for December 6, 1989, to consider this amendment. JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this proposed change in your City's SOI. I also encourage you to explore with the City of Costa Mesa the most efficient provision of services for this area and to consider any possible boundary adjustments that may facilitate such service provision. In order to incorporate your information into our staff report to the commissioners, I would appreciate receiving your input by November 22, 1989. I would like to invite you or your representative to attend the December 6 meeting to describe your City's position regarding the proposed change, and to answer any questions. Sincerely, dxa mes J. Col Belo acut ive icer JJC:CE:mj cc: Kenneth J. Delino, Executive Assistant GAF County of Orange Local Agency Formation Commission November 9, 1989 CHAIRMAN EVELYN R. HART COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN GADDIH.VASOUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA DAVID DORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERALPUBUC ALTERNATE JOHN KANEL MAYOR PRO-TEM CITY OF CYPRESS Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Manager 92658-8915 MAIN STREET. SUITE 614 11 CALIFORNIA 92701 q 14) 568-4181 FAX: (7141)N 6�*17 ��gg,pqqr�y� a � NOV131989*'- City 61ana7er t aty fr IN RE: Review of City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence As you are aware, property owners residing in an unincorporated county island which is presently within the sphere of influence of Costa Mesa have requested that the Commission amend the sphere to exclude that island, and to place it within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. The island in question is that lying between Camelia Street and Santa Isabel Street and between Santa Ana and Tustin Avenues. The owners cite as reasons for the request that the present address of the properties is Newport Beach, with a Newport Beach zip code, and that public services are provided by contract with Newport Beach. California Government Code Section 56428 provides that any E A ALTERNTperson or local ALTERNATE VERNOEVANS P agency may request amendments t0 a sphere of REPRESENTATIVE OF influence, and that upon receiving such request the executive GENERAL PUBLIC officer shall place the request on the agenda for public ALTERNATE hearing. I have scheduled a public hearing for December 6, SUPERVISOR VACANT1989, to consider this amendment. JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this proposed change in your City's SOI. I also encourage you to explore with the City of Costa Mesa the most efficient provision of services for this area and to consider any possible boundary adjustments that may facilitate such service provision. In order to incorporate your information into our staff report to the commissioners, I would appreciate receiving your input by November 22, 1989. I would like to invite you or your representative to attend the December 6 meeting to describe your City's position regarding the proposed change, and to answer any questions. Sincerely, dxames J. Col gelo ecutive icer JJC:CE:mj cc: Kenneth J. Delino, Executive Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 644-3000 November 13, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Director Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Jim: Thank you for your letter of November 9th concerning the LAFCO hearing to consider this City's sphere of influence and specifically to explore whether part of Costa Mesa's sphere should be modified to place some of the property within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that I have written to Costa Mesa's city manager outlining my understanding of the agreement between the two cities and requesting Costa Mesa's input on this matter. As soon as I hear from Costa Mesa I will be in a better position to formally respond to your letter of November 9th. Sincerely, ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager RLW:kf aCity Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 0 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 13, 1989 Mr. Allan Roeder City Manager P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Allan: Attached is a copy of a letter received from LAFCO concerning certain unincorporated County island property West of Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Historically the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue would be the dividing streets between the two city's sphere of influence. Everything West of Irvine Avenue and portions of Tustin Avenue where the Couaty's islands are located should be in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and everything East should be in Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The attached letter indicates that LAFCO will consider a possible change in our City's sphere of influence on December 6th. The purpose of this letter is to inquire about Costa Mesa's position with respect to this request. It should be understood that the City of Newport Beach does not seek any of the County islands on the West side of the line. This City has not determined, however, if they will acquiesce to the request of property owners on the West side of the line. In my opinion Costa Mesa' position would be seriously considered in establishing Newport Beach's position on this subject. Therefore, it is requested that you review the attached and send me your position so that in turn Newport Beach can reply to LAFCO. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager cc: J. Colangelo R' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. MAIN STREET. SUITE 614 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONF_914) 668.4181 I - RECGVC.p�` September 5, 1989 SEP 8 1989� CHAIRMAN Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager City Nana er E clt Yof NelYpe,tB R. City of Newport Beach t each 1j WHART COUNCILWOMAN COUNCIEVELYNLWOMAN CITY OF 3300 Newport Boulevard NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 VICE-CHAIRMAN GADDI H. VASOU¢ Dear Mr. Wynn: SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT IN RE: Review of City of Newport Beach's Sphere of DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR Influence FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES H. FLORA In accordance with its 1979 policy guidelines, the Local COUNCILMAN Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is making periodic CITY OF LA HABRA reviews of each city's sphere of influence. Although the City of Newport Beach's eastern SOI was reviewed in March of REPRESENTATIVE OF REPRESENTATIVE GENERAL PUBLIC this year, I would like to schedule a review of the western and northern SOI for LAFCO's agenda of November 1, 1989. ALTERNATE JOHN KANEL LAFCO will also be reviewing the SOIs for the Cities of MAYOR PRO-TEM CITY OF CYPRESS Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa at the same meeting. ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS Unless otherwise indicated by the responses we receive, I do REPRESENTATIVE OF not anticipate an amendment to your City's SOI at this time. GENERAL PUBLIC I would appreciate any information you may have regarding any ALTERNATE unincorporated county islands and any relevant land use SUPERVISOR VACANT planning within your SOI. I also encourage you to explore with any adjacent city the most efficient provision of JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER services within your respective SOIs, and consider any possible boundary adjustments that may facilitate such service provision. In order to incorporate your information into our staff report to the commissioners, i would appreciate receiving your input by October 20, 1989. I would like to invite you or your representative to attend the November 1 meeting to answer any questions. If the Commission concludes from the status report that an amendment to the Newport Beach SOI may be in order, then such amendment will be scheduled for public hearing at a later date. Sincerely, kme-s J. Coticr ive O JJC:CE:mj CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of City Manager (714) 644-3002 October 10, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 North Main Street - Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subject: Review of City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Colangelo: In response to your letter of September 52 1989, Mr. Wynn has directed that I inform you that the City desires no changes in its Sphere of Influence and that the City is conducting the necessary planning to insure the eventual annexation of the area within its sphere. The Northern Sphere of Influence, commonly referred to as Santa Ana Heights, has been the subject of an intense cooperative planning effort between the City and the County of Orange. The City and the County have adopted identical general plans and specific area plans for the area and have entered a cooperative agreement regarding the area's inclusion in a community redevelopment agency and the area's eventual annexation to the City. A full annexation study prepared by the City is in the final stages of completion and the City will consider initiation of annexation within the next year. The western portion of the sphere, commonly referred to as the Banning Property is completely surrounded by the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. The area is being studied by the property owner and by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for both private development and flood control facilities including marsh land restoration. The City has monitored these efforts and is prepared to cooperate in the development City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Page 2 of the area including the provision of services whenever this planning progresses to that point. I will attend the November ist meeting of LAFCO to answer questions. Please feel free to call me directly if you need additional information. Si erely, Kenneth J. elino Executive Assistant KJD:mb cc: Mayor City Council City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of City Manager (714) 644-3002 October 10, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 North Main Street - Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subject: Review of City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Colangelo: In response to your letter of September 51 1989, Mr. Wynn has directed that I inform you that the City desires no changes in its Sphere of Influence and that the City is conducting the necessary planning to insure the eventual annexation of the area within its sphere. The Northern Sphere of Influence, commonly referred to as Santa Ana Heights, has been the subject of an intense cooperative planning effort between the City and the County of Orange. The City and the County have adopted identical general plans and specific area plans for the area and have entered a cooperative agreement regarding the area's inclusion in a community redevelopment agency and the area's eventual annexation to the City. A full annexation study prepared by the City is in the final stages of completion and the City will consider initiation of annexation within the next year. The western portion of the sphere, commonly referred to as the Banning Property is completely surrounded by the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. The area is being studied by the property owner and by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for both private development and flood control facilities including marsh land restoration. The City has monitored these efforts and is prepared to cooperate in the development City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Page 2 of the area including the provision of services whenever this planning progresses to that point. I will attend the November 1st meeting of LAFCO to answer questions. Please feel free to call me directly if you need additional information. SRlino Ke Executive Assistant KJD:mb cc: Mayor City Council City Manager /,I,-i�r-a Local Agency Formation Commission CHAIRMAN EVELYN R. HART COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VICE-CHAIRMAN GADDI H. VASOUEZ SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT DON R. ROTH SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES H. FLORA COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA DAVID BORAN REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE JOHN KANEL MAYOR PRO•TEM CITY OF CYPRESS ALTERNATE VERNON S. EVANS REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR VACANT JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER December 6, 1989 Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: 1200 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 614 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 568.4181 FAX: (714) 569.1173 RECEnfre NOV 301980 % fll"Vve AAfam,�got IN RE: Review and Possible Amendment of the City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence IN RE: Review and Possible Amendment of the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence BACKGROUND On November 1, 1989, your consider a periodic review sphere of influence. Your policy on city spheres of every three years. Commission was scheduled to and update of the Costa Mesa Commissioners administrative influence specifies a review In an October 17, 1989 letter, two owners of property in an unincorporated island currently included in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence (Sol) requested an amendment to detach the island from the Costa Mesa Sol and include the property within the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. California Government Code Section 56428 provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence, and that upon receiving such request the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda for public hearing. On November 1, 1989, your Commission scheduled today's public hearings to consider this request as part of a review of the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Spheres of Influence. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CE A A negative declaration has been prepared for both the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Sol reviews in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Your Commission is responsible for reviewing and approving the December'6, 1989 Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Spheres of Influence Page 2 environmental documentation prior to acting on this proposal. ANALYSIS The subject property is an unincorporated island generally located west of Tustin Avenue, east of Santa Ana Avenue, south of Santa Isabel Avenue and north of Thetford Way between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The October 17, 1989 letter from property owners John Buchanan and Roberta Costa (copy attached) provides the justification for your Commission's consideration of the proposed sphere of influence amendment request. in summary, the letter states that because the territory has both a Newport Beach mailing address and zip code, and because all public services are provided by contract through the City of Newport Beach, the property should be deleted from the Costa Mesa Sol and included in the Newport Beach Sol. Staff received letters of comment (copies attached) from both the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa with respect to the subject sphere issue. Both cities stated that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue have historically been the dividing streets between the two cities' spheres of influence4 In addition, staff has contacted the City of Newport Beach regarding service provision to this area. Newport Besch._ehas indicated that the city does not currently provide any contract services to the subject territory other than fire and police mutual aid. The Costa Mesa City Council has recently directed staff to initiate discussions with the City of Newport Beach planning staff regarding the future of all unincorporated islands bordering the two cities. In addition to the subject property, there are several other unincorporated islands which border Costa Mesa and Newport Beach that can create public confusion regarding the delivery of services, particularly police and fire protection. The proposed cooperative study will be useful in defining which jurisdiction can most effectively and logically serve these areas. CONCLUSIONS The subject property, located westerly of Tustin Avenue, has historically been considered a part of the Costa Mesa Sol. Staff has not been presented with any substantial evidence which would justify recommending your Commission remove this property from the Costa Mesa Sol at this time. As stated previously, the City of Costa Mesa has initiated a cooperative study with Newport Beach on all unincorporated islands located along the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa border. once this study is completed, and as annexations are initiated, your commission can then re-evaluate sphere of influence boundary issues in this area. Staff recommends that your Commission deny the subject request to December 6, 1989 Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Spheres of Influence Page 3 amend the Costa Mesa and Newport Beach SOI, and reaffirm the existing SOI boundaries for both Costa Mesa and Newport Beach as established by Commission Resolution No. 83-38 (May 11, 1983) and Resolution No. 89-18 (April 19, 1989), respectfully. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt the attached resolutions reaffirming the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence and Newport Beach Sphere of Influence as determined by your Commission on May 11, 1983 and April 19, 1989, respectfully. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: Location Map Buchanan/Costa letter - 10/17/89 City of Newport Beach letter - November 13, 1989 City of Costa Mesa letter - November 20, 1989 cc: Allan Roeder, City of Costa Mesa Robert Wynn, City of Newport Beach Kenneth Delino, City of Newport Beach R. Michael Robinson, City of Costa Mesa John Buchanan Roberta Costa crosoiba I ATE °tSa v \I I tip fYatE ST �` tj :: R G ' $E y•.,v`' ryl n ��r S CJNDAES_ST GD(ERNOR $T W=�° PROPOSED AMENDMENT AREA r ry 7rr�lsf n: I�TdFS1A sr ST: ,tl 1R I a> PLUM luSt_: S k> 0 PNfE oL : '" £ N4MILTOt! > > m ST,Ncrs e�,J� 4 <ya 4� ��.srr.f 4lM1MfS .a \ oy. N )� ,I a W." G oY,•` �p\s, f. ✓ f LPPEJ 4 Ra A I sNOWELI PL " , l r4^C rER # 4 F= cPo c o o i e — a 8 BAY ST ,r-n BaY — n sry. NfLVPO/ R -1 ;'.4-R[ s: F ¢ q �i N (9 C ^) au ws..us —s" r _ ,n isbc z C6VE 5T—rORxSNi Em a ( 'Tlv / . RfR a. ¢ 20 • $ AA u g a SEAL $i a -ST I ¢ a£l p° i •y \" C(/ . ru err s a E Q R Si c, Q y Y' B[, t , i C- [,� .fp ('+ / l " rcar0°rc .V,G OV eILR- 1 EVEflGAEFN RL GROSS_ ST Q� R 2Y' O\yS V p '0ti / rr prSf,Vl O, '�� sOO.WOoO st EO; 5T IfnFi _ J ,I a el Rf RRARD. I l •RO FI Sr 1 �' ♦ r y. ....' P, 2 sr •!L , : 19TH COSTA MESA t; ^« f, a -to rER k^�ya2.r`\t ac SPHERE OF INFLUENCE f °rP d y o �/ 41 yr e ..... , j yy. • tOWNE STQ wF EL �S}a � . "` ° rCh�li ! 21 $ 81Bri. 1 .calf iP rPr9 fl� ,.y 'Who � A, 1f. 4 r050 0 SUNSET DR V � p y^$s r / ff.� Q 'aLiM4R; Jo)OB y$:n `©'Yf 4S•W va )- _ 'f 4 $" (" ,) 'I s NFMON � wH � IEPMIMeLi WY <(\\� {4r° %�[ \\�tr�__`� ,��..y`9 �I,• e o a J e NM..,At �ARAD ST z- ? q gfMS WY Z QP Ff S a `vt q '9, LN • I�.+:� # I. T' 1 tl ST n tJ /B'v (C r r•^ 5 41 e' �rq b S r �`i.�J` a'i ..r 'T-1 w+Q�r5. z : 8 I�' e 3L- a P A B/f a'P am- tiEilE L Y ,`.. PRODUCTION eL 5 i::xi.ir°" r I SS F IST" $TI �4 yN , 4 ♦ �Q..�y ,Y.L].Wgq,f n4 Nory, ; x�e9 o 4 lit 9 0 , ♦ 4oae �'"e 4�Sgb P • Yq-! `fab : ";y,,° sv jY1+ (`r/e c. o:,. ~ Y4 , • 4 H ! pp r rvhy. g �% °f rC' ryaM s� l+Rl.`IR _ r -moo' °a p ��MS o' g., s .P, T .s ' 6,� iJ:� ��k• � • N,� • ` g 2 0 � � r \ 1' \ COAST a'� IN Ct 't '�-d:}.r t.1,t:',�a°rie � .r �� WiP p' xfwpoxr � � .J ,r. 3 .. .aV �?°r, p� ixMR°� EIP t 41 + ` e,WHWv 2 ,.rq AYDMa , sW�a •' . s. NE14PORT BEACHILA — — — — I 'o Hots —op- f+T t 7 "YL 4 sWl 'Y^ A,--�Ja Z'� —\e8 �� .Qa` �� SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AApO♦ \ t �= S,¢lR Y <4 YI'! i �1 y` QFS I p, PO r O n ��� -y.;LM .,Ot ll, rrr r I � � b g �.a•; ,� a Asa• ,,r� l Tt-.8 rb -S. rwr �T.• f..RN +7J v i,r �.� ._. psi �. C, v w K- 1 sr s sr :' ; e. eo• F it L ( r ,a A. an�3=� e nus/ n p J °R%AT iR i Y,.�d ! � hleY4 etia h I � aZOO Y! S TAP B ,R. /f}o !7 ,"y"3 v.v rsurvu _ R • sro 1� s v i 1 `� lxs ens L,,, '�'. �)S nLY ��_"5•�"'1n; Ale fk ! pp °e LbLY'£R a ti• 7 ,.." 2 ♦ 1 PJ... aT pJ,• zr_ \` e' �l Tim-1 7JflVRpR£ �� [.. r<: , 4s rs. v-r.I 'tia e v `1 tee. xsNf.s l P xfWgiis z ir°O rste ��`` �� \T BAY " ecnr etul ���� r �. cou xs sr BEACH COSTA MESA/NEWPORT BEAC SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIESd �_� �e B( _1�%i�[ ���ti/i\ .♦'/i-f{'Is i le I;.,. I� i Ul L U 't, ilV YM n..,; n;R uu.:�.:n1i..6.j October 17, 1989 Mr. James Colangelo Executive Director Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main St., Suite #614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY - CITY OF COSTA MESA Dear Mr. Colangelo: We recently purchased a home and currently reside in an unincorporated county island (known as Upper Newport) between the city limits of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach (map attached). We have been advised that our property is located in a portion of the island within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. It is our understanding that LAFCO will review the sphere of influence boundaries for the City of Costa Mesa at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 1, 1989. We're unsure as to where the sphere of influence boundary lines are currently established in this island. However, our property, and all other properties on our street (Donnie Road), are addressed as "Newport Beach, 92660." All public services are provided on a contract basis from the City of Newport Beach. Those properties currently addressed or serviced by City of Newport Beach should be included within the sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach, rather than Costa Mesa. Therefore, we are requesting that you re-evaluate the sphere of influence for this portion of the island and that you find it appropriate to amend the boundary. In the event of annexation, this is a critical element in maintaining our property's value. Also, disruption would be minimized since the proper address and services are already in place. We are looking forward to your decision at the November 1, 1989 meeting to re-evaluate the boundaries. Sincerely, (- -—--�,��____ (� `�'�•1 — �`- s tom. Jo n Buchanan Roberta Costa 2215 Donnie Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 cc: Supervisor Tom Riley Planning Department, City of Newport Beach �gW PpRT ' - ��?�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n (714) 644-3000 c9'I Fo FL November 13, 1989� " 1 NUP i ?�39 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Director Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 N. Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Jim: LOCAL 1116RCf F)lrivisu"I'L compl sin Thank you for your letter of November 9th concerning the LAFCO hearing to consider this City's sphere of influence and specifically to explore whether part of Costa Mesa's sphere should be modified to place some of the property within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that I have written to Costa Mesa's city manager outlining my understanding of the agreement between the two cities and requesting Costa Mesa's input on this matter. As soon as I hear from Costa Mesa I will be in a better position to formally respond to your letter of November 9th. Sincerely, ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager RLW:kf City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard 9 P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92638-8915 at� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 13, 1989 Mr. Allan Roeder �'LI^{Ull City Manager NOV1 � �539 P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 LO�r.L fl6ci'1C'i 18i1ti1�ii 1 GO�,t,.SalOrl Dear Allan: Attached is a copy of a letter received from LAFCO concerning certain unincorporated County island property West of Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Historically the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue would be the dividing streets between the two city's sphere of influence. Everything West of Irvine Avenue and portions of Tustin Avenue where the County's islands are located should be in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and everything East should be in Newport Beach's sphere of influence. The attached letter indicates that LAFCO will consider a possible change in our City's sphere of influence on December 6th. The purpose of this letter is to inquire about Costa Mesa's position with respect to this request. It should be understood that the City of Newport Beach does not seek any of the, County islands on the West side of the line. This City has not determined, however, if they will acquiesce to the request of property owners on the West side of the line. In my opinion Costa Mesa' position would be seriously considered in establishing Newport Beach's position on this subject. Therefore, it is requested that you review the attached and send me your position so that in turn Newport Beach can reply to LAFCO. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si ROBERTL. WYNN City Manager cc: J. Colangelo City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 0 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 CITY OF COSTA MESA IN d 2 ? 089 CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 R. O. BOX 1200 cavesx.aaxwac...aismv�aav,.v.wsusaa.,.�vmn lBSHL 6:itiUY Fl2PIi;�Ld C3i ?!$SiCnJ FROM THE OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER November 20, 1989 Mr. James J. Colangelo Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Review of City of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Colangelo: Thank you for your correspondence of November 9, 1989, regarding the above subject. I believe you are in receipt of the correspondence directed to me by Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach, on this subject. In reviewing the stated position of the City of Newport Beach, and pursuant to recent action by the Costa Mesa City Council, I would respectfully request that LAFCO take no action at your December 6, 1989, meeting on the request to amend the existing Sphere of Influence for the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. As stated in Mr. Wynn's correspondence, the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have historically agreed that Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue would be the dividing streets between the two Cities' Sphere of Influence. Although there has been no recent action to incorporate these areas by either City, the City of Costa Mesa continues to support Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue as our respective border with the City of Newport Beach. I do want to add that very recently the Costa Mesa City Council, requested that our staff initiate discussions with the Planning staff of the City of Newport Beach on this very issue. As you know, there are several unincorporated County islands bordering between the two cities. This does occasionally create confusion on the delivery of services to the residents of these County islands, particularly in the area of Police and Fire protection. While we have no particularly firm and fixed position on the requested annexation, we do feel that it would be most inappropriate to begin "piecemealing" annexations on this basis. To date, we have -not been provided with any information that would indicate that there is a particular time 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5327 Mr. James J. Colangelo November 20, 1989 Page 2 constraint on this request. we would, therefore, request that LAFCO either continue this request to a later date or deny it until such time as the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa can submit an application for annexations involving all of the existing County islands in this area. Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and we look forward to working with you and your staff over the course of the next few months in this area. Sincerely, 14, C=P4::5 FO ALLAN L. ROEDER CITY MANAGER ALR/j lw cc: City Council Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach Deputy City Manager/ Development Services Director LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE 'COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE 11/10/89 1200 North Main Street, Suite 674, Santa Ana, California 92701 - (774) 568-4181 Project Title: Review and Possible Amendment to the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence Project Location: Generally located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Way, west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue in the east Costa Mesa area. Project Description: Review and possible amendment to the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence to remove subject property from the Costa Mesa sphere. Persons or Agency proposing this project: Local Agency Formation Commission Phone: ( 714 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 effect on the environment for the following reasons: The proposed project does not evaluate any specific plans for development. Mitigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Project hearing date and time: 19/6/89 at 2:00 p.m. Project hearing place: 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTTIVEE OFFICER , By: kA!/� Date // l� Z6 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE tl Ito lal_ 1200 North Main Street, Suite 614, Santa Ana, California 92701 - (714) 568-4181 Project Title: Review and Possible Amendment to the Newport Beach Sohere of Influence Project Location: Generally located south of Santa Isabel Avenue, north of Thetford Way, west of Tustin Avenue and east of Santa Ana Avenue in the east Costa Mesa/west Newport Beach P Oject Description: Review and possible amendment to the to add subject property to the Newport Beach sphere. Persons or Agency proposing this project: Phone: ( 714 ) 568-4181 of Infiuence 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 effect on the environment or t e following reasons: The proposed project does not evaluate any specific plans for development. ,.litigation measures, if any, incorporated into the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Xnnp ..r Project hearing data and time: 1g/A/sa at 2:00 p.m. Project hearing place: 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California JAMES J. COLANGEELO EXECUTTIVE OFFICER Date r ro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 26 N N "0 27 LL RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 6, 1989 On motion of Commissioner duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 56425 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution No. 73- 86, adopted June 13, 1973, Resolution No. 74-100, adopted August 14, 1974, and again on August 27, 1980, Resolution No. 80-74; and WHEREAS, Section 56428 of the California Government Code provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, this Commission did receive such a request and did review a report prepared by staff analyzing said amendment request; and WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration issued by the Executive Officer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER as follows: Section 1. This Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration. Section 2. This Commission reaffirms the City of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence as previously determined. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Resolution No. 89- ss - I, JAMES J. COLANGELO, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of orange County, California hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of December, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of December, 1989. JAMES J. COLANGELO Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, By. Resolution No. 89- Secretary 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J> WF o5? 15 W 0 U Wu ,w 16 �Z 0 Z < '0 0 17 U L" RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 6, 1989 on motion of Commissioner duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Section 56425 of the California Government Code mandates the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop and determine spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the county; and WHEREAS, this Local Agency Formation Commission did approve a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach by Resolution No. 73- 145, adopted September 12, 1973, and subsequent review and amendments thereto by Resolution No. 74-100 adopted August 14, 1974, Resolution No. 80-73 adopted August 27, 1980, Resolution No. 83-48 adopted July 27, 1983, Resolution No. 87-80 adopted December 2, 1987, and Resolution No. 89-18 adopted April 19, 1989; and WHEREAS, Section 56828 of the California Government Code provides that any person or local agency may request amendments to a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, this Commission did receive such a request and did review a report prepared by staff analyzing said amendment request; and WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration issued by the Executive Officer. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER as 1911 follows: 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 26 N N O 27 LL M Section 1. This Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration. Section 2. This Commission reaffirms the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence as previously determined. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE Resolution No. 89- I, DAMES J. COLANGELO, Executive Officer, of the Local Agency Formation Commission of orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of December, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of December, 1980. JAMES J. COLANGELO Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of orange County, California BY secretary Resolution No. 89- 2. ;=s SUIT 10: Ge!Or � tnana,}ar 1 .rrtonlay . ? `., Diw..Wr r•,1%nev Ilitector } Qthrr I 1 C•11It1C111 it CII ENTY Ur EBSTA DIEM CALIFORNIA 92628 P.O. EIOx I2oo n �l FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 13, 1977 Harwood & Adkinson, Attorneys at Law 550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 434 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Thomas Bernauer, Esquire Re: Santa Isabel Storm Drain Dear Mr. Bernauer: Since my last'letter to you on May 20, 1977 (photo copy attached) in this matter certain events occurred, as follows: 1. A meeting was set up, as I suggested (presumably by }ou) and then cancelled at the last minute. I do not 1-now who, or why it was cancelled. 2. Our city officials began to receive complaints from the Orange County Public health Services and the Vector Control District about the allegedly dangerous health hazard at the end of: the City's drainage pipe located on Todd's property. 3. Our City attempted to help by seeing if we could fence around this "pond" but the property owner involved (Hagele) refused access and/or cooperation. We have reason to believe that the realtor who has been dealing with your client on this project initiated, or caused to have initiated, the above — noted complaints (0). I submit, this effort is another attempt to put _ the blame or responsibility for whatever problems exist in this area upon the City of Costa Mesa. - This is not only unfair but under the circumstances is fruitless. 'Our City refuses to accept this blame or responsibility and although we have always sought to cooperate in resolving the drainage problems there, ours is not the laboring oar nor, will be accept it. Public records will reflect that the homeowners in this County area (south of Santa Isabel) definitely preferred to be in the City of Newport Beach's sphere of influence and the Local Agency Formation Commission so held by Resolution of August 14, 1974. We understand that the City of Newport Beach is not particularly in annexing this area until the drainage problems are solved. 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 556-5399 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA Harwood & Adkinson 'Page two continued December 13, 1977' The County of Orange seems to take the position that Costa Mesa is responsible because of a 1961 contract between Costa Mesa and the County's Flood Control District wherein a proposed drainage -channel was to be completed upon certain conditions having been met. Due the lack of cooperation of affected property owners those conditions were never met and the contract "died on the vine". It seems there are many problems in this county area that emanate from the drainage situation. All parties (landowners, public 'entities and prospective developers such as your clients) would appear to be in varying degrees and .extent,a PART OF THE PROBLEM because of the natural topography of the area and the progressive development of land in a modern urban area. Why can't we all be part of a solution? Why point the finger of blame at us? By copy of this letter to all persons and entities whom I understand are in- volved I am again stating that the City of Costa Mesa will NOT accept that responsibility or blame. We will do what we can, to the extent we can,, to alleviate the allegedly dangerous condition at the terminus of our drainage pipe. Unless the landowners involved will agree and cooperate -in maintaining this prescriptive easement for surface drainage on a pro-rata basis (see California Civil Code §845) in the area involved, the City of Costa Mesa will only fence off and maintain that portion along the opening of our pipe easement (see diagram attached). Obviously, this will not eliminate, the standing water or pond condition. That is located almost entirely on owner Hagele's property. Believe that thirty (30) days is a reasonable time in which to hear from all concerned. If no other cooperative effort is forthcoming as suggested herein the City of Costa Mesa will fence along its pipe easement'only. Again, on behalf of the City of Costa Mesa we stand ready, willing and able to cooperate with all owners, officials and entities herein to solve a long- standing problem. May I again suggest a meeting? Thanking you for your anticipated attention and cooperation. Very truly yours, 12/ Campagna City Attorney RRC:kmb Enclosure cc: City Council, Costa Mesa City Manager, Costa Mesa City Engineer, Costa Mesa City Council, Newport Beach City Manager, Newport Beach City Engineer, Newport Beach City Attorney, Newport Beach H.G. Osborne, Environmental Management Agency David Odell & Allen J. Stroh, Public health Services Director of Vector Control District County Counsel for Orange County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Rutan & Tucker (Roger Grabel) Emerald Engineer (Larry Johnson ALL PROPERTY OWNERS Motion Ayes MINUTES INDEX _ ^ 6. The following request to fill a personnel vacancy was approved: (A report from the City Manager was pre- "---_gented.) One Police C1e `k I in the Police Department to fill a position now vacant:-.._ 7. The following staff and Legislative Advocate reports were receive annordered filed: A memorandum from City Attorney regarding public ---._Labor employee -employer labor relations legislation. Memorandum from City Attorney regarding Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80 ra nage ditchia'T:fty. Relatio Annex 80 on Letter from Bud Porter, City's Legislative Advocate, regarding proposed legislation. 8. The plans and specifications for Newport Boulevard r Npt Blvd Resurfacing from 30th Street to 21st Street (Contract ,'Resurfa No. 1682) were approved; and the City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to be opened at 10:30 A.M. February 25, 1975. (A report from th Director Public Works was presented.) 9. The plans, specifications and estimate for. a new City Hal Council Chambers were approved; and the C' y Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to a opened at 10:30 A.M., April 7, 1975. (A rep t from the Public Works Director was presented EXDansio 10. The following Budget Amendment were approved: BA-48, $1200 transfer of B get Appropriations for furniture and equipment furnish the employees new coffee room in the old/ olice building. (A report as from the City Clerk presented.) BA-49, $5000 incr ase in Budget Appropriations and a decrease in Unap ropriated Surplus for preparation of preliminary Ohns for the channelization and widening of Dover Dr�:be between Coast Highway and Cliff Drive. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: r 1• A petition signed by 285 Lido Isle residents re- Lido Isl questing that the addition of a cantilevered bicycle Bridge x x x x path to the Lido Isle bridge be included in the mid- �• year budget or the 1975 fiscal budget was referred to staff for consideration in the 1975-76 budget. 2. A letter from Glenn L. Anderson denying statements Tracts 8 contained in an environmental report on Tracts 8680, 8681 & Volume 29 - Page 36 ns cing M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of City Attorney February 10, 1975 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Flood Control Problem in Bay Knolls Annexation Question: Several questions have arisen regarding the responsibility and duties of the City in conjunction with the Bay Knolls annexation and the drainage course located therein. 1. Does the City have any duty to establish or construct a storm drain in the natural drainage course? 2. Assuming there is no duty to construct the storm drain, does the City face any liability to -maintain the channel or liability if property is damaged as, a result of the channel? 3. How may the City and/or the owners of the property in which the drainage course is located evidence the position that the City will not construct a storm drain in the channel? Response: 1. The City is not legally obligated to construct a storm drain channel in said drainage course. 2. Since the City is not legally obligated to construct a channel, the City, under most circumstances, would not be responsible for damage done to adjoining property, nor would the City be responsible for maintaining the existing drainage course. 3. The City may express its intent not to construct a storm drain, and this may be formalized by the City Council prior to adopting its resolution to proceed with the annexation. Discussion: By merely annexing the area known as Bay Knolls, which contains an existing natural drainage course, the City assumes no more responsibility for constructing a storm drain there than it does with any other natural drainage course located within the City. The City is not obligated to exercise its municipal functions or /-/- 7Ce> r V_ I Honorable Mayor and -2- Members of the City Council February 10, 1975 police power to construct a storm drain in any natural drainage course located throughout the City. From a legal standpoint, annexation of an area with an existing storm drain problem will not impose the duty on the City to cure the problem. Assuming that there is no legal responsibility on the City to install a storm drain facility, what responsibility does the City assume in liability for property damage or maintenance? Regarding maintenance, the City, by virtue of annexing the area, does not assume the burden to maintain an existing water course. However, if the City voluntarily undertakes maintenance of the storm drain channel and periodically sends in men and equipment to clear out debris, siltation and the like, the City could assume responsibility for future maintenance on the bhannei and would be under a duty to properly maintain the channel thereafter. This is like the situation where there is no duty on a person to save a drowning man; but, if a person undertakes the responsibility of saving the drowning person, he must do it in a non -negligent manner. If he acts negligently, he could be liable to the person for damages he inflicts on him. Likewise, if the City voluntarily assumes the burden of maintaining the open water course over which no public right or easement exists, the City would assume the responsibility of performing its function properly and could face liability for negligence and/or inverse condemnation should the maintenance efforts be improper. Additionally, if the City were to construct a public work which diverted water into the drainage course which would not normally go there, or intensified the flow of water or run-off, or approved a subdivision which would divert water into the water course, or intensify the water going into the water course, the City could assume liability for damages caused by these activities. This, however, is true whether or not the area is, for that matter, annexed to the City at all. Further, this would be true even if this area had been part of the City at the City's original incor- poration. To repeat, if the City were to voluntarily undertake the maintenance of the channel, it would assume the burden of properly maintaining the channel and could be held liable if persons or property were damaged as a result of the improper maintenance. Finally, if the City desires to express its position and intent not to maintain the channel in the future, the'City could do this at the "protest hearing," at which time the City Council would determine whether or not it desired to permit the annexation pro- cedures to continue, and ultimately hold an election by the resi- dents to annex the area to the City. Honorable Mayor and -3- February 10, 1975 Members of the City Council At the "protest hearing" on the annexation proceedings, the City Council may indicate its intent for the annexation pro- cedures to continue, ultimately culminating in an el&ction by the residents, and after canvassing the returns of the election, the Council would have the ability to approve the annexation by ordinance. Likewise, the Council could reject the annexation, even after the election, but, if it were to reject the annexation, the issue would have to be presented to the electors of the City at a special or the next general election.' Thus, the City Council's last direct control over the annexation is at the "protest hearing" and the determination whether or not to proceed with the annexation. The Council could consider requiring the owners of the property subject to the flooding conditions to execute a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, to be recorded, indicating that they acknowledge the channel is not a publicly owned channel and that the public has no'right in or to the channel, nor does the public, the City of Newport Beach, assume the responsibility for maintaining the channel. Further, the declaration could require the property owners to maintain the channel in such a condition that it does not constitute an undue hazard or public nuisance. The City Council could take a less formal action and just express on the record the fact that the City will riot undertake responsi- bility for maintaining the natural drainage course. Also, the City Council could enter into some form of an agreement which would not be recorded wherein the property owners would undertake maintenance and supervision of the natural drainage course. The Council cannot, however, condition the annexation election itself upon the refusal of the City to undertake maintenance, con- trol and operation of the drainage course. The only issue at the election is whether or not the area should be annexed to the City, and whether or not outstanding bonded indebtedness of the City should be imposed upon the area to be annexed. �4" ot::4�. Aetx,�, Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:HRC:kb cc: City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of City Attorney February 10, 1975 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council STUDY SESSION FROM- City Attorney NO._ "7_- 7 --- SUBJECT: Flood Control Problem in Bay Knolls Annexation � Question: Several questions have arisen regarding the responsibility and duties of the City in conjunction with the Bay Knolls annexation and the drainage course located therein. 1. Does the City have any duty to establish or construct a storm drain in the natural drainage -course? 2. Assuming there is no duty to construct the storm drain, does the City face any liability to maintain the channel or liability if property is damaged as a result of the channel? 3. How may the City and/or the owners of the property in - which the drainage course is located evidence the position that the City will not construct a storm drain in the channel? Response- 1. The City is not legally obligated to construct a storm drain channel in said drainage course. 2. Since the City. -is not legally obligated to construct a channel, the City, under most circumstances, would not be responsible for damage done to adjoining property, nor would the City be responsible for maintaining the existing drainage course. 3. The City may express its intent not to construct a storm drain, and this may be formalized by the City Council prior to adopting its resolution to proceed with the annexation. Disc :;5: :.1: By merely annexing the area known as Bay Knolls, which contains an existing natural drainage course, the City assumes no more responsibility for constructing a storm drain there than it does with any other natural drainage course located within the City. The City is not obligated to exercise its municipal functions or Honorable Mayor and -2- Members of the City Council February 10, 1975 police power to construct a storm drain in any natural drainage, course located'throughout the City. From a legal standpoint,. annexation of an area with an existing storm drain problem will not impose the duty on the City to cure the problem. Assuming that there is no legal responsibility on the City to install a storm drain facility, what responsibility does•'the City assume in,liability for property damage or maintenance? Regarding maintenance, .the City,•by virtue bf 'annexing•the area, aoes,not assume the burden to maintain an existing water course. However, if the City voluntarily.undertakes maintenance of the storm drain channel and periodically sends in men and equipment to clear out debris, siltation and'the like,. .the City could ' assume responsibility for future maintenance'on the chinnel.and would be under a duty to properly maintain the.channel thereafter. This is like the situation where there is no duiy,on•a'•person to save a drowning man; but, if a person undertakes the.responsibility of saving the drowning person, he must.'do-it in a non -negligent manner. If he acts negligently„ he could be liable.to the person for damages he inflicts on him. -Likewise, of the City voluntarily assumes the burden of maiAtaining the open water course -over Which no public right or easement exists; the City would assume the responsibility'of performing, its function properly. and could face liability for negligence acid/or inverse condemnation should the maintenance 'efforts be improper. Additionally, if the City were to construct'a public work which diverted water into the drainage course which would not normally go there, or intensified the flow of water -or rurr-off,. or approved a subdivision which would divert water into the°water course,, Qr O . intensify the water going into the water course,, thezt'y:could• assume liability for damages caused by these'activities. phis, however, is true whether or not the area.'is, for that mattek, . annexed to the City at all. Further; this would be true even if . this area had been part of the City at the City's original'•incor- poration. To repeat, if the City were to voluntarily undertake the maintenance of the channel, it would assume•the'burden of properly•maintain$ng the channel and could be held liable if persons or•property were;, damaged as a result of the improper maintenance. Finally, 'if the City -desires to express its position •And intent not to maintain the channel in the future; the City could do this at 'the "protest hearing;" at which time the City ,Coppoki�i. would determine whether or not it desired to%permit the annexation pro cedures to continue,''and ultimately hold an election by'the resi- dents to annex the area to the City. dJ Honorable Mayor and -3- February'10, 1975 Members of the City Council At the "protest hearing" on the annexation proceedings, the City Council may indicate its intent for the annexation pro- cedures to continue, ultimately culminating in an election by • the residents,, and after canvassing the returns of the election, the Council would have the ability to approve the annexation by ordinance. Likewise, the Council could reject the annexation, even after the election, but,•if it were to reject the annexation, the issue would have to be presented to.the electors of•the'Clty at a special or the next general election. Thus, the City Council's fast direct control•over the annexation is at the "protest hearing" and the determination whether or not. to proceed with the annexation. The Council could consider requiring the owners of'the.property subject to the flooding conditions to execute a Declaration.of Covenants, Conditions and'Restrictions,.to be recorded,. indicating that they acknowledge the channel is not a publicly owned channel and that the public has no right in or to the'channel•,' nor'does the public, the City of.Newport Beach, assume the responsibility" for maintaining the channel. Further, the declaration could require the property owners tb'maintain the channel in.'such a condition that it does not constitute an undue hazard.or public nuisance. The City Council could take a less formal action and'just express on the record the fact that the' City will•not undertake responsi- bility for maintaining the natural drainage course. Also, the City Council could enter into some form of an agreement which would not be recorded wherein the property owners would undertake maintenance and supervision of•the natural'drainage course. The Council cannot, however, condition the annexation election' itself upon the refusal of.the City to'undertake maintenance, con- trol and operation of the drainage course.. The only issue at the election is whether or not the area should -be annexed to the City, and whether or not outstand'ing,bonded indebtedness of 'the City should be imposed upon the area to be annexed. :Dennis.-D.. O'Neil' , DDO:HRC:kb cc:, City Manager COUNCILMEN m �a Z\A\vAl, NA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES oay yN Tye m am o ROLL CALL N12 January 27, 1975 INDEX 3. A letter from Paul J. Gruber was presented resigning Bicentennia from the Bicentennial Citizens Advisory Committee. Citizens Adv Comte The resignation of Paul J. Gruber (District 1) was Motion x accepted with regret; and Councilman Barrett's Ayes x x x x strict 3) appointment of Pat Cleary as an alternate Absent x on t icentennial Citizens Advisory Committee was confirme . 4. Councilman Rogers tract 1) appointment of Margaret Envorommnt] Stivers as a member of Environmental Quality Qual Contrc Control Citizens Advisory Co ttee to replace Ellis Citizens Motion x Glazier, who had resigned, was co rmed; and Council- Adv Comte Ayes K x x x x man Ryckoff's (District 5) appointment -of. Steven Absent x Donaldson as a member of the Environmenta ality Control Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Cotman, who had resigned, was confirmed. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Development Annex 80 Department regarding request of Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al., to annex forty-six acres generally bounded by Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue on the east, Twenty -Second Street on the south and Santa Ana Avenue on the west, zoned R-1 by County; designated Bay Knolls Annexation - --- No. 80. A letter from Pat and Robert Krone was presented in favor of the Bay Knolls Annexation. Erwin de Mocskonyi and Bob Carolan addressed the Council regarding the drainage problem Resolution No. 8422, consenting to the commencement R-8422 ot annexation procee ings pursuant to the Inhabited Motion K Territory Annexation Act of`1913 to be known as Ayes r x x x nexation No. 60 QLay_jSno s , was a3opt-%e ; and the Noes x staff was instructed to report 1jack to..the„Council at Absent x N the a rusty to y easi n 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Director Alle regarding alley paving in Block 3, East Newport (City Pa -ng block bounded by Balboa Boulevard, Bay Avenue, 6th Street and Island Avenue). Motion K The staff was directed to notify owners of operty Ayes K x x x x in Block 3, East Newport, to construct ortland Absent x cement concrete alley, using the prgg dure found in Chapter 27 of the ImprovementtAAat�f 1911. 3. A report was presented ff om the Community Development General Department regarding,tlie Planning Commission's con- Plan sideration of sStfng public hearings for requested Amendments amendments to, -the Newport Beach General Plan. Motion x The nfi ing Commission's decision that a public Ayes K x x x x wring is unwarranted on the proposed amendment to Absent x 21 / the General Plan for the Lido Peninsula was upheld. Volume 29 - Page 20 L1 it City Council Meeting January 27, 1975 January 23, 1975 TO FROM: SUBJECT: ZONE: REQUESTED BY Introduction Agenda Item No. G-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development es Request to annex 46 acres generally bounded by Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue on the east, Twenty-second Street on the south and Santa Ana Avenue on the west. R-1 (County) Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al. On January 2, 1975, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with the Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80, and at the same time pursue further investigation of the drainage problem including any possible liability on the part of the City of Costa Mesa. This recommendation was made after the staff advised the Commission that final City Council action would not occur until after the election. It is the hope of the Planning Commission that a reso- lution of the drainage problem will occur prior to final City Council action on the annexation. A copy of the full annexation report is attached, including an analysis of the City Council's Annexation Policies. Brief History July 22, 1974. The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 8318 consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation pro- ceedings. At the same time, however, the City Council reserved the right to make the final decision on the annexation until after LAFCO made their determination. August 14, 1974. LAFCO adopted Resolutions 74-99 and 74-100, approving the Bay Knolls Annexation with the condition that pro- perties currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12 be detached, and changing the boundaries of the "sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls Area. September 30, 1974. A formal request for annexation was filed with the Newport Beach City Council. The request was at this time referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. January 2, 1974. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80. Approximate Timetable for Remainder of Annexation Proceedings January 27, 1975 Council receives Planning Commission's report and adopts a reso- lution formally consenting to the commencement of annexation. (Section 351060 Government Code) TO: City Council - 2. February 20, 1975 Proponents publish a Notice of Intention to Circulate a petition for annexation. (Section 35111, Government Code & Sections 4002, 4003, Elections Code) Within ten days after publication, proponents file with the City Clerk a copy of Affidavit of Publication and copy of Notice of Intention with accompanying statement. (Section 35112, Government Code) Within fifteen days of such filing, the Council may adopt a reso- lution acknowledging receipt of the notice and approving circula- tion of the petition. (Section 35113, Government Code) If the Council adopts the resolution, then the petition may be circulated twenty-one days after publication of the Notice of Intention to Circulate. (Section 35114, Government Code) March 7, 1975 After petition signed by not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors residing within the territory is received, the City Clerk and County Clerk check the petition and certify to its sufficiency within two weeks. (Section 35116, Government Code) If the petition is sufficient, the City Clerk submits a Certificate of Sufficiency to the City Council within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. March 10, 1975 The City Council without delay passes a Resolution of Intention to call a special election and sets a public hearing date not less than fifteen nor more than forty days after passage of the Reso- lution of Intention. (Sections 35116, 35118, Government Code) The City Clerk causes a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing and mails written notice of the proposed annexation not less than twenty days before the hearing to each owner of equitable or legal interest in land within the territory to be annexed who has filed with the City Clerk. (Section 35119, Govern- ment Code) (NOTE: The City Council has the power to terminate the proceedings at any time prior to the date set for hearing. Section 35007, Government Code) April 14, 1975 City Council holds hearing; hears and passes upon all protests. (Section 35121, Government Code) If protests are filed by the owners of one-half of the value of the territory to be annexed, the proceedings shall be terminated. If protests are filed which are insufficient to terminate the proceedings, that hearing shall be recessed for a period not less than ten days and supplemental protests may be filed within such period. (Sections 35120, 35121, Government Code) April 28, 1975 Continued public hearing At the closing of the hearing or within thirty days thereafter, Council shall adopt a resolution finding and determining whether or not a majority protest has been made. (Section 35121.1, Government Code) TO: City Council - 3. If the Council finds by resolution that a majority protest has been made, it may adopt a resolution terminating the proceedings. (Section 35122, Government Code Amended) If it finds that a majority protest has not been made, it shall call a special election for the next established election date not less than 74 days after termination of the hearing. (Section 35122, Government Code) Within five days after special election is called, the City Clerk on behalf of the Council submits, by registered mail, notification of the election to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. (Section 35124, Government Code Amended) Within five days after being notified, the Executive Officer of LAFCO submits to LAFCO for its approval or modification an impartial analysis of the proposed annexation. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) Within five days after receipt of Executive Officer's analysis, LAFCO approves or modifies and submits the analysis to the City Clerk. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) November 4, 1975 ELECTION DAY. November 10, 1975 If a majority of the votes cast is for annexation, the Council may approve the annexation by ordinance. (Section 35135, Government Code) The annexed territory is a part of the City from the date fixed by the Council in the Notice of Election, if such date is fixed, or if no date is fixed, frdm the date the City Clerk files the Affidavit of Completion and the Secretary of State's Certification with the County Recorder. (Section 35146, Government Code) Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By 64416 � R BERT P. LENARD Associate Planner RPL/kk Attachment for Council Only: Unincorporated Urban Area Study - Bay Knolls UNINCORPORATED URBAN AREA BTUDY BAY KNOLLS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UNINCORPORATED URBAN AREA STUDY BAY KNOLLS AREA January 2, 1975 Revised January 23, 1975 1 z I. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared in order to help the Planning Commission and City Council evaluate a request from the residents of the Bay Knolls Area to be annexed to the City of Newport Beach. This request is being processed in accordance with the provisions of the Inhabited Tbrritory Annexation Act of 1913. The Local Agency Formation Commission has approved this request. If the Planning Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves this request, an election will be held, and the residents of this area will vote on whether or not to annex to the City. II. LOCATION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION The Bay Knolls Area is located in the unincorporated County corridor which is located between Santa Ana Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Specifically, this area is bounded on the northeast by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the southeast by Tustin Avenue, on the southwest by Twenty -Second Street, and on the northwest by a line running parallel to and midway between Tustin Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue. - 1 - • > �. �. Y • yr" •2.... yj„ .i,. y 1 L S� ! ` 26 VAWN PAAApie: in 0 y . 4 •.''f G'L ,4ie nunn••�'� - .� e Ile I T r • r 1-0 Ta w. .1 �� }� - +► M. )�I�`iii �tira-1 �Yn .`ni'� � � • "13 i % M tw�.'�1c'• f 'f ��+gf ""pis .rYnNip R' � '�•• ";� �'X%.`ZY'-.'yt ,.. f him •• r F AF all ., 1� 4* JL mr U.N . _„il i'..Li!R �^- • S ORANCtti COUNTY i Q W tw�aw000 . pqriopl �L. Q W W /SDL3EL- _ O 70,V]� rv. .ELE'.iW1212 £CNOOL � �o 3 a RT�''"j NVM PL. PL. 0 CaMELL/a LN NOSE LN ERN/LL PC. CO a • a �Q .u�w. W "Y ST S Q1t�0 SNEP/NNJO Q �B/NCO ST ,QO NNLbd BAY ST. W si sT NELOOY GV •u O GOLYA QMWAa COUMI-f //NLNZB ./'✓AMW MAIM Ma// scuaat � W&TA ORAWO Gnuw%( SJ .S4417/460 'tpr CENrM.LA PG.J VI t7hsEr i o F104 ST.E. B,dYST o sN/Pwa %YOO�JLAND O V � ST. BV GRJ�ANG III. HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA On June 25, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission determined that the common boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa would be Tustin -Irvine Avenue beginning at a point northerly of 20th Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street. On June 13, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission reaffirmed their position and designated the Bay Knolls Area as within Costa Mesa's "sphere of influence." In response to this designation, several homeowners circulated a petition in an effort to demonstrate opposition to LAFC's decision. In addition, a questionnaire was circulated in an attempt to determine the extent of Bay Knolls' socio-economic ties with the City of Newport Beach. As a result of the efforts of the Bay Knolls residents, an attempt to annex into the City of Newport Beach and change Newport Beach's "sphere of influence" was begun. On July 22, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution Number 8318 consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation proceedings. At the same time, however, the City Council reserved the right to make the final decision on the annexation until after LAFCO made their determination. - 2 - On August 14, 1974, LAFCO adopted Resolutions 74-99 and 74-100, approving the Bay Knolls Annexation with the condition that properties currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12 be detached, and changing the boundaries of the "sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls Area. A formal request for annexation was filed with the Newport Beach City Council on September 30, 1974. The request was at this time referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The proposed Bay Knolls Annexation consists of approximately 46 gross acres of land. There are 153 separate parcels. Approximately 16.5% of the land is divided into parcels which contain less than 7,500 square feet; 48.4% contain between 7,500 square feet and 10,500 square feet; 21.5% contain between 10,500 square feet and 16,000 square feet; and 13.6% contain more than 16,000 square feet; There are 133 single family dwelling units on individual lots, except that one large lot contains two single family dwellings. Two (2) additional lots contain single family dwellings under construction, and 20 lots are currently undeveloped. - 3 - A visual inspection of the Study Area indicates that most of the dwelling units have been well maintained and are in good condition. The average market value of homes in the Study Area appears to be around $36,600.00 ranging from $21,300.00 to $62,500.00 (based on the assessed valuation of the property and structures provided by the Orange County Assessor). The property is presently zoned R-1 in the County of Orange. The requirements for development under County zoning are essentially the same as for development under R-1 in the City of Newport Beach, however, County zoning does allow horses on lots containing more than 10,000 square feet. All of the developed property in the area contains single family residences. There is one parcel which is currently being used to stable several horses in conjunction with a single family residence. This would become a legal nonconforming use under the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The population of the Study Area is estimated at approximately 365 persons. This figure is based on 135 dwelling units (including the two under construction) times 2.7 persons per dwelling unit. _= _ EXISTING USES: [-*--1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL [UNDER CONSTRUCTION) -LAND USE MAP o AREAS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED V. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The following report submitted by the Public Works Department consists of a review of the existing public improvements and a preliminary analysis of the deficiencies of these improve- ments in relation to present City of Newport Beach standards. Where estimated costs are shown the amounts are based on today's prices. A. STREETS 1. GENERAL The geometrics of the existing street improvements generally conform to current City design standards. None of the streets have any visible signs of signifi- cant structural distress. In general, they are in a well maintained condition. Cul-de-sac streets have a width (curb face to curb face) of 36 feet. The cul- de-sacs have a radius (to curb face) of 38 feet. The street grades vary from mild to steep, but in all cases there is good longitudinal gutter drainage. The existing curb and gutter (12') is in excellent condition. The existing sidewalk is also generally in excellent condition. There are a number of loca- tions however where sidewalk has not been installed, and a few locations without concrete curbs. - 5 - 2. TWENTY-SECOND STREET This street is currently classified as a secondary arterial highway on the County Master Plan of Highways. The required right-of-way is 84 feet. The existing right-of-way is 60 feet with a short length of 70-foot right-of-way one lot east and west of Donnie Road. Acquisition of the additional right-of-way required would be difficult. However, it is expected that the widening of 22nd Street to secondary highway standards would not have a high priority. The estimated cost of right-of-way acquisition is $8,000, and the estimated construction cost is $2,000 for widening to secondary standards. 3. TUSTIN AVENUE Between 22nd Street and 23rd Street, Tustin Avenue is generally developed to current City design standards. It does not have sidewalk. Between 23rd Street and northerly of Lake Park Street, Tustin Avenue was recently reconstructed to 24-foot width with asphalt berms. There is an inadequate cul-de-sac at the dead end northerly of Lake Park Street. Between northerly of Lake Park Street and' the proposed northerly City limit line Tustin Avenue is not developed, and probably would never be constructed. (The right-of-way has been abandoned.) 4. SANTA ISABEL AVENUE This street is generally constructed to acceptable standards; however, five feet of right-of-way and widening would be required across three undeveloped lots to obtain a uniform width. The estimated cost for right-of-way and construction is $5,000.00. 5. STREET DEFICIENCIES (MAINTENANCE NEEDS) It is estimated that the cost of correcting the street deficiencies which are City responsibility within the study area would be $15,000.00 in addition to the $10,000.00 listed in Item 2 and the $5,000.00 listed in Item 4. Most of the work needed is slurry seal coating and cross gutter reconstruction. B. STREET LIGHT SYSTEM Portions of the area are included in a lighting district which includes 17 street lights. These lights are on steel poles serviced by overhead wiring. It is estimated that an additional 27 street lights would be required to ade- quately light the area to City standards. The cost of this additional lighting with underground wiring is estimated at $40,000. Under City policy, the initial installation of street lighting systems is the property owners' responsibility. The cost of street lighting energy is paid by a special district tax rate. - 7 - As a condition of approval, the LAFC required that this area be detached from the Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12, and that the street lights be maintained by the City. Because the existing lights are leased from the Edison Company, the monthly service charge is significantly higher than the monthly charge for City owned street lights. C. WATER SYSTEM The area north of 23rd Street is served by the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. The existing main sizes are some- what sub -standard when compared to the City's current design standards, however up -sizing would not be justified except where lines are replaced because of structural deterioration. If the study area were to be annexed to the City, it is anticipated that there would be no changes to the existing water service boundaries. D. SEWER SYSTEM The study area is located within the service area of County Sanitation District No. 6, and is served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. If the study area were annexed to the City, it is anticipated that the Costa Mesa Sanitary District would continue to provide sewer service. E. DRAINAGE FACILITIES Local surface drainage appears to be good, with adequate catch basin capacity. The existing storm drains, in general, are corrugated metal pipes. The pipes are approximately 8 to 12 years old, and it is estimated that they would only have 10-15 years of remaining useful life before replace- ment would be required. The pipes, in general, outlet between houses into channels draining into Cherry Lake. Replacement, when required, would be difficult and expensive (approximately $78,000). The drainage system includes approximately 1,000-feet of unimproved open channel traversing an undeveloped area, and draining generally easterly into Cherry Lake. Over the years vegetation has established itself in the channels along with a substantial amount of siltation. Two of the existing storm drain outlets have been submerged by down stream siltation trapping water at the outlets. This water is stagnant and produces an unpleasant odor. At the outlet of the 72-inch pipe south of Santa Isabel Avenue, 5 to 6 feet of "muck" would have to be removed to reestablish the required channel flow line. This channel flow is southerly about 500 feet where it intercepts a channel from the 30 inch pipe from Redlands Avenue. Approximately 600 feet of channel would have to be cleaned out to establish a gradient. The elevation drop over this reach of channel would only be V ±. If the channel were left unlined, frequent cleaning would be required to main- tain it. Construction of concrete lining or a covered conduit would be required to reduce the amount and frequency of maintenance cleaning. The estimated cost of initial channel cleaning is $30,000, and $120,000 is the cost estimated for construction of an underground conduit. If the construction of the drainage improvements were to be done in conjunction with development of the property, all or a portion of the costs would probably be the responsibility of the developer. However, this does not appear likely. The City of Costa Mesa had proposed a project to extend the existing 72-inch pipe 64 feet (estimated cost is $4,000), however due to the recent cha.nge in "'sphere of influence" of the area, work on the project has been suspended. It was indicated that the residents of the area have various ideas regarding what improvements should be installed, with one resident adamantly opposed to any change. It was further indicated that the project had been delayed due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary construction easements. If the Bay Knolls Area is to be annexed to the City, it can be expected that maintenance of drainage facilities - 10 - and correction of drainage problems will be significant burdens to the City. There will likely be considerable public pressure to "do something" about the drainage problems; there will be conflicting opinions as to what should be done; and corrective measures will be difficult and expensive. VI. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES A. SCHOOLS. This area is currently and will remain within the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. B. FIRE PROTECTION. Fire protection in this area is currently the responsibility of the County. If it is annexed, it would, of course, be served by the City. The Fire Chief has submitted the following report. "The major impact to the Fire Department and the citizens of Newport Beach as a result of the proposed annexation would be the 'increased possibility of delayed responses to the Northern and Western sectors of the City. "The Bay Knolls area would be served by the Mariners Fire Station #6, at 1348 Irvine Avenue. This station has one pumper truck with 3 men and response to first alarms in the area bounded on the south by West Coast Highway, Bristol Street on the north, the existing Newport Beach City boundary on the west and the Upper Bay on the east. In addition, they also respond as the second unit to the West Newport area. The second unit to respond to the northern sector is the Lido Fire Station #2 at 475 32nd Street. "When these units respond to either the northern or western sectors, they are out of position to respond to additional emergencies, resulting in considerable delay should this occur. "We have, for several years, proposed the building of a fire station in the northern section of Newport Beach to overcome this problem. As more annexations and develop- ments occur in this area, this situation becomes more critical. The Bay Knolls Annexation would not'be respon- sible for this situation. However, any calls generated in this annexation would increase the likelihood of problems occurring in responses to fire and medical aid calls in the northern or western sectors of the City." C. POLICE PROTECTION. Police protection is currently provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The Police Department has contacted the Sheriff's Department and discussed potential problems in the area. They conclude that police service could be provided to this area without any additional men or equipment. - 12 - D. LIBRARY. While this area is outside the City Limits, the residents already receive free library service through a cooperative agreement called the Santiago Library System. E. GENERAL SERVICES. City services such as street maintenance, storm drain maintenance, street sweeping, and refuse col- lection are currently provided by various special districts or by the County. If this area is annexed, these services would be provided by the General Services Department. VII. COST -REVENUE ANALYSIS The assessment of the costs and revenues which will be generated from this annexation is extremely difficult. Because the annexation of -this area represents a relatively small incremental addition to the City, many of the sources of revenues and most of the normal operating costs of the City will not be affected. Based on current assessed values, and the existing development, this area can be expected to generate approximately $212000.00 in annual revenues from property taxes and state subventions. In addition, the annexation of this area would generate a one- time revenue of $26,000.00 in Annexation fees (based on $200.00 per dwelling unit). The costs to the City of providing services to this area are more difficult to calculate. An analysis of the costs of those - 13 - services which would be provided directly to this area indicates that the annual costs would be approximately $14,800.00. These are broken down as follows: Police $ 29500.00 Fire 3,800.00 Parkway Tree Maintenance 1,125.00 Street Maintenance 800.00 Street Lighting 19800.00 Sewers 1,700.00 Street Sweeping 500.00 Trash Collection 2,600.00 $14,825.00 There are many administrative costs in the total operation of the City which would not be increased by a measurable amount as a result of the annexation. A proportional allocation of these costs has not been made since they will remain substan- tially the same in any case. In addition to these annual operating costs the City would assume responsibility for capital improvements to the street system of approximately $30,000.00 and may assume responsibility for up to $120,000.00 to correct the existing drainage problems. Furthermore, if in the future the City annexed other areas within the county corridor, the City may have to increase personnel and/or equipment in order to maintain a high level - 14 - of services. An example of this kind of expense is fire protection. The Fire Department has indicated that they can provide fire protection to this annexation with their exist- ing facilities, but that future annexations may necessitate the construction of a new fire station. VIII. ANALYSIS OF CITY COUNCIL'S ANNEXATION POLICIES 1. PUBLIC REACTION. The proponents of this annexation state that most of the residents are in favor of this annexation. Based on the feelings of the people in the area, the Local Agency Formation Commission has amended the City's sphere of influence to include this area. 2. OVER -LAPPING TAXATION. This annexation would not create any major problems of over -lapping taxation. Formal action will have to be taken to de -annex portions of this area from the Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12. In addition, steps would have to be taken to eliminate the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's fees for refuse collection. 3. DUPLICATION. This annexation would not cause any duplica- tion of services. As this and other areas of the County corridor are annexed to either Newport Beach or Costa Mesa, the need for County services, particularly police and fire protection would be eliminated. • 4. CITY STANDARDS. The existing land uses and public improvements within this area are generally well maintained and with the exceptions discussed previously, there will be no need to bring the area up to City standards. 5. TAX BASE. This area is entirely residential and does not contain any high revenue producing improvements. - 16 - 6. PLANNING. This area was not included in the City's General Plan. However, the annexation would not cause any substantial changes in the General Plan Policies and implementation programs. 7. TRANSPORTATION. This annexation would not affect the circulation system in the area. B. BOUNDARIES. This annexation would represent a deviation from the previously accepted boundary of Tustin Avenue. However, there are no major man-made or natural physical boundaries in this area. 9. SAFETY. This annexation and the remainder of the County corridor are served by the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the Orange County Fire Department. Because of the location of this area, either of the adjacent cities would provide more effective and efficient police and fire protection. 10. SERVICES. This annexation would eliminate a portion of the County corridor and thereby create more logical service boundaries. However, the area would continue to be served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. The area would remain in the Newport Mesa School District. - 17 - 11. HOMOGENEITY. This area is developed with single family 12 13. 14. homes which are similar to adjacent developments in Newport Beach. The proponents have submitted information which shows that many of the people in this area currently shop and work within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, many of these people are currently using public facilities such as libraries and parks. CONTROL. This area is zoned for and developed with single family dwellings and it seems likely that any future devel- opment would be of a similar nature regardless of whether or not the area is annexed. The City would probably incur the costs of correcting the existing drainage problems. PUBLIC FACILITIES. This annexation would not provide any opportunity for public facilities. ELIMINATION. Generally, there are no existing or potential land uses which could be considered blighting or deteriorating with the exception of the open drainage channel. This annexation would give the City the ability, but also the responsibility, to eliminate this problem. 15. PRECLUSION. There is no possibility of this area incorporating as a separate city. .I 16. IMAGE. This area has no exceptional characteristics, although it appears to be a very pleasant residential neighborhood. 17. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. A. OPERATING COSTS. This area would produce approximately $21,000.00 in revenues and require approximately $14,800.00 in direct service costs. B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. The annexation of this area could commit the City to capital expenditures of apprbximately $150,000.00. C. ANNEXATION FEES. This annexation would generate a one-time revenue of $26,600.00 for the Building Excise Tax Fund. IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Bay Knolls area is an established residential neighborhood which was developed in the County and which has, until recently, been within Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. The majority of the residents of the Bay Knolls Area have expressed a desire to annex to the City of Newport Beach. The Local Agency Formation Commission, responding to this desire, has amended the City's sphere of influence to include the Bay Knolls Area. - 19 - Approval of this annexation could lead to future changes to our sphere of influence and additional requests for annexation within the "County Corridor" area. The cost of providing services will generally exceed the revenues which can be expected from this area and, in addition, the City can expect pressure from the residents to improve the drainage in the northerly portion. This could cost as much as $120,000.00. However, many of the residents currently associate with the City of Newport Beach in terms of employment, shopping, and recreational interests and have expressed a strong desire to become part of our community. APPENDIX A - Report from Local Agency Formation Commission. APPENDIX B - Statement from Residents of Bay Knolls. - 20 - 0 A, CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE-CHAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC I ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT I DONALD A. MOHNIS COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DONALD J_ SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY of TUSTIN I ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT A LTEflNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH • COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION August 8, 1974 Local Agency Formation Commission County Administration Building Santa Ana, California In Re: Review of the adopted spheres o cities of Costa Mesa and Newpor unincorporated area between the Mesa and Newport Beach south of Gentlemen: ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: E34-2239 AREA CODE,714 __1 t f influence of the Beach in the, cities of Costa Mesa Drive On June 25, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission determined that the common boundary between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach would be Tustin -Irvine Avenue beginning at a point northerly of 20th Street and extending northerly to Palisades Road (now Bristol Street), provided, however that the area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street designated as the "Clear Zone" be excluded from future annexations to either city. This determination had been preceeded by a study and a public hearing at which representatives of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and the general public presented information and arguments relative to the boundary line. The decision at that time was based on what the Commission considered to be good planning area boundaries based on the land -uses and services existing in the area. li 1 I . , ft In the past the "Corridor Area" has been the subject of controversy over annexations initiated by the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In June, 1969, three such annexations were before the Commission; the Backbay Annexa- tion No. 1 to the City of Costa Mesa (40 acres); La.Canada Annexation No. 67 (23 acres) and west Santa Ana Heights Annexation No. 63 (89 acres) to the City of Newport Beach. Paco 2 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the +• unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive These three annexations were located generally,.south of Bristol Street between Santa Ana Avenue on the west and Irvine Avenue and Birch Street on the east. The City of Newport Beach's La Canada Annexation No. 67,overlapped the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. I proposal on its eastern half, west of Irvine Avenue. The third annexa- tion proposal, Newport Beach's west Santa Ana Heights Annexa- tion No. 63 was generally bounded by Bristol.Street on the north, Orchard and Mesa Drive on the south, Santa Ana . Avenue on the west and Acacia Street on the east. In order to resolve the boundary disputes in this area, the Commission suggested that the representatives of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa meet with the Commission staff and attempt to come to an agreement on boundaries in the Santa Ana Heights area to avoid future overlapping and controversial annexations. Meetings were held with representatives of the two cities. The LAFC staff supported Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the most logical dividing line between the two cities. Staff based its position on a combination man-made and natural features that exist in the area and what would be considered good planning area boundaries based on existing land uses. To further substantiate the reasoning for establishing the boundaries along Tustin -Irvine Avenue, staff initiated research to study the previous annexations by both cities in this area. Such data revealed that Tustin -Irvine Avenue had been used as an annexation boundary by both cities on ten separate occasions. Consistent with the determination to make Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the ultimate boundary between the two cities,the Commission then took action on the three pending annexations as previously listed, by denying the two Newport Beach Annexations lying west of Tustin -Irvine Avenue and approving the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. 1. Backbay Annexation No. 1 was later turned down by the inhabitants for annexation to the City of Costa Mesa, by an election that was held in the area.e Page 3 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive On June 13, 1973, the Commission reaffirmed its,position of Jude 25, 1969, by officially placing the unincorporated territory in this area designated as the "Corridor Area" in the City of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. . On September 12, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on a partial sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach involving territory in the north and west areas of Newport Beach. During the hearing on September 12th, the residents of the "Bay Knolls" area sub- mitted petitions requesting the Commission to exclude their area from the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa and to designate the territory as being within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. Also, during this hearing there was a difference of opinion between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach over territory known as the "Banning Area" in west Newport Beach. The Commission directed the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to -meet and discuss the "Banning Area" and to report back to the Commission at their meeting of November 28, 19732 with a possible acceptable solution to the boundary problem in that area. Also at this time the Commission directed staff to place the reconsideration of the Costa Mesa sphere of influence as it related to the "Corridor Area",on the agenda for November 28, 1973. After presentations by property owners in the "Bay'Knolls" area and a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding amending the spheres of influence in this area, the Commission moved to continue with other Commission business and leave the reconsideration of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence iri limbo pending an annexation request by the residents in the area. SUTMPLRY AND RECOMMEiVDATION " Prong the factors to be considered by the Commission in •. determining spheres of influence are the maximum possible Page LF In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach'in the s. unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive service areas of an agency based upon present and possible service capabilities, the range of services the agency is providing or could provide and the local governmental•agencies presently providing services to areas and the present level, range and adequacy of services. These issues have been discussed in the staff reports on the spheres of influence for Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and in the staff report on the pending annexation to the City of Newport Beach, therefore will not be summarized again at this.time. Also mentioned in the.summary and recommendation of the staff report on the pending annexation was the.existence' of social and economic interdependence and interaction between certain areas in'this unincorporated territory and adjoining jurisdictions, as well as the desires of the property owners, which could lend some credence to an amendment to the adopted spheres of influence in this area. Staff has reviewed'the June 16, 1969, report of the Inter -City Relations Committees of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, regarding their recommendations in the unincorporated area between the two cities along Tustin -Irvine Avenue from . Bay Street to Bristol Street.(formerly Palisades Road). The joint committees recognized that various possibilities existed for a future common boundary in this area and that more than one could be defended on the grounds of sound planning principle: The objective was to select a boundary that was logical in terms of land use, compatibility of neighborhoods,•and•the ultimate rendering of municipal services to the residents. Examples of alternative future boundaries were shown on a map accompanying the Inter -City Relations Committees' report for that area southerly of Mesa Drive. Tustin -Irvine Avenue or the rear property lines westerly thereof appeared to represent a more logical boundary than Santa Ana•Avenue. As previously stated, the decision of the Commission at that time was the ultimate boundary should be Tustin -Irvine Avenue. If the Commission takes action to amend the adopted spheres of 7=l RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE INHABITED TERRITORY ANNEXATION ACT OF 1913 TO BE KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO. 80 (BAY KNOLLS) WHEREAS, on July 22, 1974, the City Council adopted G 1 Resolution No. 8318 consenting to commencement of the Bay Knolls annexation procedures for the purpose of referring the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFC) for their review; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8318 the City Council expressly reserved the right to formally consent to the Bay Knolls annexation when it received the report back from LAFC; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 1974, LAFC adopted Resolution No. 74-99 approving the Bay Knolls annexation; and WHEREAS, on January 2, 1975, the Newport Beach Planning Commission discussed the subject annexation and has recommended to the City Council that the Bay Knolls area be annexed to the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, Section 35106 of the California Government Code requires that the consent of the City Council must be obtained before any proceedings are commenced for the annexation of territory to a city pursuant to the provisions of the Inhabited Territory Annexation Act of 1913; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to express its consent to the commencement of proceedings to annex the Bay Knolls area to the City of Newport Beach more specifically referred to as Annexation No. 80. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby consents to the commencement of proceedings to annex the Bay Knolls territory to the City of Newport Beach (known as Annexation No. 80) pursuant to the -1- 7 provisions of the Inhabited Territory Annexation Act of 1913. ATTEST: City Clerk L- ADOPTED this 27th day of January , 1975. Mayor 2237 Donnie Road Newport Beach, California 92660 January 21, 1975 Members of the City Council City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Lady and Gentlemen: As a resident of the area in the proposed Bay Knolls annexation, we ask for your favorable considera- tion of our annexation petition. Both of us have been very active in Newport's civic activities and we have long considered ourselves Newport Beach residents in substance if not in fact. Although neither of us will be able to attend your January 27 meeting, we favor annexation to the City of Newport Beach, along with the vast majority of the property owners in this area. Sincerely, A0141-11�� Patricia Krone /L 419v, Ro ert one G- 4-10r, O\ ✓ ��f~Y Cj p� y AN2� { Nei. airy aF 13jS► CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 28, 1975 TO: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: OPINION CONCERNING CITY'S LIABILITY - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The -study conducted by the Community Development Department for the Bay Knolls area reveals that there is a drainage problem. The Public Works Department has reviewed a number of alternatives and has estimated that a correction of the drainage problem could cost as much as $150,000. Therefore, I will need an opinion from you on the follow- ing question with the understanding that a) the water drainage problem has existed for many years; b) water drainage basin is on private property with no recorded public easements. Is the City assuming any legal lia- bility to maintain or provide drainage improvements in the subject Bay Knolls area? RLW:mm ROBE RT WYNN CC: vCommunity Development Director Public Works Director WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attention: City Attorney 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made this day of 1975, by the undersigned, hereinafter referred to as "Declarants": W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, there is pending before the Newport Beach City Council an annexation proceeding pursuant to the Inhabited Territory Annexation Act of 1913 known as the Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80; and WHEREAS, Declarants are some of the owners of certain real property located within the area of the proposed annexation more particularly described on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part herein by this reference, and which is depicted on the Assessor's Map attached to Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, an open unimproved natural drainage channel traverses the rear undeveloped area of Declarants' property for a total distance of approximately one thousand (1,000) feet, which drains generally easterly into Cherry Lake; and WHEREAS, said drainage channel is located entirely on private property over which no public rights or easements exist; and WHEREAS, said drainage channel is depicted on the attached map marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has found and determined that there is no legal responsibility on the part of the City,to maintain, repair or construct or install a 5C storm drain system in said drainage channel nor would the City be liable for any damage to persons or property caused by the improper maintenance of said drainage channel, or for allowing a dangerous condition or an attractive nuisance to exist thereon; and WHEREAS, in the event Said property is annexed to the City of Newport Beach, Declarants and the City desire to create certain covenants, conditions and restrictions which will be binding upon and run with said land. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarants hereby covenant, agree and declare that the property described hereinabove shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions. Furthermore, these covenants, conditions and restric- tions shall run with said real property and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the described real property or any part thereof and shall be in favor of and enforceable by the City of Newport Beach. I MAINTENANCE Declarants acknowledge that the City of Newport Beach has no right, duty or obligation to maintain or improve the subject drain- age channel nor is the City responsible for or obligated to construct or install a storm drainage system in said open drainage channel. The City shall not require Declarants or any of them to maintain or improve said drainage channel or to construct or install a drainage system in said open drainage channel. Except that the City may require such maintenance, improvement, construction or installation after a finding is made pursuant to law that said drainage channel constitutes a public nuisance. Nothing herein shall prevent or prohibit Declarants or any of them or another public agency from improving said drainage channel or constructing or installing a storm drainage system in said channel. -2- II LIABILITY Declarants acknowledge that the City of Newport Beach has no legal liability for damages to persons or property which might occur as a result of improper maintenance of said drainage channel or for permitting a dangerous condition to exist in connection therewith. III MMATTOM This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall remain in full force and effect for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the date of recordation or until Declarants and the City of Newport Beach agree to change or terminate said covenants, condi- tions and restrictions in whole or in part, whichever occurs first. These covenants, conditions and restrictions shall automatically terminate ipso facto and be of no further force and effect whatsoever if Annexation No. 80 does not become effective and the territory generally known as Bay Knolls is not annexed to the City of Newport Beach. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarants have executed this instrument the day and year first hereinabove written. Nicholas Angelo Elefther Juanita I. Elefther STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE )• On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and -3- L- acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State Delbert L. Warwick Veronica L. Warwick STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State John H. Coleman Sarah Beatrice Coleman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , known to me to be the 4 persorls whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State Donald W. Valdez Murella A. Valdez STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State James E. Todd Jeanne G. Todd STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared -5- and , known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State Ernestine R. Hagele Josephine K. Hagele STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Notary Public in and for said State CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: DONALD A. McINNIS Mayor Y EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSOR'S BOOK 119 NAME ADDRESS BLOCK 294 PARCEL Nicholas Angelo Elefther South of 2356 Redlands 11 and 28 and Juanita I. Elefther Redlands Delbert L. Warwic and Veronica L. ' John H. Coleman and Sarah Beatril Donald W. Valdez and Murella A. V James E. Todd and Jeanne G. To, Josephine K. Hage, and Ernestine R. James E. Todd and Jeanne G. Toi Josephine K. Hage. and Ernestine R. ns-29 38 i i SANTA AVENUE 4 i ® TRAC I I TR4 " TRACTI I •«•• ; 15 16 I7 o71 I Y9 28 it 26 a' O I ® z PEACH TREE LANE: O x x iB 2ga4 � 3 --- �—.b -- T y C4 rol.O car ro! , r — ti M or /as O y ----- A4 CHERRY TREZ�LANE ��• ~ L tl N mAc. .. 3062 — �• 33 : i .,• Q II i N0.300 14 NO..300 33 MARCH /957 TR.NO.. 300 M_M./4-//,/2 NOTE- ASSESSORS BLOCK Q ASSESSOR'S MAP CDTR. NO..3062 M.M. 92-/9,20 PARCEL NUMBERS ROOK 119 PAGE 29 MARCH /974 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COMM OF ORANGE Vo 23 Sa J SONVIG3 Z I I�-i 1C -9 111 ■I�Ip � FA -- ds�w miso� �oL •tcnrg 1 .... MbPMxYr:M1 ♦ V V „a„ S I H I x x 3 NOi1v,?Cq " 511O1q)i ),Vg crasodO63 0 Z .4 A xStlHlk. :dVOL^,tA m .YRtS+3iA .ylSN +K`SIK' � ry}y, .idtrTj`t1t iylYJL4V:: iR'L+AYt ':51(itDKCl. o9SITYcS'f ';u '. . vil8r iYfr� H�JIVA as SONVIOMI-. , �:ivAYnuriu +r.�4 i MTVjaga gz.ftM—g . PIMA 1 ` ,R , ♦ � 1 �l N ♦ a MLINMh.M%N. ♦ v „a„ s r a z x x a NOIjd-A914" Si'101%�j Lvq U3S06063 City Council Meetfng January 27, 1975 January 23, 1975 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ZONE: REQUESTED BY: Introduction Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development the G-1 Request to annex 46 acres generally bounded by Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue on the east, Twenty-second Street on the south and Santa Ana Avenue on the west. R-1 (County) Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al. On January 2, 1975, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with the Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80, and at the same time pursue further investigation of the drainage problem including any possible liability on the part of the City of Costa Mesa. This recommendation was made after the staff advised the Commission that final City Council action would not occur until after the election. It is the hope of the Planning Commission that a reso- lution of the drainage problem will occur prior to final City Council action on the annexation. A copy of the full annexation report is attached, including an analysis of the City Council's Annexation Policies. Brief History July 22, 1974. The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 8318 consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation pro- ceedings. At the same time, however, the City Council reserved the right to make the final decision on the annexation until after LAFCO made their determination. August 14, 1974. LAFCO adopted Resolutions 74-99 and 74-100, approving the Bay'Knolls Annexation with the condition that pro- perties currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12 be detached, and changing the boundaries of the "sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls Area. September 30, 1974. A formal request for annexation was filed with the Newport Beach City Council. The request was at this time referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. January 2, 1974. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80. Approximate Timetable for Remainder of Annexation Proceedings January 27, 1975 Council receives Planning Commission's report and adopts a reso- lution formally consenting to the commencement of annexation. (Section 35106, Government Code) TO: 0 City Council - 2. February 20, 1975 Proponents publish a Notice of Intention to Circulate a petition for annexation. (Section 35111, Government Code & Sections 4002, 4003, Elections Code) Within ten days after publication, proponents file with the City Clerk a copy of Affidavit of Publication and copy of Notice of Intention with accompanying statement. (Section 35112, Government Code) Within fifteen days of such filing, the Council may adopt a reso- lution acknowledging receipt of the notice and approving circula- tion of the petition. (Section 35113, Government Code) ?If the Council adopts the resolution, then the petition may circulated twenty-one days after publication of the Notice �J0Intention to Circulate. (Section 35114, Government Code) March 7, 1975 be of After petition signed by not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors residing within the territory is received, the City Clerk and County Clerk check the petition and certify to its sufficiency within two weeks. (Section 35116, Government Code) If the petition is sufficient, the City Clerk submits a Certificate of Sufficiency to the City Council within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. March, 1975 The City Council without delay passes a Resolution of Intention to call a special election and sets a public hearing date not less than fifteen nor more than forty days after passage of the Reso- lution of Intention. (Sections 35116, 35118, Government Code) The City Clerk causes a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing and mails written notice of the proposed annexation not less than twenty days before the hearing to each owner of equitable or legal interest in land within the territory to be annexed who has filed with the City Clerk. (Section 35119, Govern- ment Code) (NOTE: The City Council has the power to terminate the proceedings at any time prior to the date set for hearing. Section 35007, Government Code) April 14, 1975 City Council holds hearing; hears and passes upon all protests. (Section 35121, Government Code) If protests are filed by the ow the territory to be annexed, th If protests are filed which are proceedings, that hearing shall than ten days and supplemental period. (Sections 35120, 35121 April 28, 1975 Continued public hearing ners of one-half of the value of e proceedings shall be terminated. insufficient to terminate the be recessed -for a period not less protests may be filed within such , Government Code) At the closing of the hearing or within Council shall adopt a resolution finding or not a majority protest has been made. Government Code) thirty days thereafter, and determining whether (Section 35121.19 TO: City Council - 3. If the Council finds by resolution that a majority protest has been made, it may adopt a resolution terminating the proceedings. (Section 35122, Government Code Amended) If it finds that a majority protest has not been made, it shall call a special election for the next established election date not less than 74 days after termination of the hearing. (Section 35122, Government Code) Within five days after special election is called, the City Clerk on behalf of the Council submits, by registered mail, notification of the election to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. (Section 35124, Government Code Amended) Within five days after being notified, the Executive Officer of LAFCO submits to LAFCO for its approval or modification an impartial analysis of the proposed annexation. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) Within five days after receipt of Executive Officer's analysis, LAFCO approves or modifies and submits the analysis to the City Clerk. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) November 4, 1975 ELECTION DAY. November 10, 1975 If a majority of the votes cast is for annexation, the Council may approve the annexation by ordinance. (Section 35135, Government Code) The annexed territory is a part of the City from the date fixed by the Council in the Notice of Election, if such date is fixed, or if no date is fixed, frdm the date the City Clerk files the Affidavit of Completion and the Secretary of State's Certification with the County Recorder. (Section 35146, Government Code) Respectfully submit' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUI R. V. HOGAN, Directs By 6464;6 /C R BERT P. LENARI Associate Plann, RPL/kk Attachment for Coun Unincorporated r- City Council Meeting January 27, 1975 January 23, 1975 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ZONE: REQUESTED BY Introduction Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development es G-1 Request to annex 46 acres generally bounded by Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue on the east, Twenty-second Street on the south and Santa Ana Avenue on the west. R-1 (County) Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al. On January 2, 1975, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with the Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80, and at the same time pursue further investigation of the drainage problem including any possible liability on the part of the City of Costa Mesa. This recommendation was made after the staff advised the Commission that final City Council action would not occur until after the election. It is the hope of the Planning Commission that a reso- lution of the drainage problem will occur prior to final City Council action on the annexation. A copy of the full annexation report is attached, including an analysis of the City Council's Annexation Policies. Brief History July 22, 1974. The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 8318 consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation pro- ceedings. At the same time, however, the City Council reserved the right to make the final decision on the annexation until after LAFCO made their determination. August 14, 1974. LAFCO adopted Resolutions 74-99 and 74-100, approving the Bay Knolls Annexation with the condition that pro- perties currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12 be detached, and changing the boundaries.of the "sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls Area. September 30, 1974. A formal request for annexation was filed with the Newport Beach City Council. The request was at this time referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. January 2, 1974. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they proceed with Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80. Approximate Timetable for Remainder of Annexation Proceedings January 27, 1975 Council receives Planning Commission's report and adopts a reso- lution formally consenting to the commencement of annexation. (Section 35106, Government Code) TO: City Council - 2. February 20, 1975 Proponents publish a Notice of Intention to Circulate a petition for annexation. (Section 35111, Government Code & Sections 4002, 4003, Elections Code) Within ten days after publication, proponents file with the City Clerk a copy of Affidavit of Publication and copy of Notice of Intention with accompanying statement. (Section 35112, Government Code) Within fifteen days of such filing, the Council may adopt a reso- lution acknowledging receipt of the notice and approving circula- tion of the petition. (Section 35113, Government Code) If the Council adopts the resolution, then the petition may be circulated twenty-one days after publication of the Notice of Intention to Circulate. (Section 35114, Government Code) March 7, 1975 After petition signed by not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors residing within the territory is received, the City Clerk and County Clerk check the petition and certify to its sufficiency within two weeks. (Section 35116, Government Code) If the petition is sufficient, the City Clerk submits a Certificate :of Sufficiency to the City Council within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. March 10, 1975 The City Council without delay passes a Resolution of Intention to call a special election and sets a public hearing date not less than fifteen nor more than forty days after passage of the Reso- lution of Intention. (Sections 35116, 35118, Government Code) The City Clerk causes a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing and mails written notice of the proposed annexation not less than twenty days before the hearing to each owner of equitable or legal interest in land within the territory to be annexed who has filed with the City Clerk. (Section 35119, Govern- ment Code) (NOTE: The City Council has the power to terminate the proceedings at any time prior to the date set for hearing. Section 35007, Government Code) April 14, 1975 City Council holds hearing; hears and passes upon all protests. (Section 35121, Government Code) If protests are filed by the owners of one-half of the value of the territory to be annexed, the proceedings shall be terminated. If protests are filed which are insufficient to terminate the proceedings, that hearing shall be recessed -for a period not less than ten days and supplemental protests may be filed within such period. (Sections 35120, 35121, Government Code) April 28, 1975 Continued public hearing At the closing of the hearing or within thirty days thereafter, Council shall adopt a resolution finding and determining whether or not a majority protest has been made. (Section 35121.1, Government Code) TO: City Council - 3. If the Council finds by resolution that a majority protest has been made, it may adopt a resolution terminating the proceedings. (Section 35122, Government Code Amended) If it finds that a majority protest has not been made, it shall call a special election for the next established election date not less than 74 days after termination of the hearing. (Section 35122, Government Code) Within five days after special election is called, the City Clerk on behalf of the Council submits, by registered mail, notification of the election to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. (Section 35124, Government Code Amended) Within five days after being notified, the Executive Officer of LAFCO submits to LAFCO for its approval or modification an impartial analysis of the proposed annexation. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) Within five days after receipt of Executive Officer's analysis, LAFCO approves or modifies and submits the analysis to the City Clerk. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) November 4, 1975 ELECTION DAY. November 10, 1975 If a majority of the votes cast is for annexation, the Council may approve the annexation by ordinance. (Section 35135, Government Code) The annexed territory is a part of the City from the date fixed by the Council in the Notice of Election, if such date is fixed, or if no date is fixed, fr6m the date the City Clerk files the Affidavit of Completion and the Secretary of State's Certification with the County Recorder. (Section 35146, Government Code) Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By 644h /0 � R BERT P. LENARD Associate Planner RPL/kk Attachment for Council Only: Unincorporated Urban Area Study - Bay Knolls G Gt�NT% a °3 � � I scuaoL vQi GOsn u2t E.///Z PZ'. \fY4ESq u/. Q of COUNTY f*z, ' NEINZE .tee% ,Y ti Lo ruE�o ,. Lr eer sr s;E?.tT sr m 0 � DYrc � L ' lC• \V Dy_ { �ie.i�ee%ve> p� INPR��j6 1 riVV k1Sr4 P,R/Vd7E QC roNs OR noro2 \ CENTEG La Pa. J ?p NEWPORT 8JE hV/NOWgRO LANE 1 on en NAY VRZOT J R\V. L.E Cd0 i A �' 1 3iW 'lAwl`i/Y II v- w 1� ^ y W 11su/vwdr�Q \\moo 7 PROPOSE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Bay Knolls ANNEXATION COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL �N T v� N12 ��F January 27, 1975 INDEX 3. A letter from Paul J. Gruber was presented resigning Bicentennial from the Bicentennial Citizens Advisory Committee. Citizens Adv Comte The resignation of Paul J. Gruber (District 1) was Motion x accepted with regret; and Councilman Barrett's Ayes C x x x x (District 3) appointment of Pat Cleary as an alternate Absent x N on the Bicentennial Citizens Advisory Committee was confirmed. 4. Councilman Rogers (District 1) appointment of Margaret Envorommntl Stivers as a member of the Environmental Quality Qual Control Control Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Ellis Citizens Motion x Glazier, who had resigned, was confirmed; and Council- Adv Comte Ayes K x x x x man Ryckoff's (District 5) appointment of Steven Absent x 3 Donaldson as a member of the Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee to replace Dr. Cotman, who had resigned, was confirmed. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Development Annex 80 Department regarding request of Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al., to annex forty-six acres generally bounded by Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue on the east, Twenty -Second Street on the south and Santa Ana Avenue on the west, zoned R-1 by County; designated Bay Knolls Annexation No. 80. A letter from Pat and Robert Krone was presented in favor of the Bay Knolls Annexation. Erwin de Mocskonyi and Bob Carolan addressed the Council regarding the drainage problem Resolution No. 8422, consenting to the commencement R-8422 of annexation proceedings pursuant to the Inhabited Motion K Territory Annexation Act of 1913 to be known as Ayes K X x x Annexation No. 80 (Bay Knolls), was adopted; and the Noes x staff was instructed to report back to the Council at Absent x N the February 10 Study Session. 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Director Alley regarding alley paving in Block 3, East Newport (City Paving block bounded by Balboa Boulevard, Bay Avenue, 6th Street and Island Avenue). Motion The staff was directed to notify owners of property Ayes x x x x in Block 3, East Newport, to construct a portland Absent x X cement concrete alley, using the procedure found in Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911. 3. A report was presented from the Community Development General Department regarding the Planning Commission's con- Plan sideration of setting public hearings for requested Amendments amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan. Motion x The Planning Commission's decision that a public Ayes C x x x x hearing is unwarranted on the proposed amendment to Absent x N the General Plan for the Lido Peninsula was upheld. Volume 29 - Page 20 dj ��t 1 January 10, 1975 Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Dear Sirs: As president of the Newport Upper Bay Estates Homeowners Asso- ciation I recently received your notice regarding the annexation of Bay Knolls. This information was greatly appreciated. Is there a mailing list that we could be put on that would give us even more information relevant to similar matters like trails) zoning hearings in our area etc. bike. Thank you for your help, Taylor Grant 2261 Golden Circle Newport Beach, Calif. �gW PORT Q O °� Department of Community Development Cq:IFpR�`P DATE: January 7, 1975 TO: City Manager FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Cost/Revenue Study for Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation The attached charts have been prepared to provide additional information on the potential costs and revenues from the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation. The "Annual Differentiable Costs and Revenues chart summarizes the estimated costs and revenues which can be allocated directly to the area to be annexed. This chart is based on the differentiable costs and revenues identified in the City's Cost/Revenue System. The "Annual Costs and Revenues" chart summarizes the estimated costs and revenues which are derived from the City-wide Cost/Revenue System, which includes both differentiable and non -differentiable sources. The basic difference between these two approaches is that the --- firs:t"-inethod considers only those expenditures and revenues which ..eon be directly attributed to the area on a per unit basis, while the second method, in addition to the direct costs and revenues, q.11-ucates a proportional share of all indirect non -differentiable "'costs and revenues. The'first method indicates that this area would generate a surplus of revenues over expenditures, excluding capital improvements, of approximately $10,600 per year. The second method indicates that' the cost of providing services to this area would exceed revenues by approximately $55,000 per year. Clearly, there is a significant difference between these two approaches. There are two basic problems encountered in the analysis of expen- ditures for City services. The first of these is that City services and expenditures do not expand at an even rate in relationship to growth, and the second results from the difficulty in assigning various expenditures to different types of land use on an equitable basis. Many City costs grow incrementally with increases in the size of the City. Far example, a fire company may be needed to serve 5,000 people but an additional fire' company will not be needed until the area served exceeds 20,000 people. A police patrol may be able to serve 200 homes, but would also be needed for 50. A library is needed for a town of 15,000, but an additional branch may not be appropriate until the population reaches 40,000. There are, however, some increases in costs with any growth. There is increased mileage TO: City'Manager - 2. January 7, 1975 and added hours for street sweeping, additional mileage for police patrol, added garbage pick-up, etc. These are the costs that have been shown in the "Annual Differentiable Costs and Revenues." This is the'actual cost/revenue effect of the annexation of the Bay Knolls Area. However, as the City grows, somewhere along th-e line there will be an appreciable incremental increase in costs. This is the reason an overall analysis is necessary to determine the relative share of the total cost/revenue pie due to each type of land use. In assigning costs to the various types of land use, it is sometimes necessary to make some fairly arbitrary decisions. An office tower, for example, has a much higher assessed value in relation to the area of land it occupies than a single-family residence. Also, larger and more expensive apparatus is needed for fire protection. At the same time, office buildings are usually occupied only eight hours a day and many of them have advanced fire protection devices such as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. The residence is occupied during sleeping hours and a fire may be even more dangerous to life than it would be in the tower. In making a cost analysis, it becomes necessary to use judgment in assigning the proper pro- portion of fire protection costs to property protection and to life protection. The cost/revenue analyses have been prepared.based on the City budget; the experience of.the departments and judgment in making cost/revenue allocations. They should be used as a guide and cannot be considered to be exact. RVH/kk BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION - ANNUAL DIFFERENTIABLE Costs & Revenues I Expenditures: A. Operating 1. Police $ 2,500 2. Parkway Tree Maintenance 1,125 3. Street Maintenance 800 4. Street Lighting 1,800 5. Sewers 1,700 6. Street Sweeping 500 7. Trash Collection 2,600 $ 11,025/year B. Capital Improvements (One Time) 1. 22nd Street. R-O-W acquisition and widening.. $ 10,000 2. Santa Isabel Avenue. R-O-W acquisition and widening...... 5,000 3. Street Deficiencies (general). Slurry seal and cross -gutter construction....... 159000 4. Drainage. Underground conduit:.... 120,000 $150,000 or $15,000/year for ten years. II Revenues: a 1. Property Tax $ 15,078 2. Motor Vehicle License 3,282 3. Gas Tax 2,986 4. Dog License 234 5. Cigarette Tax 85 $ 21,665 III Analysis of Typical Year's Cash Differ A. Expenditures 1. Operating $ 11,025 2. Capital Improvement 15,000 $ 26,025 B. Revenues Operating $'21,665 Net loss per year....... $4,360 - 1 - P IV BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION - ANNUAL DIFFERENTIABLE 'Costs & Revenues ical Year's Cash D A. Costs 1. Operating $ 11,025 2. Capital Improvement 0 $ 11,025 B. Revenues Operating $ 21,665 Net gain per year....... $ 10,640 1/7/75 kk - 2 - ., , Revenues City Property Tax State per Capita Subventions Share of Non -differentiable Total Revenues... 1 7.59 Acres 5,958 2,991 14,118 23,067 nnexation - Annual Cost 22.26 Acres 13,089 6,255 41,403 60,747 Costs Library 1,207 .2,538 Police 1,025 2,159 Park Maint. & Youth Rec. 858 1,803 Parkway Tree Maint. 433 1,091 Street Maint. 2,824 7,145 Street Lighting 380 779 Street Sweeping 99 245 Sewers Trash' 486 1,024 Collec_tl6n 1,381 i . Share'of Non -differentiable 2,894 23.316 Totallcosts... 68,383 32,009 - 88,061 *See Community Development Department Cost -Revenue I System Anne ues* 9.89 Acres 12000 r6 4,362 1,949 18,396 24,707 791 673 564 356 2,',344 257 79 316 900 30,382 36,662 al Net Loss 6.26 Acres 0000 cls 2,147 707 11,644 14,498 282 244 200 1-6 3 1,058 113 37 113 326 19,231 21,767 46 Acres Total 25,556 11,902 85,561 123,019 4,818 4,101 3,425 2,043 13,371 1,529 460 1,939 5,501 141,312 178,499 55,480 BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION - ANNUAL DIFFERENTIABLE Costs & Revenues I Expenditures: A. Operating 1. Police $ 2,500 2. Parkway Tree Maintenance 1,125 3. Street Maintenance 800 4. Street Lighting 1,800 5. Sewers 1,700 6. Street Sweeping 500 7. Trash Collection 2,600 $ 11,025/year B. Capital Improvements (One Time) 1. 22nd Street. R-O-W acquisition and widening.. $ 10,000 2. Santa Isabel Avenue. R-O-W acquisition and widening...... 5,000 3. Street Deficiencies (general). Slurry seal and cross -gutter construction....... 15,000 4. Drainage. Underground conduit..... 120,000 $150,000 or $15,000/year for ten years. II Revenues: 1. Property Tax $ 15,078 2. Motor Vehicle License 3,282 3. Gas Tax 2,986 4. Dog License 234 5. Cigarette Tax 85 $ 21,665 III Analysis of Typical Year's Ca S. A. Expenditures 1. Operating $ 11,025 2. Capital Improvement 15,000 $ 26,025 B. Revenues _ Operating $'21,665 Net loss per year....... $4,360 - 1 - 4' Revenues i City Property Tax State per Capita Subventions Share of Non -differentiable E µ :__• Total Revenues... 4' Costs Library Police Park Maint. & Youth-Rec. Parkway Tree Maint. Street Maint. #" Street Lighting I. Street Sweeping Sewers Trash;olle�ti6n Share f Non -differentiable r Total osts,.. *See Community Development Depi Bav Knolls Annexation - Annual Costs & Revenues* 7.59 Acres 22.26 Acres 9.89 Acres 9000 efa 12000 di 6.26 Acres 20000 th 46 Acres 5,958 13,089 4,362 2,147 25,556 2,991 6,255 1,949 707 11,902 14,118 41,403 •18,396 11,644 85,561 2.1,067 60,747 24,707 14,498 123,019 1,207 2,538 791 282 4,818 1,025 2,159 673 '244 4,101 858 1,803 564 200 3,425 433 1,091 356 163 2,043 2,824 7,145 2`;344, 1,058 13,371 . 380 779 257 113 1,529` 99 245 79 37 460 486 1,024 316 113 1,939 1,381 2,894 900 326 5,501 23,316 68,383 30,382 19,231 .141,312 32,009 88,061 36,662 21,767 178,499 Annual Net Loss,,, 55,480 trtment Cost -Revenge System Revenues City Property Tax j State per Capita Subventions Share of Non -differentiable Total Revenues... r � j` Costs 1•t i Library Police Park Maint. & YouW Rec. Parkway Tree Maint. Street Maint. Street Lighting Street Sweeping Sewers Trash Collection Share of Non -differentiable Total Costs... Bay Knolls Annexation - Annual Costs & Revenues* 7.59 Acres 1 22.26 Acres 5,958 13,089 2,991. 6,255 14,118 41,403 23',067 60,747 1,207 2,538 1,025 2,159 858 1,803 433 1,091 2,824 7,145 380 779 99 245 486 1,024 1,381 2,894 23,316 68,383 32,009 88,061 *See Community Development Department Cost -Revenue System Ann 9.89 Acres 4,362 1,949 '18,396 24,707 791 673 564 356 2;344- 257 79 316 900 30,382. 36,662 ual Net Loss... 6.26 Acres 2,147 707 11,644 14,498 282 244 200 163 1,058 113 37 113 326 19'.231 121,767 46 Acres Total 25,556 11,902 85,561 123,019 4,818 4,101 3,425 2,043 13,371 1,529 460 1,939 5,501 141.312 178,499 55,480 z Revenues City Property Tax State per Capita Subventions Share of Non -differentiable Total Revenues... IF Costs i Library Police s' Park Maint. & Youth-Rec. Parkway Tree Maint. Street Maint. Street Lighting Street Sweeping Sewers Trash Cojle�ti6n Share pf Non -differentiable Total Costs... ` *See Cpmmunity Development Depi Bay Knolls Annexation - Annual Costs & Revenues* 7.59 Acres 6000 d3 22.26 Acres 9.89 Acres .:9000 qb 12000 eb 6.26 Acres 46 Acres 5,958 13,089 4,362 2,147 25,556 2,991 6,255 1,949 707 11,902 14,118 41,403 -18,396 11,644 85,561 Z3,067 60,747 24,707 14,498 123,019 1,207 2,538 1,025 2,159 858 1,803 433 1,091 2,824 7,145 380 779 99 245 486 1,024 1,381 2,894 23,316 68,383 32.009 88,061 trtment Cost -Revenue System 791 673 564 356 21; 344, 257 79 316 0 900 30,382 36,662 Annual Net Loss... 282 244 200 163 1,058 113 37 113 326 19.231 1 21,767 4,818 4,101 3,425 2,043� 13,371 1,529` 460 1,939 5,501 141,312 178,499 55,480 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Department of Community Development January 7, 1975 City Manager Department of Community Development Cost/Revenue Study for Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation The attached charts have been prepared to provide additional information on the potential costs and revenues from the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation. The "Annual Differentiable Costs and Revenues" chart summarizes the estimated costs and revenues which can be allocated directly to the area, to be annexed. This chart is based on the differentiable costs and revenues identified in the City's Cost/Revenue System. The "Annual Costs and Revenues" chart summarizes the estimated costs and revenues which are derived from the City-wide Cost/Revenue System, which includes both differentiable and non -differentiable sources. The basic difference between these first method considers only those can be directly attributed to the the second method, in addition to allocates a proportional share of costs and revenues. two approaches is that the expenditures and revenues which area on a per unit basis, while the direct costs and revenues, all indirect non -differentiable The first method indicates that this area would generate a'surplus of revenues over expenditures, excluding capital improvements, of approximately $10,600 per year. The second method indicates that the cost of providing services to this area would exceed revenues by approximately $58,000 per year. Clearly, there is a significant difference between these two approaches. There are two basic problems encountered in the analysis of expen- ditures for City services. The first of these is that City services and expenditures do not expand at an even rate in relationship to growth, and the second results from the difficulty in assigning various expenditures to different types of land use on arr equitable, basis. Many City costs grow incrementally with increases in the size of the City. For example, a fire company may be needed to serve 5,000 people but an additional fire company will not be needed until the area served exceeds 20,000 people. A police patrol may be able to serve 200 homes, but would also be needed for 50. A library is needed for a town.of 15,000, but an additional branch may not be appropriate until the population reaches 40,000. There are, however, some increases in -costs with any growth. There is increased mileage TO: City'Manager - 2. January 7, 1975 and added hours for street sweeping, additional mileage for police patrol, added garbage pick-up, etc. These are the costs that have been shown in the "Annual Differentiable Costs and Revenues." This is the actual cost/revenue effect of the annexation of the Bay Knolls Area. However, as the City grows, somewhere along the line there will be an appreciable incremental increase in costs. This is the reason an overall analysis is necessary to determine the relative share of the total cost/revenue pie due to each type of land use. In assigning costs to the various types of land use, it is sometimes necessary to make some fairly arbitrary decisions. An office tower, for example, has a much higher assessed value in relation to the area of land it occupies than a single-family residence. Also, larger and more expensive apparatus is needed for fire protection. .At the same time, office buildings are usually occupied only eight hours a day and many of them have advanced fire protection devices such as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. The residence is occupied during sleeping hours and a fire may be even more dangerous to life than it would be in the tower. In making a cost analysis, it becomes. necessary to use judgment in assigning the proper pro- portion of fire protection costs to property protection and to life protection. The cost/revenue analyses have been prepared .based on the City budget•,• the experience of.the departments and judgment in making cost/revenue allocations. They should be used as a. guide and cannot be considered to be exact. RVH/kk BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION - ANNUAL DIFFERENTIABLE Costs & Revenues I Expenditures: A. Operating _. 1. Police $ 2,500 2. Parkway Tree Maintenance 1,125 3. Street Maintenance 800 4. Street Lighting 1,800 5. Sewers 1,700 6. Street Sweeping 500 7. Trash Collection 2,600 $ 11,025/year B. Capital Improvements (One Time) 1. 22nd Street. R-O-W acquisition and widening....... $ 10,000 2. Santa Isabel Avenue. R-O-W acquisition and widening...... 5,000 3. Street Deficiencies (general). Slurry seal and cross -gutter construction....... .15,000 4. Drainage. Underground conduit..... 120,000 $150,000 or $15,000/year for ten years. I1 Revenues: 1. Property Tax $ 15,078 2. Motor Vehicle License 3,282 3. Gas Tax 2,986 4. Dog License 234 5. Cigarette Tax 85 $ 21,665 III Analysis of Typical Year's Cash Differentiable A. Expenditures 1. Operating $ 11,025 2. Capital Improvement 15,000 B. Revenues Operating IV BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION - ANNUAL DIFFERENTIABLE Costs & Revenues ical Year's Cash D A. Costs 1. Operating 2. Capital Improvement B. Revenues Operating 1/7/75 kk Net gain per year....... - 2 - $ 11,025 0 $ 11>025 -$ 21,665 $ 10,640 Bay Knolls Annexation - Annual Costs & Revenues* 7.59 Acres 6000,0 22.26 Acres :-,9000 sta 9.89 Acres 12000 ¢2 6.26 Acres 20000 t#i 46 Acres Total Revenues City Property Tax 5,958 13,089 4,362 2,147 25,556 State per Capita Subventions 2,991 6,255 1,949 707 11,902 Share of Non -differentiable 14,118 41,403 18,396 11,644 85,561 Total Revenues... i 23,067 60,747 24,707 14,498 123,019 Costs Library 1,207 2,538 791 282 4,818 Police 1,025 2,159 673 244 4,101 P-ark Maint. & Youth Rec. 858 1,803 564 200 3,425 Parkway Tree Maint. 433 11091 356 163 2,043 Street Maint. 2,824 7,145 2r,344 1,058 13,371 Street Lighting 380 779 257 113 1,529 Street Sweeping 99 245 79 37 460 Sewers 486 1,024 316 113 1,939 Trash Collection 1,381 2,894 900 326 5,501 Share of Non -differentiable 23,316 68,383 30,382 19,231 141,312 Total Costs... 32,009 88;061 36,662 21,767 178,49-9 Annual Net Loss... j 55,480 *See Community Development Department Cost -Revenue System Daily Pilot' Monday January 6, 1975 Planners Su pport "ay molls Annex lit Comm ssi The nose ort mmendstl Planning all about:. Commissioner: the city council approve annexa• James Parker said to conclude tionoftheBayKnollsarea. the debate. Should the council follow the Parker's comment drew ap• commission's advice, phase one plause from the Bay Knolls r esr- Iin the annexation of pan unin- dents in the audience. corporated residential area that Included in a staff report given was once designated as within to the commissioners for study Costa Mesa's sphere of influence 1eas a copy of a resident• I would be complete. prepared survey that was sub- But including the 46-acre area witted fteto the LAID C in 1973, short. Containing 133 homes in Newport within Costa placed Bay sphere of in Beach city limits would not be a fluence, cYTorfact until an annexatipn election According to the report, a Sur - is uthorized by the Local Agen 'Vey of the residents showed they , mationCommission. .1 , Then, a majority of the voters Overwhelmingly Opposed any in the area bounded by Tustin connectionwitliCostalMesa." a I Avenue on the east and Santa The same survey indicated Ana Avenue on the west musta, that 1076f 110ltgm erIpoiied prove the annexation. "favored annexation to Newport It was the issue of the resi• Beach." dents' apparent desire to cast their lot with Newport Beach , rather than Costa Mesa that wrapped up the commission's de- bate on the controversial annexa• ition last week. "It seems tp be what the -people lltBAY Knolls residents) 'want. nd, after all, isn't that what it's Daily Pilot Thursday January 2, 1975 $ay nulls An' n x � Eyed by Planners I Newport Beach planning com- missioners will have their say tonight in a long-standing boun- I dary dispute between their city and Costa Meta. The commissioners voice will come in Oleforplof a recommen- I dati o the, city council on the L=6r r%xing the 46 acres known as Bay Knolls. Located in the so-called "unin• corporated corridor" that separates Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in the Tustin -Irvine Avenue area, Bay Knolls was on- ce within Costa Mesa's sphere of d influence. However, a June 1973 poll con- ducted by interested' homeowners in the area showed that 107 of 132 of them favor•ed.an-: nexation to Newport Beach. The same poll showed "that a' k vast majority of Bay Knolls resi-1 (dents are bound in a socio- ieconomic sense to Newport Beach." According to the homeowners' +poll, 90 percent of the area's families shop inI Newport Beach, 40 percent of thel .families' breadwinners wor, there and 50 carry cards issued; by the city's library system. As a result of the homeownersi poll and a subsequent petition en- dorsing `dorsing 'annexation to Newport f Beach, the Local Agency Formall tion last August removed Bay Knolls from Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. Should the planning com mission at its 7 o'clock meeting in city hall recommend that Bay KKnolls become a part of the city. Ithe proposed annexation• would i still have to win the coun cil and i �LAFC approval.th Then wgltltl;go . j3 @t @1r81 j Ensign_ Thursday January 2, 1975 f KNOLLSANNEX IS AIRED AGAIN. Residents of Bay Knolls, to annex, residents will get formal approval a community of about 150 have to families living in a county from ,the county's Local enclave betweenNewport and Agency Formation Cemmis- Costa Mesa, will try tonight, sion (LAFCO), and then for - Jan. 2, to Move a stepaloser mally vote on annexation, to annexation to Newport Newport City Attorney Den - Beach. nis O'Neil said this week. But, city planning experts, Costa Mesa city officials seeing plenty of obstacles in were angered last August the path to annexation, will, when LAFCO voted 3-2 .to make. no recommendation switch Bay Knolls, from Co-' when the city PlanningCom- sta Mesa's sphere of influ- mission takes up the contro- ence to that of Newport. versy tonight at City Hall. They claimed, and Newport Bay Knolls is bounded Mayor Donald McInnis roughly by Irvine and Santa agreed, that previous city Ana avenues, and Santa Isa- administrations had a bel and plannern Bill Foley said Bay d streets. lKnolls belonged g d to Coeement t yesterday he sees 3 major sta Mesa. Council obstacles confronting pro-, Newport's City annexation forces; gave its blessing, however,• * BOUNDARY dispute to the residents' succe sfui with Costa Mesa, which has move to get their sphere long expected to annex Bay of influence -changed. Knolls because of previous Bay Knolls homeowners' agreements between the 2 are expected to argue at cities. tonight's meeting that they * COST of city services bought their homes because to the area, which have been of the Newport mailing ad-1 estimated at $55,000 per dress, and that they have year more than the city would expected all along to be - collect in revenue from Bay come. a Part of Newport. Knows. I "We are worried," says * DRAINAGF problems, Mr. Foley, "about setting a caused by an open ditch, precedent that could lead to which could cost• as much more annexation requests as $120,000 to enclose, from residents of the county "On the plus side is the corridor. Our, city depart, apparent overwhelming de- ments tell us they can handle sire of the residents to join Bay • Knolls without adding, our city," admitted Mr. people or Foley. o lookuat the cumulae In a poir conducted by a tive effect of such annexa- homeowner group earlier tions. The next one might this year, Bay Knolls fam- be the one that would put us flies reportedly voted 107 in a position of needing a� to 25 for annexation to New. new fire truck, or other, pbrL manpower and equipment., If local Planning Commis- We must decide whether w% sinners and the City Council really want to extend our! spprora the Bay Knolls bid city across Tustin Ave.l + COMMISSIONERS *ITY OF NEWPORT BOCIA ROLL CALL MINUTES January 2, 1975 rut ; 4 Request to annex 46 acres generally bounded by Item #6 BAY Santa Isabel Avenue on the north, Tustin Avenue KNOLLS on the east, Twenty-second Street on the south and ANNEX. Santa Ana Avenue on the west. NO. 80 Zone: R-1 (County) RECOMMEND APP— R�TL— Requested by: Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al. Community Development Director Hogan advised that the Orange County General Plan included this area in its medium density residential district which allows development of 10 to 18 dwelling units per, acre or less and that the area in question includ- ed some undeveloped property which could be re- classified under County regulations. He also advised that a negative declaration was considered and approved by',LAFCO in connection with the area proposed to be annexed in compliance with Califor- nia State Law. Planning Commission discussed the cost -revenue analysis as to its application to this area and it was pointed out that with the exception of the drainage problem, the cost -revenue was the same for this area as that for other similarly develop- ed areas within the City. City Engineer Nolan commented on the drainage problem which exists in the area and advised that the drainage problem was quite severe and was not typical of the type of problems which were ordin- arily anticipated in areas proposed for annexation. He advised that there were some similarities to th drainage problem which exists in the Iris/Jasmine gully of Corona del Mar. The possibility of establishing a special district to take care of the drainage problem was discussed and it was pointed out that it is difficult to accomplish a special assessment district because of the difficulty in assessing the costs in accord- ance with the benefits received. Planning Commission discussed the various costs o maintaining the channel, basis for the assessed valuation of the homes, and possibility of further annexations in the area which may or may not be desirable. Page 11. *. COMMISSIONERS OITY OF NEWPORT BE#.8 m � MINUTES y January 2, 1975 INDEX KULL I.ALL I I I'& Environmental Coordinator Foley reviewed a map of the area indicating the County corridor as well as the existing boundaries of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Erwin de Mocskonyi, 345 Cherry Tree Lane, appeared before the Commission and commented on the annexa- tion as it related to market value of the homes and advised that the homes in the area under consideration have Newport Beach mailing addresses whereas other areas in the County corridor have Costa Mesa mailing addresses. He also commented on the drainage situation and the interest of people in the area to annex to the City of Newport Beach. James Todd, resident of 2390 Redlands Drive and owner of 2 lots on Santa Isabel which are affect- ed by the storm drain appeared before the Commis- sion and advised that he was assured by Costa Mesa that the storm drain in question would be extended beyond the first two lots and prior to the time the sphere of influence was changed they had planned to reconstruct the entire channel, however, they have since backed off the project. He advised that Costa Mesa had installed 88 feet of pipe for drainage on private property without obtaining an easement or right-of-way and were encroaching on his property. He advised of three letters received from Costa Mesa regarding their intent to correct the problem, however nothing has been done to date and felt that possibly they could be persuaded to continue their plan to correct the situation. City Engineer Nolan commented further on the drainage problem and advised that ordinarily public improvement problems were not significant enough to effect annexation -decisions, however, in this instance, a severe drainage problem exists and any recommendation regarding the annexation should be made with full knowledge of the magnitude of the drainage problem and the pressure which may be made on Newport Beach by the property owners to correct the situation. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of soliciting the cooperation of Costa Mesa in connection with the drainage problem and staff pointed out that this may be difficult to obtain because of their opposition to the change in sphere of influence by LAFCO and proposed annexa- tion. Page 12. COMMISSIONERS OZITY OF NEWPORT B41.CH • yOTy n,'v m£ mom � i ROLL CALL m January 2, 1975 MINUTES INDEX Erwin de Mocskonyi again appeared before the Commission and commented on the fact that storm water drains into Cherry Lake naturally, regard- less of whether the area is Orange County, Costa Mesa or Newport Beach. At this point there was a brief discussion relative to natural drainage and the laws governing same. Hugo Norr, 2285 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Commission to comment on water generated upstream and the natural drainage of the area. Staff advised the Commission that final approval and acceptance of the annexation remained with the City Council even after the election and there was the possibility that the annexation may be denied should studies and investigation indicate that the drainage problem was either insoluble or too expensive for the City to undertake. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made recommending Ayes X X X X X to the City Council that they proceed with Bay Noes X Knolls Annexation No. 80 and at the same time Absent X pursue further investigation of the drainage problem including any possible liability on the part of the City of Costa Mesa. Motion X There being no further business, motion was made Ayes X X X X X X to adjourn. Time: 10:20 P.M. Absent X JAMES M. PARKER, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 13. Planning Commission Meeting Jan. 2, 1975 Item No. 6 December 27, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ZONE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Request to annex 46 Isabel Avenue on the Twenty-second Street on the west. R-1 (County) acres generally bounded by Santa north, Tustin Avenue on the east, on the south and Santa Ana Avenue REQUESTED BY: Erwin de Mocskonyi, Valerie B. Avellar, et al. The residents of the Bay Knolls area have requested annexation of their a.rea. The City Council has referred this request to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. The staff has prepared the attached report for your information. The report discusses the characteristics of the area, reviews the costs and revenues which will be generated from the area, and analyses this request in view of the City Council's Annexation Policy. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR F William R. Fole Environmental Coordinator WRF/jkc N 0 T I C E The residents of Bay Knolls (see attached area map) have initiated a request for annexation into the City of Newport Beach. On August 14, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission (L.A.F.C.O.) adopted resolution number 74-100, amending the "sphere of influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls area and 74-99, approving the proposed annexation. The proposed Bay Knolls Annexation is located in an unincorporated "corridor" of the County of Orange, lying between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. It is comprised of approximately 46 gross acres of land containing 153 lots. 30.96 net acres are developed with single family residences and 5.22 net acres are undeveloped. On September 30, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council received a letter from the residents of Bay Knolls requesting that annexation proceedings commence. The request was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. On January 2, 1975, at 7:00 P.M. the Newport Beach Planning Commission will be discussing the proposed annexation in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. O?AtAeJ r couNT`f VM /SDIdE'G _ � V klFilxQYTQR v .CF/OOL h ERT � W Nl PL O4-4AMCLL/G LN. ROSE LN Ekll/LL PC. Co Q W v Nh,Q iucu: rr s a � W WOY ST S Rl{LbO S/JE,PKYhO q 'Y ZN QY6. 60STP, .J Oay.µ 'mot 1 p 0 qoo $a F \"y m SCAM . ST. lip, P-% 1P a OLLEEN � S%EQ2A /STA r ApEAOOiV 'T!!r .. •yq../ CONSMUATid p r YWr RO oz No � Si .z4NT/QGO � � GctlYtTY CEN rEGGA Pc. J ORAN 4.Zi LEELI. W/NDWAFIO LANE F ".•O IW( ZI( �G/d'EIe � I... , ,N,BRAEMAR WAY ✓UNTOk FTIG/1 O O N(AU�li cRANqe GDLfts'CK fT E. BAY ST � � U � O ifrOGJLO.{/L7 � C,� SN/PW,d CO.NMJ • � � ST� � NGR/LdNi UNINCORPORATED URBAN AREA STUDY BAY.KNOLLS AREA January 2, 1975 Revised January 23, 1975 D. LIBRARY. White this area is outside the City Limits, the residents already receive free library service through a cooperative agreement called the Santiago Library System. E. GENERAL SERVICES. City services such as street maintenance, storm drain maintenance, street sweeping, and refuse col- lection are currently provided by various special districts or by the County. If this area is annexed, these services would be provided by the General Services Department. VII. COST -REVENUE ANALYSIS The assessment of the costs and revenues which will be generated from this annexation is extremely difficult. Because the annexation of -this area represents a relatively small incremental addition to the City, many of the sources of revenues and most of the normal operating costs of the City will not be affected. Based on current assessed values, and the existing development, this area can be expected to generate approximately $21,000.00 in annual revenues from property taxes and state subventions. In addition, the annexation of this area would generate a one- time revenue of $26.,000.00 in Annexation fees (based on $200.00 per dwelling unit). The costs to the City of providing services to this area are more difficult to calculate. An analysis of the costs of those - 13 - services which would be provided directly to this area indicates that the annual costs would be approximately $14,800.00. These are broken down as follows: Police $ 2,500.00 Fire 3,800.00 Parkway Tree Maintenance 1,125.00 Street Maintenance 800.00 Street Lighting lo800.00 Sewers 19700.00 Street Sweeping 500.00 Trash Collection 2,600.00 $14,825.00 There are many administrative costs in the total operation of the City which would not be increased by a measurable amount as a result of the annexation. A proportional allocation of these costs has not been made since they will remain substan- tially the same in any case. In addition to these annual operating costs the City would assume responsibility for capital improvements to the street system of approximately $30,000.00 and may assume responsibility for up to $120,000.00 to correct the existing drainage problems. Furthermore, if in the future the City annexed other areas within the county corridor, the City may have to increase personnel and/or equipment in order to maintain a high level - 14 - of services. An example of this kind of expense is fire protection. The Fire Department has indicated that they can provide fire protection to this annexation with their exist- ing,facilities, but that future annexations may necessitate the construction of a new fire station. 16. IMAGE. This area has no exceptional characteristics, although it appears to be a very pleasant,residential neighborhood. 17. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. A. OPERATING COSTS. This area would produce approximately $21,000.00 in revenues and require approximately $14,800.00 in direct service costs. B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. The annexation of this area could commit the City to capital expenditures of apprbxitnat''ely $150,000.00. C. ANNEXATION FEES. This annexation would generate a one-time revenue of $26,600.00 for the Building Excise Tax Fund. IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Bay Knolls area is an established residential neighborhood which was developed in the County and which has, until recently, been within Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. The majority of the residents of the Bay Knolls Area have expressed a desire to annex to the City of Newport Beach. The Local Agency Formation Commission, responding to this desire, has amended the City's sphere of influence to include the Bay Knolls Area. - 19 - NEWPORT•BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT NO: TO: Bob Lenard, Associate Pianner FROM: Leo H. Love, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation DATE December 16. 1974 The major impact to the Fire Department and the citizens of Newport Beach.as a result of the proposed annexation would be the Increased possibility of delayed responses to the Northern and Western sectors of the City. The Bay Knolls area would be served by the Mariners Fire Station A6, at 1348 Irvine Avenue., This station has one pumper truck with 3 men and response to first alarms in the area bounded on the south by West Coast Highway, Bristol Street on the north, the existing Newport Beach City boundary on the west and the Upper Day on the east. In addition, they also respond as the second unit to the West Newport area. The second unit to respond to the northern sector is the Lido Fire Station A2 at 475 32nd Street. When these units respond to either the northern or western sectors, they are out of position to respond to additional emergencies, result- ing in considerable delay should this occur. We have, for several years, proposed the building of a fire station in the northern section of Newport Beach to ovefcome this problem. As more annexations and developments occur in this area, this situa- tion becomes more critical. The Bay Knolls Annexation would not be responsible for this situation. However, any calls generated in this annexation would increase the llkelyhood of problems occurring in responsas to fire and medical aid calls in the northern or western secto Form No. 36 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM: FrOM Dorothea Sheely, City Librarian T0_.., R;.. P;,,,Lenardx, Associ ate, Planner Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation This annexation would broaden the tax base. The residents already receive free service from the City through a cooperative agreement called the Santiago Library System. DS:mt Reply wanted p Reply not necessary a 0 ECgIV 6p RDeV Pt ant ctn o?;poW� we 16 V. December 1.7, 19-74 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PROPOSED BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION INTRODUCTION: The following report.on the proposed Bay Knolls annexation consists of a review of the existing public improvements and a preliminary analysis of the deficiencies of these improvements in relation to present City of 'Newport Beach standards. Where estimated costs are shown the amounts are based on today's prices. DISCUSSION: A. STREETS GENERAL The geometrics of the existing,street improvements generally conform to current City design standards. None of the streets have any visible signs of signifi- cant structural distress.' In general, they are in a Well maintained condition. Cul-de-sac streets have a width (curb face to curb face) of 36 feet. The cul-de- sacs have a radius (to curb face) of 38 feet. The street grades vary from mild to steep, but in all cases there is good longitudinal gutter drainage. The exist- ing curb and gutter (12') is in excellent condition. The existing sidewalk i.s also generally in excellent condition. There are a_ number of locations however where sidewalk has not been installed, and a few locations without concrete curbs. TWENTY-SECOND STREET This street is currently classified as -a secondary arterial highway on the County Master Plan of Highways. The requi-red right-of-way is 84 feet. The exi-sting right-of-way is 60 feet with a short length of 70-foot right-of-way one lot east and west of Donnie Road. Acquisition of the additional right-of-way required would be difficult. However, it is expected that the ,widening of 22nd Street -to secondary highway standards would not have a high priority. The estimated cost of right-of-way acquisition i-s $8,000, and the estimated construction cost is $2,000 for widening to secondary standards. { I December 17, 1974 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation. Page 2 3. TUSTIN AVENUE Between 22nd Street and 23rd Street, Tustin Avenue is generally developed to current City design standards. It doe's not have sidewalk. Between 23rd Street and northerly of Lake Park Street, Tustin Avenue was recently reconstructed to 24-foot width with asphalt berms. There is an inadequate cul-de-sac at the dead end "northerly of Lake Park Street. Between northerly of Lake Park Street and the proposed northerly City limit line Tustin Avenue isnot developed, and probably would never be constructed. (The right-of-way •has been abandoned.) SANTA ISABEL AVENUE This street is generally constructed to acceptable standards; however, five feet of right-of-way and widening would be required across three undeveloped lots to obtain a uniform width. The estimated cost for right-of-way and construction is $5,000. 5. STREET •DEFICIENCIES (MAINTENANCE NEEDS) It is estimated that the cost of correcting the street deficiencies which are City responsibility within the study area would be $15,000 $n'add:iti-on to the $1.0,000 listed in Item 2 and the $5,000 listed in Item 4. Most of the work needed is sl-urry seal coating and cross gutter reconstruction. B. STREET LIGHT SYSTEM Portions of the area are included in a lighting district which includes 11 street lights. These lights are on steel poles serviced by 'overhead wiring. It is estimated that, an additional 27 street lights would be required to adequately light the area to City standards. The cost of this additional lighting with underground wiring is estimated at $40,000. Under City policy, the initial, installation of street light- ing systems is the property owners' responsibility. The cost of street lighting energy is paid by a special district tax rate. If the study area•'were to be annexed to the City, it is anticipated that there would be no change to the existing method of street light funding. C. WATER SYSTEM The area north of 23rd Street is served by the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. The existing main sizes are:somewhat sub -standard when compared to the'City's current design December 11, 1974 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation Page 3 l standards;'however.up•=sizing'would not be justified except where lines are replaced because of structural deterioration. If the study area were to,be annexed to the City, it is anticipated that there Would,be no changes to the existing water service boundaries. D. SEWER SYSTEM The study, area is located within the service area of County Sanitation District No. 5, and is served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. I.f the study area were annexed to the City, it is anticipated that the Costa Mesa Sanitary District would continue to provide sewer service. E. DRAINAGE FACILITIES Local surface drainage appears to be good, with adequate catch basin capacity. The existing storm draims,in general, are corrugated•metal pipes. The pipes are approximately 8 to 12 years old,, and it is estimated that they would only have 10-15 years of remaining useful life before replacement would be required. The pipes, in general, outlet between houses into channels draining into Cherry Lake. Replacement, when required, would be difficult and expensive (approximately $78,600). The drainage system includes approximately 1000-feet of unim- proved open channel traversing an undeveloped area, and drain- ing generally easterly into Cherry Lake. Over the years vegetation has established itself in the channels along•with a substantial amount of siltation. Two of the existing storm drain outlets have been submerged by down stream siltation trapping water at the outlets. This water is stagnant and pro- duces an unpleasant odor. At the outlet of the 72-inch pipe south of Santa Isabel Avenue, 5 to 6 feet of "muck" would have to be removed to re- establish the required channel flow line. This channel flow is southerly about 500 feet where it intercepts a channel from the 30 inch pipe from Redlands Avenue. Approximately 600 feet of channel would have to be cleaned out to establish a gradient. The elevation drop over this reach of channel would only be ll If the channel were left unlined, fre- quent cleaning would be required to maintain it. Construction of concrete lining or a covered conduit would be required to reduce the amount and frequency of maintenance cleaning. The estimated cost of initial channel cleaning fs $30,000, and $120,000 is the cost estimated for construction of an under- ground conduit. (However, if the construction of the drainage improvements were to be done in conjunction with development ,of the property, all or a portion of the costs would probably be the responsibility of the developer.) e December 17, 1974 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation Page 4 The City of Costa Mesa had proposed a 'project to extend the existing 72-inch pipe 64 feet (estimated cost is $4,000), however due to the recent change in "sphere of influence" of the area, work on the project has been suspended. It was indicated that the residents of the area have various ideas regarding what improvements should be installed, with one resident adamantly opposed to any change. It was further indicated that the project had been delayed due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary construction easements. If the Ray Knolls area is to be annexed to the City, it can be expected that maintenance of drainage facilities and correction of drainage problems will be significant burdens to the City. There will likely be considerable public ,pressure to "do something" about the drainage problems; there will be conflicting opinions as to what should be done; and corrective measures will be difficult and expen- sive. 45e B. Nolan City Engineer WBD:hh CJ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION DEPARTMENT November 27, 1974 TO: DICK HOGAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: PB & R Director SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Responsibilities in the Bay Knolls Annexation that would be absorbed by the PB & R Department relate primarily to park- way trees. An investigation of the subject annexation shows that there would be 100 trees added to the inventory that now exists within the City. Based on our latest figuresof $11.25 per tree for annual maintenance, the Bay Knolls Annexation would result in an increase in maintenance responsibilities of $1,125.00 to the PB & R Department. CCS:h Y E;v Eo \ REc Q�Cv ogEPCN.�` P1E`NP GP��F• ,l� i Calvin 0. Stewart CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE DEPARTMENT December 12, 1974 TO: Bob Lenard FROM: George Pappas, Finance'Director SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION The total' yearly revenue generated by the annexation of Bay Knolls will be $21,665. The following is a breakdown of the revenue categories and their amounts: Property Tax ($12,778.30 x $.1.18) $ 15,078 Motor Vehicle License 3,282 Gas Tax (Section 2iO6) 1,586, Gas Tax (Section 2107) 1,400 Dog Licenses 234 Cigarette Tax 85 $ 21,665 Motor vehicle license fees are based on $9.35 per capita, State gas tax funds for Section 2106 and 2107 are based on $4.52 and $3,99 per capita respectively. The dog license fees are determined on the basis of the ratio of dogs to people which the last census indicated was one to nine. Cigarette tax was determined on the basis of .24 per capita. GP:dp I ';- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT December 10, 1974 TO: Community Development ATTN: Bob Lenahan FROM: Chief of Police Attached is a report prepared relative to the Bay Knolls Annexation proposal. It represents this department's view in terms of policing cost and needs of personnel. , amp es Glavas Chi1'f of Police I At_aehmpnt y RECEIvc„ �\ Comaicai.J V Development Dept. DEC 1 21974ij CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT December 10, 1974 TO: B. James Glavas., Chief of Police FROM: Adjutant to the Chief of Police SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Sir: The proposed Bay Knolls Annex lies west of Irvine Avenue adjacent to R.D. 32 and covers 0.07 square miles. This area is composed entirely of single family residences with a population of 351 peo- ple and a density of 7.8 per acre. There is no projected population increase for the next ten years. The total assessed evaluation is $1,238,560, averaging $9,383 vs. the entire City average of $15,047. The size of the area and the current population should not impose an undue burden on our present strength. R.D. 32 borders the eastern boundary of the proposed Bay Knoll Annex. In 1974, January through October, the Orange County Sheriffs Office responded to 79 calls for service in grid 42-1. This grid includes all of the proposed annex but is 0.03 square miles larger. I will use the statistics for the entire grid because of the inability of the Orange County Sheriffs Office to separate them. January through October, 1974 Part I Offenses 26 Part II Offenses 35 Other Calls for Service 18' Total Calls for Service 79 Over a ten month period the Orange County Sheriffs Office responded to 1.1 calls per month on Watch I and 3.4 calls per month on Watch II and III. We may respond to more calls because of our stricter reporting policy but I doubt if it will average over 10 per month. At a cost of $32.66 per field hour it will cost $1,959 per year to respond to calls for service if we average ten calls per month, allowing a thirty minute average to complete the call. Community Development estimated police protection to run $2,511.60 annually based on the cost/revenue system of $19.32 per dwelling unit. To: B. James Glavas, Chief of Police Subject: Bay Knolls Annexation December 10, 1974 Page 2 CONCLUSION: I feel that we can adequately police this are for approximately $2,500.00 per year without imposing an undue burden on our pre- sent strength. This area is adjacent to R.D. 32 and could be included as R.D. 32(a) as we did with the Moden Annex. The Moden Annex, incorporated June of 1968, is adjacent to this proposed annex and is very similar in nature. It is composed of 138 residences with a population of 485 people. We have been providing police service to this area without any undue burden and I feel the Bay Knolls Annex is of the same character. Because of the comparative limited size of the proposed annexa- tion, I do not expect that additional personnel or equipment will be necessary at this time. Additionally, I feel the level of police service for the entire City would not be affected by the annexation. Respectfully, 0 onnol1 Lieut,ppdMt Adjutant to the C of of Police Nov. 26, 1974 T0: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: PROPOSED BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Reference: Your letter, same subject, dated Nov. 15, 1974, with attached Annexation Guidelines.) In accordance with your request, the following information is provided relating to the services provided by this department. In general, the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation would pose no particular problems In connection with the, services provided by this department. A recent survey of the "streets in the area indicates that it would require ap- proximately $5,000 (labor, material and equipment costs) for slurry sealing, asphalt repairs and replacement of small portions of sidewalk and gutter to bring street conditions to acceptable standards. In addition, there are ap- proximately 600 feet of street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Presumably this construction could be accomplished through assessment district procedures, Perhaps agreement of residents to participate in an assessment district action could be a condition of the proposed annexation. The following are the estimated annual costs of services which would be provided by this department: Street maintenance costs after initial costs to bring to City standards $ 800 Storm drain maintenance (7) 250 Street sweeping (3 curb miles) . . . . . , . . . . . . 500 Refuse collection (130 dwelling units) , . . . . . 2,600 TOTAL $4.,150 Since this is a County unincorporated area., the services listed above have undoubtedly been budgeted for and are reflected in the property owners' County tax bills for fiscal year 1974-75. Therefore, it is recommended that, if annexed to the City of Newport Beach, City services to the area not commence prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. ACO F. �MYNOQV� JFMS: p a December 17, 1974 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation Page 4 The City of Costa Mesa had proposed a project to extend the existing 72-inch pipe 64 feet (estimated cost is $4,000), however due to the recent change in "sphere of influence" of the area, work on the project has been suspended. It was indicated that the residents of the area have various ideas regarding what improvements should be installed, with one resident adamantly opposed to any change. It was further indicated that the project had been delayed due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary construction easements. If the Bay Knolls area is to be annexed to the Ci.ty, it can be'expected that maintenance of drainage facilities and correction of drainage problems will be significant burdens to the City. There will likely be considerable public pressure to "do something" about the drainage problems; there will be conflicting opinions as to what should be done; and corrective measures will be difficult and expen- sive. T � Benjamin B. Nolan ; City Engineer WBD:hh r i 9 Page 57 R1 District Section 78.0214 (7-9-92) SEC. 78.0214. (7-9-92.) R1 "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE" DISTRICT REGULATIONS. All references to this section shall include Section 78.0214. 1 (7-9-98) through 78.0214.6. (7-9-108.) SEC. 78.0214.1. (7-9-98.) PURPOSE AND INTENT. The R1 District is established to provide for the development of medium density single family residential neighborhoods. Only those additional uses are permitted that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a residential neighborhood. SEC. 78.0214.2. (7-9-99.) USES PERMITTED. Any of the following principal uses; (a) Single family dwellings (one per building site); (b) Parks and playgrounds, public and private (noncommercial); (c) Riding and hiking trails; (d) Horticulture, unlighted and unenclosed by buildings and structures, (noncommercial). SEC. 78.0214.3. (7-9-100.) USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 78.0270. (7-9-448.) Any of the following principal uses; (a) Churches, temples, other places of worship; (b) Educational institutions; (c) Communication equipment buildings; (d) Community television receiving and distribution systems; (e) Electric distribution substations; (f) Natural gas booster stations; (9) Private water pumping stations; Rev. 2/74 M Page 58 R1 District. Section 78.0214 i (7-9-92.) Section 78.0214.3 (7-9-100.) (Continued) I (h) Microwave radio and television relay transmitters; (i) Sewage lift stations; (j) Fire and police stations; (k) Public libraries; (1) Country clubs, golf courses, riding clubs, swimming clubs, tennis clubs, and yacht clubs; (m) Kennels. SEC. 78.0214.4. (7-9-101.) TEMPORARY USES PERMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 78.0266. (7-9-412.) (a) Model homes, temporary real estate offices, and signs; J (b) Temporary use of mobilehome residence during construction; (c) Continued use of an existing building during construction of a new building on the same building site; (d) Real estate signs. SEC. 78.0214.5. (7-9-102.) ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED. Any of the following customary uses and structures: (a) Garages and carports, in compliance with the site development standards provided in Section 78.0267.1; (7-9-432.) (b) Swimming pools, in compliance with the regulations provided in Section .78.0267.3; (7-9-439.) i (c) Fences and walls, in compliance with the site development standards provided in Section 78.0267.4; (7-9-440.) (d) Home occupations, in compliance with the regulations provided in Section 78.0280.4; (7-9-469.) Rev. 2/74 Page 58 (a) RI District Section 78.0214 (7-9-92) Section 78.0214.5 (7-9-102.) (Continued) (e) The keeping of equine animals for recreational purposes only, provided no equine shall be permitted on a building site containing less than 10,000 square feet of land area. Two adult equines are permitted on a building site containing between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet of land area. One additional adult equine may be kept for each additional 10,000 square feet of owned or leased contiguous land in the aggregate with a maximum of six such animals on any one building site. The offspring of such animals shall be considered adults when eight months old; (f) The keeping of pets of a type readily classifiable as being customarily incidental and accessory to a permitted principal residential use when no commercial activity is involved. The keeping of wild, exotic, or nondomestic animals is prohibited; (g) Accessory uses, necessary and customarily incidental to a principal use permitted in this district in compliance with the regulations provided in Section 78.0267; (7-9-431.) { - (h) Any other accessory use or structure permitted by and in com I* rice with the regulations provided in Section 78.0265. (7-9-402.� . SEC. 78.0214.6. (7-9-108.) SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The establishment, operation, and maintenance of the uses permitted by Sections 78.0214.2 (7-9-99.), 78.0214,3 (7-9-100.), 78.0214.4 (7-9-101.), and 78.0214.5 (7-9-102.) shall be in compliance with the regulations provided in Section 78.0260 (7-9-352., and the following standards, except as otherwise provided in Section 78.0270: (7-9-448.) (a) Building Site Area: 7200 square feet minimum required, unless a larger or smaller area is specified by the district symbol on the official zoning district map. (b) Building Site Width: No minimum requirement unless specified by the district symbol on the official zoning district map. (c) Building Height: 35 feet maximum unless otherwise specified by the district symbol on the official zoning district map. Rev. 2/74 Page 58 (b) • RI District Section 78.0214 (7-9-92.) Section 78.0214.6 (7-9-108.) (d) Building Site Coverage: No limitation. (e) Building Setbacks: Front, side and rear building lines shall be established as required by Section 78.0262. (7-9-372.) (f) Off -Street Parking: Parking for motor vehicles shall be provided as required by Section 78.0290. (7-9-472.) (Ord. No. 351, Sec. 10; amended by Ord. No. 616, Sec. 1; amended by Ord. No. 793, Sec. 1; amended by Ord. No. 1217 Sec. 6• amended by Ord. No. 2238, eff. 7/11/68; amended by Ord. No. 2728, efi`. 2/28;74.) C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE DEPARTMENT December 12, 1974 TO: Bob Lenard FROM: George Pappas, Finance Director SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION The total yearly revenue generated by the annexation of Bay Knolls will be $21,665. The following is a breakdown of the revenue categories and their amounts: Property Tax ($12,778.30 x $1.18) $ 15,078 Motor Vehicle License 3,282 Gas Tax (Section 2106) 1,586 Gas Tax (Section 2107) 1,400 Dog Licenses 234 Cigarette Tax '85 $ 21,665 Motor vehicle license fees are based on $9.35 per capita, State gas tax funds for Section 2106 and 2107 are based on $4.52 and $3.99 per capita respectively. The dog license fees are determined on the basis of the ratio of dogs to people which the last census indicated was one to nine. Cigarette tax was determined on the basis of .24 per capita. GP:dp December 17, 1974 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PROPOSED BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION INTRODUCTION: The following report on the proposed Bay Knolls annexation consists of a review of the existing public improvements and a preliminary analysis of the deficiencies of these improvements in relation to present City of Newport Beach standards, Where estimated costs are shown the amounts are based on today's prices. DISCUSSION: A. STREETS 1. GENERAL The geometrics of the existing street improvements generally conform to'current City design standards. None of the streets have any visible signs of signifi- cant structural distress. In general, they are in a well maintained condition. Cul-de-sac streets have a width (curb face to curb face) of 36 feet. The cul-de- sacs have a.radius (to curb face) of 38 feet. The street grades vary from mild to steep, but in all cases there is good longitudinal gutter drainage. The exist- ing curti and gutter (12') is in excellent condition. The existing sidewalk is also generally in excellent condition. There are a number of locations however where sidewalk has not been installed, and a few locations without concrete curbs. 2. TWENTY-SECOND STREET This street is currently classified as a secondary arterial highway on the County Master Plan of Highways. �C) n C) C7 The required right-of-way is 84 feet. The existing right-of-way is 60 feet with a short length of 70-foot right-of-way one lot east and west of Donnie Road. ? Acquisition of the additional right-of-way required xG- would be difficult. However, it is expected that the widening of 22nd Street to secondary highway standards would not7have a high priority. The estimated cost of right-of-way acquisition is $8,000, and the estimated construction cost is $2,000 for widening to secondary standards. December 17, 1974 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation -Page 2 _!e5o0 0 3. TUSTIN AVENUE Between 22nd Street and 23rd Street, Tustin Avenue is generally developed to current City design standards. It does not have sidewalk. Between 23rd Street and northerly of Lake Park Street, Tustin Avenue was recently reconstructed to 24-foot width with asphalt berms. There is an inadequate cul-de-sac at the dead end northerly of Lake Park Street. Between northerly of Lake Park Street and the proposed northerly City limit line Tustin Avenue is not developed, and probably would never be constructed. (The right-of-way has been abandoned.) Y. JM141M 1. nurt: MV1:11ur This street is generally constructed to acceptable standards; -however, five feet of right-of-way and widening would be required across three undeveloped lots to obtain a uniform width. The estimated cost for right-of-way and construction is $5,000. STREET DEFICIENCIES (MAINTENANCE NEEDS) It is estimated that the cost of correcting the street deficiencies which are City responsibility within the study area would be $15,000 in addition to the $10,000 listed in Item 2 and the $5,000 listed in Item 4. Most of the work needed is slurry seal coating and cross gutter reconstruction. B. STREET LIGHT SYSTEM Portions of the area are included in a lighting district which includes 17 street lights. These lights are on steel poles serviced by overhead wiring. It is estimated that an additional 27 street lights would be required to adequately light the area to City standards. The cost of this additional lighting with underground wiring is estimated at $40,000. Under City policy, the initial installation of street light- ing systems is the property owners' responsibility. The cost of street lighting energy is paid by a special district tax rate. If the study area were to be annexed to the City, it is anticipated that there would be no change to the existing method of street light funding. INss>z— C. WATER SYSTEM The area north of 23rd Street is served by the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. The existing main sizes are:somewhat sub -standard when compared to the City's current design December 17, 1974 . • Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation Page 3 standards, however up -sizing would not be justified except where lines are replaced because of structural deterioration. If the study area were to be annexed to the City, it is anticipated that there would be no changes to the existing water service boundaries. D. SEWER SYSTEM N� b�f The study area is located within the service area of County Sanitation District No. 6, and is served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. If the study area were annexed to the City, it is anticipated that the Costa Mesa Sanitary District would continue to provide sewer service. E. DRAINAGE FACILITIES Local surface drainage appears to be good, with adequate catch basin capacity. The existing storm drains,in general, are cC� p� J corrugated metal pipes. The pipes are approximately 8 to 12 S- ,And✓y- years old, and it is estimated that they would only have f 10-15 years of remaining useful life before replacement would be required. The pipes, in general, outlet between houses into channels draining into Cherry Lake. Replacement, when required, would be difficult and expensive (approximately $778,000). The drainage system includes approximately 1000-feet of unim- proved open channel traversing an undeveloped area, and drain- ing generally easterly into Cherry Lake. Over the years vegetation has established itself in the channels along with a substantial amount of siltation. Two of the existing storm drain outlets have been submerged by down stream siltation trapping water at the outlets. This water is stagnant and pro- duces an unpleasant odor. At the outlet of the 72-inch pipe south of Santa Isabel Avenue, 5 to 6 feet of "muck" would have to be removed to re- establish the required channel flow line. This channel flow is southerly about 500 feet where it intercepts a channel from the 30 inch pipe from Redlands Avenue. Approximately 600 feet of channel would have to be cleaned out to establish a gradient. The elevation drop over this reach of channel would only be 1'+ If the channel were left unlined, fre- quent cleaning would be required to maintain it. Construction of concrete lining or a covered conduit would be required to reduce the amount and frequency of maintenance cleaning. The estimated cost of initial channel cleaning is $30,000, and $120,000 is the cost estimated for construction of an under- ground conduit. (However, if the construction of the drainage improvements were to be•done in conjunction with development of the property, all or a portion of the costs would probably be the responsibility of the developer.) December 17, 1974 .0 Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation Page 4 The City of Costa Mesa had proposed a project to extend the existing 72-inch pipe 64 feet (estimated cost is $4,000), however due to the recent change in "sphere of influence" -- of the area, work on the project has been suspended. It was indicated that the residents of the area have various ideas regarding what improvements should be installed, with one resident adamantly opposed to any change. It was.further indicated that the project had been delayed due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary construction easements. If the Bay Knolls area is to be annexed to the City, it can be expected that maintenance of drainage facilities and correction of drainage problems will be significant burdens to the City. There will likely be considerable public pressure to "do something" about the drainage problems; there will be conflicting opinions as to what should be done; and corrective measures will be difficult and expen- sive. T Benjamin B. Nolan City Engineer WBD:hh 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT December 10, 1974 TO:- Community Development ATTN: Bob Lenahan FROM: Chief of Police Attached is a report prepared relative to the Bay Knolls Annexation proposal. it represents this department's view in terms of policing cost and needs of personnel. ,, am�vas Chief of Police Attachment i 5 RE cc: Deveic�,aent, Dept DEC 121974r- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. • 1 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT December 10, 1974 TO: B. James Glavas, Chief of Police FROM: Adjutant to the Chief of Police SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Sir: The proposed Bay Knolls Annex lies west of Irvine Avenue adjacent to R.D. 32 and covers 0.07 square miles. This area is composed entirely of single family residences with a population of 351 peo- ple and a density of 7.8 per acre. There is no projected population increase for the next ten years. The total assessed evaluation is $1,238,560, averaging $9,383 vs. the entire City average of $15,047. The size of the area and the current population should not impose an undue burden on our present strength. R.D. 32 borders the eastern boundary of the proposed Bay Knoll Annex. In 1974, January through October, the Orange County Sheriffs Office responded to 79 calls•for service in grid 42-1. This grid includes all of the proposed annex but is 0.03 square miles larger. I will use the statistics for the entire grid because of the inability of the Orange County Sheriffs Office to separate them. January through October, 1:974 Part I Offenses 26 Part.II Offenses 35 Other Calls for Service 18 Total Calls for Service 79 Over a ten month period the Orange County Sheriffs Office responded to 1.1 calls per month on Watch I and 3.4 calls per month on Watch II and III. We may respond to more calls because of our stricter reporting policy but I doubt if it will average over 10 per month. At a cost of $32.66 per field hour it will cost $1,959 per year to respond to calls for service if we average ten calls per month, allowing a thirty minute average to complete the call. Community Development estimated police protection to run $2,511.60 annually based on the cost/revenue system of $19.32 per dwelling unit. 0 To: B. James Glavas, Subject: Bay Knolls December 10, 1974 Page 2 Chief of Police Annexation -- CONCLUSION: I feel that we can adequately police this are for approximately $2,500.00 per year without imposing an undue burden on our pre- sent strength. This area is adjacent to R.D. 32 and could be included as R.D. 32(a) as we did with the Moden Annex. The Moden Annex, incorporated June of 1968, is adjacent to this proposed annex and is very similar in nature. It is composed of 138 residences with a population of 485 people.' We have been providing police service to this area without any undue burden and I feel the Bay Knolls Annex is of the same character. Because of the comparative limited size of the proposed annexa— tion, I do not expect that additional personnel or equipment will be necessary at this time. Additionally, I feel the level of police service for the entire City would not be affected by the annexation. Respectfully, o J�/G.ZZ onn0 c/Lieut Adjutant to the CSef of Police r r� U NEWPORT'BEACH FIRE DEPART14ENT NO: TO: Bob Lenard, Associate Planner FROM: Leo H. Love, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation DATE _December 16. 1974 Thai malor.,Impact to �ihe,Flre. Department and the citizens of Newport.. Beachtas.a,result of='the, proposed annexation would be the -increased possibi•l.ity of del ayed..responses to the Northern and Western•sectors . of the:.C.ity.. The.Bajr Knolls area would be served by the,Mariners Fire Station #6,- at.1348,,Irvine-Avenue..�-This;statlon has one pumper truck with 3 men " and•response.to first=alarms•in.the.area bounded.on the south by West. Coast Highway,,`Bristoi'Street oh the north, the existing Newport Beach- City boundaryvontha:west and the Upper•Bay on the east. In addition; thviy-aiso,.respond as the second unit to the West Newport. .-. rt;',;; ; �. <,•area„61b&second* unlVto,,respond-,to the northern°sector is.,the Lido. ;.. FireoStationr 12.-atA7512nd.'Street..• .. When these units.;respond':to either the northern or western sectors., they -are out of. post tion:to.:respond to addl-tional emergencles, result- ing In, considerable delay should this occur.•- We have, for-severai.years,: proposed the building of a fire station to - the northern. section,of.,Newport Beach to overcome this problem.. . As .more annexations• and developments occur: In this area, this sftua-= Lion becomes more critical.., The Bay Knolls Annexation would not be responsible for this situation. 'However, any calls, generated in this annexation would increase the likelyhood of problems occurring:in- responses to fire and medical aid calls in the northern .or western sectors of the City.`. i � ••�fiA- �ft n _ -Form No- 36r- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION DEPARTMENT November 27, 1974 TO: DICK HOGAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: PB & R Director SUBJECT: BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Responsibilities in the Bay Knolls Annexation that would be absorbed by the PB & R Department relate primarily to park- way trees. An investigation of the subject annexation shows that there would be 100 trees added to the inventory that now exists within the City. Based on our latest figure of $11.25 per tree for annual maintenance, the Bay Knolls Annexation would result in an increase in maintenance responsibilities of $1.,125.00 to the PB & R Department. CCS:h R G't�tP�O 00fL�oPtne oe� oat• 19� A� r art TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COM--UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR General Services Director PROPOSED BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Nov. 26, 1974 Reference: Your letter, same subject, dated Nov. 15, 1974, with attached Annexation Guidelines] In accordance with your request, the following information is provided relating to the services provided by this department. In general, the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation would pose no particular problems in connection with the services provided by this department. A recent survey of the streets in the area indicates that it would require ap- proximately $5,000 (labor, material and equipment costs) for slurry sealing, asphalt repairs and replacement -of small portions of sidewalk and gutter to bring street conditions to acceptable standards. In addition, there are ap- proximately 600 feet of street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Presumably this construction could be accomplished through assessment district procedures. Perhaps agreement of residents to participate in an assessment district action could be a condition of the proposed annexation. The following are the estimated annual costs of services which *.could be provided by this department: Street maintenance costs after initial costs to bring to City standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 800 Storm drain maintenance (7) . . . . . . . . . . I . . 250 Street sweeping (3 curb miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 Refuse collection (130 dwelling units) . . . . . . . . 2,600 TOTAL $4,150 Since this isa County unincorporated area, the services listed above have undoubtedly been budgeted for and are reflected in the property owners' County tax bills for fiscal year 1974-75. 'Therefore, it is recommended that, if annexed to the City of Newport Beach, City services to the area not commence prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. ACO F. MYNDER�E JFM:p CITY OF NEWPORT• BEACH MEMORANDUM: from Dorothea Sheely, City Librarian ;„P; Lenard,, Associate Planner Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation This annexation would broaden the -tax base. The residents already receive free service.from the -City thro-ugh a cooperative agreement called the Santiago Library System:- ao S' • Roo • „` 1�en� i�.i�vt �i-;i',"'r..:'=�i.:•_�;Yjtyw"'+,',�:��ii°ipq�"--.'S>��',,;r �'•%',—:u'u:...::;{.:a• •ti i.'-: -• ��:y.v,'� 'tv •' Roply not neceeeary sx. _- �91 QUALITY, ORIGINAL (S) DATE......An' ..................... ■ ®i MAYOR COUNCIL MANAGER ASST. MGR. ADMIN. ASST. ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMM. DEV. Q FINANCE FIRE GEN. SERVICES LIBRARY Z�J-MARINE SAFETY PARKS & REC. Ej PERSONNEL POLICE PUBLIC WORKS PURCHASING TRAFFIC FOMEZ��CTION & DISPOSITION Q FILE Q INFORMATION re4EVI EW & COMMENT MMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT V Recreation ✓ L- RETURN REMARKS:- /......... .tx.-rrt. ,••.Tc• ................�munity Development ......................... COEl MUNiTy--Di!YEtf3Ptvli t+T••f)EPARTidrEW- . Is Annexation ve intitiated a request for wport Beach. On August 14, 1974, mission (L.A..F'.C.O.) adopted — ding the."sphere of.influence" FROM.__.........................................................the Bay Knolls area and 74-99, aNp:uvinu Lne pr•vpusea annexation. The proposed Bay Knolls Annexation is located in an unin- corporated "corridor" of the County of Orange, lying between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. It is comprised of approximately 46 gross acres of land containing 153 lots. 30.96 net acres are developed with single family residences and 5.22 net acres'are undeveloped. On September 30, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council received a letter from the residents of Bay Knolls requesting that annexation proceedings commence. The request was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. The Department of Community Development is in the process of pre- paring this report for the Planning Commission. I would appreciate any comments your department may have as to the desirability of this annexation 'in general and is it specifically relates to the services you provide. Attached is•a copy of the Council Policy Statement on'annex-, atiom to assist you in your evaluation. 0 6 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 15, 1974 TO: Finance v Fire C-- General Services u' Parks, Beach and Recreation ✓ Police Public Works Marine Safety ✓ FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation The residents of Bay Knolls have intitiated a request for annexation into the City of Newport Beach. On August 14, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission (L.A.F'.C.O.) adopted resolution number 74=100, amending the."sphere of.influence" for Newport Beach to include the Bay Knolls area and 74-99, approving the proposed annexation. The proposed Bay Knolls Annexation is located in an unin- corporated "corridor" of the County of Orange, lying between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. It is comprised of approximately 46 gross acres of land containing 153 lots. 30.96 net acres are developed with single family residences and 5.22 net acres are undeveloped. On September 30, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council received a letter from the residents of Bay Knolls requesting that annexation proceedings commence. The request was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. The Department of Community Development is in the process of pre- paring this report for the Planning Commission. I would appreciate any comments your department may have,as to the desirability of this annexation in general and(is it specifically relates to the services you provide. Attached is•a copy of the Council Policy Statement on annex- ation - to assist you in your evaluation. Thank you, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By lej/� R:P. Lenard Associate Planner RPL/ j kc ATT: Council Policy on annexations Vicinity Map Detailed Map showing lots 0 ANNEXATION GUIDELINES C-1 It is recognized that the City of. Newport Beach has certain "spheres of influence" and that said areas may be considered for annexation to the City. In evaluating a proposed annexation of a "sphere of influence" to the City of Newport Beach, a number of guidelines should be utilized to assist in a determination of whether the annexation is in the best'interests of the City of Newport Beach. By 'way of illustration, but not limitation, examples of these guidelines to test a ' proposed annexation proposal are as follows: 1. Public Reaction...-.;. Attitude of public agencies and private J,r%-r- LneS,r Lit=G•o organizations in•and around the area that may.be•affected by the annexation. ✓ 2. Over -lapping Taxation co, -raw a � ; `3. -Duplication 4. City .Standards 15. Tax Base 0 6. Planning �ipr " 7., Transportation ° B. Boundaries - Degree of double taxation resulting from the annexation and what may be done to' eliminate.any such condition. .Extent to which duplication of services would exist or could be eliminated as a result of the annexation. Ability of the City to require annexed areas to be raised to City standards, ie, by assessment districts. t Ability to broaden the tax base by—ATMiex- ation of land with existing or potential for high revenue producing improvements. Ability to continue an orderly program of, City development based upon general plan - implementation projections. Ability to correct inter -area street circulation deficiencies and inadequacies, thus promoting a more efficient flow of people and goods. Opportunity to realign boundaries that more closely approximate logical,man- made or natural physical barriers. io 10 ANNEXATION GUIDELINES - Page Two 0nc. Safety 10. Service V �v 11 - Ability to better control fire, police, public health and safety oriented problems which respect-jio municipal boundaries. Ability to eliminate awkward and irregular boundaries causing difficulty and ineconomies in supplying utilities and city services. Homogeneitye- - Ability to add -residents who, in terms of social, ,ethnic, cultural, economic and political interests and habits already - are.related to the City. 12.. Control 013. Public Facilities . . -.Ability to protect City taxpayers against future costs incurred to correct prior••• improper land development. - Ability to provide space for specialized public uses which are inappropriate in central locations. 14. Elimination, - Ability to eliminate existing or potential land uses.and improvements considered a• blighting or deteriorating influence. .15. Preclusion - Probability of the elimination or oppor-•. tunity for county areas to incorporate to the detriment of existing cities. .16. Image - Ability to increase.City stature by annex- ation of land and/or improvements with �� .. exceptional characteristics. 17. Cost Benefit•Analysis O - Ability on the basis of cost benefit analysis to produce excess revenue over cost of govern- ment services. Examples of revenues to be E considered and evaluated are property taxes, sales taxes, licenses, permits, service charges, and other similar and typical taxes and fees. These are to be considered as "benefits" in the cost benefit analysis. An example of services which reflect cost to governmental agencies are: street maintenance, trash pickup, libraries, parks, fire and police protection, schools, flood control facilities, similar governmental services, and'attendant amortized capital outlay costs. Adopted - February 27, 1967- " 'Reaffirmed, -.November 12, 1968 Reaffirmed - March•9, 1970 °• Reaffirmed ? February 8,_1971 a ,� m� .". _, �.��„ " Uu_!J/,¢1 �y��©�©~�+•r •' r/ �': o ' � .,,',:� `��bSQdo��}y q��•Jf"'^.=�- . '% YP � QQl7�©c^ ,��;. F � i .Y,s� y0 a • �� �9RB�OtZ G'gOpCO�hpL7 \ � .`4;;.,t�" •���,0 .�\.v ; ~s- ��pO4��e9Daa(]©�O� v.�t ` . �-• "-`a, .,,�; fk iiI'iiii�d�fir�.,-.:.-�,,.`-��•-•.� �'�s� a': �'%�i< o�p!°7QQadi1© � -�: - a' o.� ��` � °'1xYlU(�.'DOiFA. ^j � { _'iii y-:i�'=•,:y yam,`' ��E %j � .r�lj7�Iij—„—;.`—. ��� w °°°"°t.. °� �' °�.p •di�eiQi. •�`r `K`.�,, - p/` .- oa �.� �� Q6 �` _ ll�i:rsll Ifl:l•1} j.yi �xo G� �: i - .. /'. �G�a� `03 �� ..•. CITY OF HMPORT BEACH • � /A % .� �.. F / O � 1='-.',a � C E A %V Flzopo.6w 12)A1f KNOLLS ANt-AexAT'o" L SANTA ANA AVENUE F • LA LINDA PLACE COSTA MESA J 1 IA 1 1 1 1 REDLANDS DR �e5cilWLql FAIRH � Z REDLANDS DRu r [ N AVE. r4 ,� R • NEWPORT BEACH CALENDAR FOR BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION (Annexation No. 80) On 7-22-74, in connection with a letter from Bay Knolls residents requesting Council's consent to commence annexation proceedings and in order to indicate to the Local Agency Formation Commission that the City wanted LAFCO to make a determination whether or not Bay Knolls should remain within the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence or be changed to Newport Beach's, the Council adopted Resolution No. 8318, consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation proceedings. On 8-12-74, the City Attorney announced for the record that the City had not approved the proposed annexation by the adoption of Resolution No. 8318, but had simply given it to LAFCO to determine the Sphere of Influence. On 9-30-74, another request letter from Bay Knolls to annex to Newport Beach, stating that on August 14 LAFCO approved an amend- ment to,the Sphere of Influence•by the adoption of its Resolution 74-100"anAvhad approved the proposed Bay Knolls annexation by the adoptidrf of its Resolution 74-99, was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. (Sections 35106, 35108, Government Code) (Within 40 days, the Planning Commission should report back to Council -- Sections 35108, 35109, Government Code) '75 Council receives Planning Commission's report and adopts a resolution formally consenting to the commencement�of annexation. (Section 35106, Government Code) Propon is submit an application to initiate proceedings to the executi officer of LAFCO after the consent of the City Council has been- i2tained. (Sections 35002, 54791, 54792, Government Code),, (Bay Knolls proponents took this step out of sequence and LAFCO held a 'public hearing and approved the annexation on 8-=14-74) Rropohents publish a Notice of Intention to Circulate •a petition for annexation. (Section 35111, Government Code & Sections 4002, 4003, Elections Code) Within 10 days after publication, proponents file with the City 2 I Clerk a copy of Affidavit of Publication and copy of Notice of Intention with accompanying statement. (Section.35112, Government .Code) Within 15 days of such filing, the Council may adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of the notice and approving circulation of the petition. (Section 35113, Government Code) �If the Council adopts the resolution, then the petition may be circulated 21 days after publication of the Notice of Intention to Circulate. (Section 35114, Government Code) After petition signed by not less than a of the qualified electors residing within the territory is received, the City Clerk and _r County Clerk check the petition and certify to its sufficiency within two weeks. (Section 35116, Government Code) in Is If the petition is of Sufficiency to of the petition. sufficient, the City Clerk suh-its a Certificate the City Council within two wee:•:s of the receipt The City Council without delay passes a Resolution of Intention to call a special election and sets a public hearing date not less than 15 nor more than 40 days after passage of the Resolution Of Intention. (Sections 35116, 35118, Government Code) The City Clerk causes a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing and mails written notice of the proposed annexation not less than 20 days before the hearing to each owner of equitable or legal interest in land within the territory to be annexed who has filed with the City Clerk. (Section 35119, Government Code) (NOTE: The City Council has the power to terminate the proceedings at any time prior to the date set for hearing. Section 35007, Government Code) City Council holds hearing; hears and passes upon all protests. (Section 35121, Government Code) If protests are filed by the owners of one-half of the value of the territory to be annexed, the proceedings shall be terminated. If protests are filed which are insufficient to terminate the proceedings, that hearing shall be recessed for a period not less than 10 days and supplemental protests may be filed within such period. (Sections 35120, 35121, GovernmentlCode) At the closing of the hearing or within 30 days thereafter, Council shall adopt a resolution finding and determining whether or not a majority protest has been made. (Section 35121.1, Government Code) If the Council finds by resolution that a majority protest has been made, it may adopt a resolution terminating the proceedings. (Section 35122, Government Code Amended) If it finds that a majority protest has not been made, it shall call a special election for the next established election date I not less than 74 days after termination of the hearing. (Section! 35122, Government Code)* Within five days after special election is called, the City Clerk on behalf of the Council submits, by registered mail, notification of the election to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. (Section 35124, Government Code Amended). Within five days after being notified, the Executive Officer of LAFCO submits to LAFCO for its approval or modification an impartial analysis of the proposed annexation. (Section 35124.1, Government Code•Amended) Within 5 days after receipt of Executive Officer's analysis, LAFCO approves or modifies and submits the analysis to the City Clerk. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) ELECTION DAY. -2- , -*Established Election dates in even years are the :_rst Tuesday after the first Monday in March, June and Novembe_, in odd years, in March and NovenLter only. (1974 Legislation, e: ective 1-1-75, added the last Tuesday in May as the third estab'_ :-3 date in odd years.) If a majority of the votes cast is for annexation, the Council may approve the annexation by ordinance. (Section 35135, Government'Code) The annexed territory is a part of the City from the date fixed by the Council in the Notice of Election, if such date is fixed, or if no date is fixed, from the date the City Clerk files the Affidavit of Completio4 and the Secretary of State's Certification with the County Recorder. (Section 35146, Government Code) s N -3- , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT � @ 1 4. • 1, NO. TO: Community Development Director FROM: City Clerk SUBJECT: Annexation No. 80 (Bay Knolls) Enclosed is a rough draft of a calendar for subject annexation. L ura Lagios LL:sb enc �' • NEWPORT BEACH • CALENDAR FOR BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION (Annexation No. 80) On 7-22-74, in connection with a letter from Bay :molls residents requesting council's consent to commence annexation proceedings and in order to indicate to the Local Agency Formation Commission that the City wanted LAFCO to make a determination whether or not Bay Knolls should remain within the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence or be changed to Newport Beach's, the Council adopted Resolution No. 8318, consenting to commencement of Bay Knolls annexation proceedings. On 8-12-74, the City Attorney announced for the record that the City had not approved the proposed annexation by the adoption of Resolution No. 8318, but had simply given it to LAFCq to determine the Sphere of Influence. On 9-30-74, another request letter from Bay Knolls to -annex to Newport Beach, stating that on August 14 LAFCO approved an amend- ment to the Sphere of Influence by the adoption of its Resolution 74-100 and had approved the proposed Bay Knolls annexation by the adoption of its Resolution 74-99, was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. (Sections 35106, 35108, Government Code) (Within 40 days, the Planning Commission should report back to Council -- Sections 35108, 35109, Government Code) Council receives Planning Commission's report and adopts a resolution formally consenting to the commencement of annexation. (Section 35106, Government Code) Proponents submit an application to initiate proceedings to the executive officer of LAFCO after the consent of the City Council has been obtained. (Sections 35002, 54791, 54792, Government Code) (Bay Knolls proponents took this step out of sequence and LAFCO held a public hearing and approved the annexation on 8-14-74) Proponents publish a Notice of Intention to Circulate a petition for annexation. (Section 35111, Government Code & Sections 4002, 4003, Elections Code) Within 10 days after publication, proponents file with the City Clerk a copy of Affidavit of Publication and copy of Notice of Intention with accompanying statement. (Section 35112, Government Code) Within 15 days of such filing, the Council may adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of the notice and approving circulation of the petition. (Section 35113, Government Code) If the Council adopts the resolution, then the petition may be circulated 21 days after publication of the Notice of Intention to Circulate. (Section 35114, Government Code) After petition signed by not less than a of the qualified electors residing within the territory is received, the City Clerk and County Clerk check the petition and certify to its sufficiency within two weeks. (Section 35116, Government Code) L y i 4 If the petition is sufficient, the City Clerk submits a Certificate of Sufficiency to the City Council within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. The City Council without delay passes a Resolution of Intention to call a special election and sets a public hearing date not less than 15 nor more than 40 days after passage of the Resolution Of Intention. (Sections 35116, 35118, Government Code) The City Clerk causes a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing and mails written notice of the proposed annexation not less than 20 days before the hearing to each owner of equitable or legal interest in land within the territory to be annexed who has filed with the City Clerk. (Section 35119, Government Code) (NOTE: The City Council has the power to terminate the proceedings at'any time prior to the date set for hearing. Section 35007, Government Code) City Council holds hearing; hears and passes upon all protests. (Section 35121, Government Code) If protests are filed by the owners of one-half of the value of the territory to be annexed, the proceedings shall be terminated. If protests are filed which are insufficient to terminate the proceedings, that hearing shall be recessed for a period not less than 10 days and supplemental protests may be filed within such period. (Sections 35120, 35121, GovernmentlCode) At the closing of the hearing or within 30 days thereafter, Council shall adopt a resolution finding and determining whether or not a majority protest has been made. (Section 35121.1, Government Code) if the Council finds by resolution that a majority protest has been made, it may adopt a resolution terminating the proceedings. (Section 35122, Government Code Amended) If it finds that a majority protest has not been made, it shall call a special election for the next established election date not less than 74 days after termination of the hearing. (Sectionl' 35122, Government Code)* i Within five days after special election is called, the City Clerk on behalf of the Council submits, by registered mail, notification of the election to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. (Section 35124, Government Code Amendedl Within five days after being notified, the Executive Officer of LAFCO submits to LAFCO for its approval or modification an impartial analysis of the proposed annexation. (Section 35124.1, Government Code,Amended) Within 5 days after receipt of Executive Officer's analysis,' LAFCO approves or modifies and submits the analysis to the City Clerk. (Section 35124.1, Government Code Amended) ELECTION DAY. -2- a *Established Election dates in even years are the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, June and November; in odd years, in March and November only. (1974 Legislation, effective 1-1-75, added the last Tuesday in May as the third established date in odd years.) , If a majority of the votes cast is for annexation, -.he-Council may approve the annexation by ordinance. (Section 35135, Government'Code) The annexed territory is a part of the City from the date fixed by the Council in the Notice of Election, if such date is fixed, or if no date is fixed, from the date the City Clerk files the Affidavit of Completion and the Secretary of State's Certification with the County Recorder. (Section 35146, Government Code) 0 -3- .,a CI" COUNCILMEN " o m oFo�o a oil. \N T vV ROLL CALL a1Z A10 September OF NEWPORT BEACH 30 1974 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent C x x x x x x x x x x x Harry Kamph addressed the Council in favor of subject agreement. Res 3lu on No. 8356 was adopted. 4. A report from the Department ofu�nity Development regarding proposed revised Archaeologic i idelines and Procedures for the City of Newport Beach wa st- pond to November 11. Archaeo- logical Guidelines URRENT BUSINESS: 1. A letter from Erwin deMocskonyi and Valerie B. Avellar Annex 80 requester that thei`" " eq e t for the Bay KiiT=s area to be annexe nto t e ty o ewport each" a re- ferred to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation pursuant to the procedures for annex- ation of inhabited territory as set for in the Annexation Act of 1913 was presented. Motion Subject reguuest'was referred to the Planning_ Commission Ayes K x x x x for report and recommendation. Absent x 2. A letter from Dr. Wilson Little resigning from the Board Board of Library Trustees due to his health was pre- Librar isl sented. Trust Motion x Dr. Little's resignation was accepted with regret; and Ayes K K x x x x appointment of a member to fill his unexpired term was Absent x postponed to October 15. 3. A letter from Sue F. Wilson Petroff resigning fr the City ARtS City Arts Commission and as Chairman of the B entennial Cmsn Committee due to moving out of the area was resented. Motion x Sue F. Wilson Petroff's resignatio/waaccepted with Ayes x x x regret; and Councilman Barrett's ant of Carolyn Absent x Dunn to fill the unexpired term otroff ending June 30, 1976 was confirmed. 4. A letter from the League o alifornia Cities regarding League of the City's voting delega and voting alternate for Calif Cities the Annual League Con! ence in Los Angeles'on October Conf 20-23 was presented. Motion x Mayor Donald A. clnnis was designated as the voting Ayes C x x x x delegate and ayor Pro Tem Milan Dostal as the voting Absent x alternate r the 1974 Annual League Conference. 5. A repo from the Citizens' Environmental Quality Air Con of Advisory Committee regarding research on Pollution dangers of fluorocarbons, as reported by Dr. F. S. /)lowland and Dr. Mario Molina, UCI, and requesting Volume 28 - Page 234 PoE (714) b43-400d 9/18/74 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: E. S. DE MOCSKONYI & ASSOCIATES MANUFACTURERS' REPRESENTATIVES 345 CHERRY TREE LANE ERWIN OE MOC6KONY1 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 On July 22, 1974, the City Council adopted Resolution No.8318 consenting to the commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings, for the purpose of referr- ing this matter to the Local Agency Formation Commission for review. Said resolution expressly reserved the right of the City Council to formally consent or not to consent to the Bay Knolls Annexation'until such time as LAFCO had reviewed and made its findings with regard to amending'the sphere of influence in connection with this area and making a determination of the merits of this annexation., On August 14th, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. 74-100 approving an amendment to the sphere of influence of the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, showing the Bay Knolls territory as being within the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Also on August 14, 1974, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 74-99 approving of the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation proposal to the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to the procedures for annexation of inhabited territory as set fdrth in the Annexation Act of 1913, we are hereby respectfully requesting that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation. v£P 9 Jt ..r � Yours very truly, n Ertirin de 1ocskonyi a erie B. Avellar NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN - Editorial Page 9/5/74 * THE BAY KNOLLS ANNEX There's been a.lot o, :;gnashing , of teeth :among ..Costa'Mesa city officials over 'the Bay Ynolis-anneacation in''the_ West Upper Bay'S county,corridor `'J 62: there's'a lot of:heated tall'ibouf spheres`=of infiuen" a and broken ;prom ises . on,- the; part of `'Newport :Beach'. There is a oonspuratorial sound to' those' words •'w""- 4'sphere;_ of=dnfltience."',. Sounds like tiie,partition of-Poland during' World ` War ' YI. -The `citizeng,'.of `.Poland' 'weren't .consulted about,­r that sphere of influence.: Atxd apparently the .resi- dents `of the Bay Knolls ;territory`�ren't being consulted by the Costa.Mes3•offi-` cials who are so eagerl4-wantang` to=do the 'annei —�^+ ++o vl beery-gVYG131GU' i+ll1VULU l.�l.' the all' -important guideline -,in our.sepub-'• lican form of gover=' 'fnt;'and- oertainiy= the.. residents'` of - an ,annexation'`target` area ought to have a'voice in the matter: in a poll among Bay Knolls'homeowners, ,a considerable majority expressed a preference 'for Newport Beach. '-That ought to 'be the determining factor - if Newport wants to invite: them in. DAILY PILOT — 8/22/74 Eager Bay Knolls Fobs �� Have Long Bay Knolls residents anxious to become part of Newport Beach will probably have to wait until at least November, 1075 Newport Beach City Clerk Laura Logics said today. Residents of Bay Knolls, a small county island between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, have been trying to become part of Newport Beach for the past fewyears. Their efforts, however, have been bounced back and forth between city and county agencies until last week. ' The county Local Agency Formation Commission ruled 3 to 2 last week in favor of the group's request to be removed from the 'Costa Mesa sphere of influence an4 placed in the Newport Beach sphere. The next step is to file an annexation application with the city of Newport 4each, setting off a lengthy series of fictions that would wind up in a special election In November of next year it V 4pproval is -reached through all channels. Srw* W Moeskonyi, a spokesman For tho*ft Knolls Homeowners nnex wait Association, said today the group will the probably nexfew fng filing the a application within 1 s. Bay Knolls is a 44 acre tract located northwest of Tustin Avenue, between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue. The 150 homeowners are,currently under county control. "We've been an orphan for too Iong; Robert Carolan, president of t h e homeowners assocation, told the LAFC members last week. De Moeskonyi said the homeowners ! feel , an identification with the city of Newport Beach "partially because we've had a Newport mailing address for 12 years." d "It's just a natural thing for us to . pursue," de Mocskonyi said. Newport Beach City Manager Robert Wynn said today the city has "no I ,preconceived notoh" on the Bay Knolls I annBxation: ; • r "There is a'city policy on annexations, listing 17 criteria the city measures be- fore deciding one way cr jQnother," Wyan said, These criteria include things such as the cost benefit to the city, public reaction, services needed, whether' the annexation ties in with the city's general plan, and the cost of improvements the city might have to provide. Wynn said he fs aware of a major drainage project that will probably have to be dope , which migh6 weigh against the annexation. The Bay Knolls area has a n approximate property and school tax yield of about $156,000, but it costs about $212,000 to provide all the necesssary municipal services to the tract. When the application is filed, the city will spend about 30 days evaluating the request, Wynn said. Then, it will go to the planning commission for its recommendation and then back to the city council. The final steps incIu4 &ctt jng petitions, a return to fibs si6q sGimcil and then a special VaOlo& _ Bay Knolls to file for. annex After what residents have described as "more .than' a year of hassling," Bay Knolls homeowners are getting ready to become a part of the city of Newport Beach. "We will file apetition short- ly with the city -- the, rest is just a formality," Robert Car- olan, 2309 Fairhill, president of Bay Knolls Homeowners Assn., told the Ensign this week. Bay Knolls got the crucial go-ahead on Wednesday of last week, when the county's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which controls such matters, voted 3-2 to change 'the area from Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. Bay Knolls its now inunincorpuratedCounty !territory. Last month, Newport Beach. !City Council Voted 4-3 to give Its blessing to homeowner at- tempts to seek the sphere ,change. An election may be needed [before the annexation becomes official, according to Newport 'City Attorney Dennis O'Neil. "I'll have to research the subject, but I believe residents of Bay Knolls will have to Vote on it, Mr. O'Neil said Mon- day. If they do vote, the results ,are almost a foregone conclu- sion. A poll conducted by the homeowner group shows �07 of the 132 families favoog annexation to Newport. Bay Knolls is bounded rough- ly by Irvine and Santa Ana avenues, and 22nd and Santat Isabel streets, , Costa Mesa had expected to eventually annex Bay Knolls after LAFCO placed it in that city's sphere several years ago. Mayor Robert Wilson and other Costa Mesa officials, sought to keep the area in their sphere. Costa Mesa County Water District, which services Bay Knolls, also fought the, sphere change. Monday, Mayor Wilson said' the LAFCO vote "will do noth- ing but hurt inter -city rela- tions." Newport Mayor Donald Mc- Innis, who voted against giving' the city's support to the sphere change effort, also sits on LAFCO, but did not vote in last week's. LAFCO decision.' Instead, his alternate, Alice Frankiewich, joined Robert; Battin in opposing the change.) Voting with the majority were Ralph Diedrich, Stan Northrup and Donald Salt'erelli, Bay Knolls residents must go before the city, Planning Commission as the next step toward annexation to Newport,! After the planners hold a pub- lic hearing, the City Council members will have the final say on the matter, unless they' determine that an election is nedessary. THE ENSIGN 8/22/74 NOTE TO FILE: LAFCO meeting on Bay Knolls Annexation Wednesday, August 14 - conflicts with airport meeting - alert Bill Foley he may be designated to attend. (Per phone call from Joe De•vl•in 8/9) - There is a serious drainage problem that will have to be considered prior to any annexation At the public hearing at LAFCO it should be pointed out that although approval by LAFCO is necessary, it does not in any sense guarantee that there will be later approval by the City of Newport Beach for annexation. RVH -4 -- PR :51MI_TARY AGE10A LOCAL AGENCY FOMLkTIOYT COP'21ISSIO11"T OF ORAPTGE Com,TTY, CALIFORP7 AUGUST 144 1974 � Goa -"eat• q� PIEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P;VOCATIOti a�� ��DOT�`(� S':J ARING OF W! _ASSES MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 'DULY 24, 19`74 CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS (Items Al - A8) 2:00 P.N- (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved by one motion unless a Commission member requests separate action on a specific item) A. 'PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 56261 OF THE GO"v'E\T1 TT CODE SET FOR DETERMINATION WITHOUT NOTICE AND IM RING 1. PROPOSED ANIVESATION TO THE GARDEPT GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ATNI=TION NO. Ti 568-73 Appro3dmately 0_62 acre located on the wrest side of Western Avenue north of Garden Grove Boulevard in the "west Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden. Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Garden Grove filed a negative declaration on the overall project with the County Clerk's office.) 2. PROPOSED A1''-' ON TO TEE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT A117,NFKATION NO_ 1--408-74 Approximately 7.25 acres located south of Chapman Avenue and wrest of Euclid Street in the north Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owners (The- city of Garden Grove filed a negative declaration on'the overall project :pith the County Clerk's office.) 3. Opos".'D Aj;rfzXATIOx TOT GAR-DENGROVESANITARY DISTRICT 31i IE = i,IOW NO. E-412-74 Approximately 0.91 acre located north of Lampson Avenue and wrest of Magnolia Avenue in the west Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The . Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on July 30, 1974>) 6� PAGE 2 4` AGEI.10A - 1OCAL AGENCY FORr4ATI0AT COMMISSION _A.UGUST 14, 1974 fit-. PROPOSED AN =_6.TI01T TO TBE STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT APNRh�1lL?�IQId AND,X4T1OV Approximately 0.26 acre located on the south side of Orange Avenue west of Western Avenue in the west Anaheim area. Filed by the Stanton County Water District on behalf of the property ofrmer. (The City of Anaheim approved a permit on the overall project in September 1970.) ITEMS A5 - A 8 ON CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CITY ANNEXATIONS IATVOLIIING LESS THAN 20 ACRES, HAVE BEEN LEGALLY NOTICED IN ITZ,-TSPAPER AND ALL PROPERTY OWNERS H�,VE CONSENTED TO ATTiTE. 5.. PROPOSED AAi1dEYAT1`OAT TO THE CITY OF ANABEIN COLOR_4DO-CRESM-1 T ANATEXATION Approximately 2.2 acres located on the south side of Crescent., Avenue east of Colorado Street in the west Anaheim area. Filed by the City of Cnaheim on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on July 301, 1974:) 6. PROPOSED AlqN=EATTION TO TEE CITY OF ANAHEIM TUSTINT KI?ALOi�" ??i_ EXATIOAT Approximately 10 acres located on'the east side of Tustin Avenue south of OrnSethorpe Avenue in the northeast Anaheim area. Filed by the City of Anaheim on behalf of the property owners. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk .on July 30, 1974.) a I 7. PROPOSED AN112=4 101AT TO TEE CITY OF CYPRESS Apt i E`XATION NO. 74-1 Approximately I,.' acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue east of Sumner :lace in the north Cypress area. Filed by the City - of Cypress on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Cypress filed a r_egative declaration on the overall project on May 24, 1974.) 8. F:OFOSED DETACHME- Z FROM THE CITY OF ORANGE DETACFa yiTT NO. 191-A Approximately 0.2 acre located west of Morada Drive and north of Hillside Drive extended in Orange Park Acres in the northeast Orange area. Filed by the City -of Orange on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaratioA%with''the County Clerk on the overall project on July 30, 1974.) xAGE 3. AGENDA - .LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AUGUST 141 1974 B. PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED 10NEXATION TO THE MIDIVAY CITY SANT TP''4Y DISTRICT Iv WLAiTD STREET NO. 16 Ail iTEXATION Approximately 61 acres located west of Newland Street and south of Bolsa Avenue in the south Westminster area. Filed by the 111idway City Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Westminster approved an Environmental Impact Report on the overall project on June 11, 1973.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO TEE CITY OF Xh7iPORTEACH BAV k�TOLLS ASTN� TIO�T Continued from June 26, 1974) Anpro^cimately 44.6 acres located northwesterly of Tustin Avenue bet,geen 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, in the unii_coxvoratea area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Filed by Bay Xnolls Homeov.,-ners. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on June 11, 1974.) ' 4. PROPOSED AID TION TO TIE CITY OF STANTON ]KNOTT A F+U=1-ST_!UTL0N AIRMXATION N0. 77 - RESUBMITTAL . Approximately 20 acres.located west of Knott Averse north of Katella Avenue in the 'west Stanton area. Filed by Continental Multi Komss I- c. (The proponent submitted a draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposedproject.) 5. P.30POSED An--=E A'TION TO THE CITY OF LAGTPTA BEACH . ILA GU.LTA CAN"i0N-UROEXATION NO. 7 Approximately 9.5 acres located on the south side of Laguna Canyon Road in the vicinity of the Big Bend in Laguna Canyon in the north L a-sa Beach area. Filed by the City of Laguna Beach. (The City of Laguna Beach approved an Envinoonmental Impact Report on the project.) 4. , r PAGE AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORlU TION COill°IISSION &UGUS`'i' 147 1974 C. S.PlM— E OF INFLUENCE TO BE CaNSID ERED Ili COMPLLUTCE WITH GOV�2TEENT CODE SECTION 5171774 AIM TIE CALIFORNIA ENVIROPi'TEI•TTAL QUALITY ACT OI' 1970 iEVIEW ATTD DETTERI'iINATION OF A PARTIAL SPF v OF Ii IL E"XCE FOR :fTORTH Ad -ID NORTHEAST Is HABRA D. COTv±r lISSION' DISCUSSION REQUEST BY THE CITY OF STUTTOPT TO AMEND TIE CITY OF STANTO.N'S ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE E. OTHER COM'2i ISSION BUSMSS LAFCO approved Bay Knolls Annexation - Approved sphere of influence. going to have to start moving - tell JDH. Anticipate petition in near future. There is a problem - must see Public Works immediately. RVH - 8/14/74 lk- P. P.[��Y AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 14, 1974 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION SWEARING OF WITNESSES MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 241 1974 CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS (Items Al - A8) 2:00 P.M. (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved by one motion unless a Commission member requests separate action on a specific item) A. 'PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 56261 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE SET FOR DETERMINATION WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K 368-73 Approximately 0.62 acre located on the west side of Western Avenue north of Garden Grove Boulevard in the west Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Garden Grove filed a, negative declaration on the overall project with the County Clerk's office.) 2. PROPOSED A.7N-J ;a,TION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ,ANNEXATION NO. g 408-74 Approximately 7.25 acres located south of Chapman Avenue and west of Euclid Street in the north Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owners (The city of Garden Grove filed a negative declaration on the overall project with the County Clerk's office.) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT AN7MATION NO. K 412-74 Approximately 0.91 acre located north of Lampson Avenue and west of Magnolia Avenue in the west Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding -the proposal on July 30, 1974.) WAGE 2 .t` . AGENM - LOCAL AGENCY FOPMATION COPINISSION AUGUST 14, 1974 4. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 9,1ERIMANIAN ATTNEXATION Approximately 0.26 acre located on the south side of Orange Avenue west of Western Avenue in the west Anaheim area. Filed by the Stanton County Water District on behalf of the property owner.. (The City of Anaheim approved a permit on the overall project in September 1970.) ITEMS A5 - A 8 ON CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CITY ANNEXATIONS INVOLVING LESS THAN 20 ACRES, HAVE BEEN LEGALLY NOTICED IN 11EWSPAPER AND ALL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ANNEX 5.PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM COLORADO-CRESCENT ANNEXATION Approximately 2.2 acres located on the south side of Crescent Avenue east of Colorado Street in the west Anaheim area. Filed by the City of Anaheim on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer riled a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on July 30, 1974.) 6. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF AITAHEIM TUSTIN-11IRALOMA _%1•TNEXATION Approximately 10 acres located on the east side of Tustin Avenue south of Orangethorpe Avenue in the northeast Anaheim area. filed by the City of Anaheim on behalf of the property owners. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk on July 30, 1974.) 7. PROPOSED MMEXATION TO THE CITY OF CYPRESS APTIvMTIOIT NO. 74-1 Approximately 4.5 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue east of Sumner Place in the north Cypress area. Filed by the City of Cypress on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Cypress filed a negative declaration on the overall project on May 24$ 1974.) 8. PROPOSED DETACHMENT FROM THE CITY OF ORANGE DETACHMENT NO. 191-A Approximately 0.2 acre located west of Morada Drive and north of Hillside Drive extended in Orange Park'Acres in the northeast Orange area. Filed by the City of Orange on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declnration..with the County Clerk on the overall project on July 30, 1974.) 4GE . j AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1974 B. PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT NEWIJUTD STREET NO. 16 ANNEXATION Approximately 61 acres located west of Newland Street and south of Bolsa Avenue in the south Westminster area. Filed by the Midway City Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Westminster approved an Environmental Impact Report on the overall project on June 11, 1973.) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION (Continued from June 26, 1974) Approximately 44.6 acres located northwesterly of Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Filed by Bay Knolls Homeowners. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on June 11, . 1974. ) 6 (,� I ®' r b I -r` P' 3, REVIEW OF THE ADOPTED SPHERES OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND NEWPORT BEACH IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA BETWEEN THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND NEWPORT BEACH SOUTH OF MESA DRIVE feac� 4. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STANTON KNOTT AVENUE-STANTON ANNEXATION NO. 77 - RESUBMITTAL . Approximately 20 acres.located west of Knott Avenue north of Katella Avenue in the west Stanton area. Filed by Continental Multi Homes Inc. (The proponent submitted a draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposedproject.) 5. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH LAGUNA CANYON ANNEXATION NO. 7 Approximately 9.5 acres located on the south side of Laguna Canyon Road in the vicinity of the Big Bend in Laguna Canyon in the north Laguna Beach area. Filed by the City of Laguna Beach. (The City of Laguna Beach approved an Enviroonmental Impact Report on the project.) PAGE 4 AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION 001'IISSION AUGUST 14- 1974 C. SPHERE OF IMUENCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPLTAITCE WITH GOVE11IM111T CODE SECTION 54774 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF A PARTIAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR ITORTH AIM NORTHEAST LA HABRA D. COI'fi'1ISSION DISCUSSION REQUEST BY THE CITY OF STANTON TO AlM D THE CITY OF STANTOZT13 ADOPTED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE . E. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 ED pUG2 919743- < c� MANAGER ib Co of k&wma IEAp1 cwuF. RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION ISSION / OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 14, 1974 'On motion of Commissioner Northrup, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, after due notice provided by law a public hearing was held by this Commission on a proposed annexation to the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH designated Bay Knolls Annexation; and WHEREAS, the Commission, as the lead agency, has reviewed the proposed draft negative declaration filed by the Executive Officer with the County Clerk of Orange County pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the boundaries of the territory proposed to be included in and annexed to the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH are more specifically described in that certain legal description entitled PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, BIYKNOLLS ANNEXATION, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the negative declaration is hereby adopted; and' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said annexation is hereby approved with the following condition: 1. Upon completion of the subject annexation, the City of Newport Beach initiate procedures with the Orange County Board of Supervisors to detach 5 properties included in the annexation proposal which are currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12. AYES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP, RALPH A. DIEDRICH AND DONALD J SALTARELLI NOES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT W. BATTIN AND ALICE FRANKIEWICH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 74-99 0 I " � [ • 1.• 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 3 I, RICHARD T. TURNER, Executive Officer of the Local Agency 4 Formation Commission of Orange County, California, hereby certify that 5 the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by 6 said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of 7 August, 1974• 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th 9 day of Augustt'1974 10 RICHARD T. TURNER Executive Officer of the 11 Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California 12 2-1 13 By e retary 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Resolution No. 74-99 2. ; RAUB, REIN, FROST 1401 Quail Newport Beach, & ASSOCIATES Street California DESCRIPTION the on Revised June 6, 1974 Revised May 9, 1974 April 29, 1974 Job No. 15259 Page 1 of 2 ME BEGINNING at the intersection of the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue, 60.00 feet }aide, with the northeasterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as said streets are shown on the Map of Newport Heights, recorded in Book 4, page 83 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, said intersection being an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Newport Beach, as described in the "Tustin Avenue and 22nd Street Annexation" per Ordinance No. 803, adopted November 13, 1956 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue and northeasterly prolongation thereof, being also the northwesterly boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as described in the above mentioned annexation and the "Upper Bay Annexation per Ordinance No. 748 adopted April 25, 1955 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, to the intersection thereof with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of "Monte Vista No. 2 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 63-1, adopted January 21, 1963 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence leaving said northwesterly boundary line of the City of Newport Beach and along said prolongation, North 50°00'50" West, 60.00 feet to the southeasterly terminus of said southwesterly line; thence northwesterly and northeasterly along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines• - of said last mentioned annexation to the northeasterly line of Lot 105 of Tract No. 300, as shown on map recorded in Book 14, pages 11 and 12 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, being also a point in the southwesterly boundary of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 62-19, adopted May 20, 1962 by 'the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence northwesterly;, along the boundary of said "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" to the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 3062 as shown on map recorded in Book 92, page 20 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County; thence leaving said boundary of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation", South 40°00'33" West, 629.97 feet along the northwesterly boundary of said Tract No. 3062 to the most westerly corner of said, Tract No. 3062, being also a point in the northeasterly boundary of "Linda No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 65-38; adopted November 15, 1965 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly boundary,,. being also the northeasterly boundary of Tract No. 5615 as shown on map recorded in Book 209, pages 42 and 43 of Miscellaneous Maps, to the most easterly corner of said Tract No. 5615 and an angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; 'this description d map of proposed annexationmeet the approval of the Surveyor's Office � 7/. 1701015-� "X6-//-if/ i .: Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates - Description Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach Bay Knolls Annexation I ised June 6, 1974 Revised May 9, 1974 April 29, 1974 Job No. 15259 Page 2 of 2 thence southwesterly along the boundary of said last mentioned annexation, being also the southeasterly boundary of said Tract No. 5615, to the northeasterly 'line of 23rd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as shown on said map of Tract No. 5615, being also an angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; thence leaving the boundary of said last mentioned annexation and along the southeasterly boundary of'said Tract No. 5615, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 3609, as shown on map recorded in Book 126, pages 29 and 30 of Miscellaneous Maps, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 2609, as shown on map recorded in Book 80, page 35 of Miscellaneous Maps, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 2819, as shown on map recorded in Book 117, page 31 of Miscellaneous Maps, all records of said Orange County, South 40°00'00" Nest, 1321.82 feet to the north- easterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, said northeasterly line being parallel with and distant 30.00 feet northeasterly, measured at right, angles, from the center- line of said 22nd Street, as said centerline is shown on said map of Tract No. 2819, and being 'also the northwesterly prolongation of the northeasterly boundary of "Moden Annexation - Boundary No. 59" per Ordinance No. 1258, adopted July 8, 1968 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence along said parallel line, South 50000'00" East, 660.00 feet to the northwesterly terminus of said north- easterly boundary of said last mentioned annexation; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly boundary to the POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: All Covenants, Rights, Rights -of -Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof. I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19� 20, 21. 22 23 24 25 26 ' 27 28 29 s 17 r . rr i x, M iti�ri..'li .�%� 'T� 5.41�rT'..�.� �.GEPIGJ I�iii?!iTIt�a4 >t.•A'T.i'�+..F} .fat O:T G'$AI a GC3U pry, L"..�.i.a-WORT_41A !august 2.41 1974 Un m0 tiop 0- Cu:�missiones, 11orth up, dul-f seconded end iodt the following resolution was adopted; uhe ?*cal Saaoncy Formation Co i.saion has adopted ; a _'an for Bstabliahing spheres of influence for Orange (��un�,y 01 SS; and WR BAG, Government Code Section 54774 states that the local Agency Formation Coo- missiOn -shall develop and detPiimine the sPhere Of influence o.t each local governmental agency within the County; and 1.7. i A8, Government Code Section 5s.774 further states the Commission shall periodically review and. update the spheres of influ*.nce derplops3 and determined by them; and on June o, 1974, the local Agency Formation cornission set -, hearing data of Auguat 14, 1974 to review the adopted spheres of influence of the cities 0f Costa Mesa and Newport Beach as, it =elaten t0 unincorporatad territory knaves as the °tcorridor area', soUtiX of iiesrw Drive; and vWPUFA�, in accordance with the California Environmental Jnualtiy Act of 3.970, the F=ecutive officer filed a negative declaration 1 on the review of the adopted spheres of influence 0f' the ci.tie8 Of Costar Mesa and Newport Beach; and WT=,j1B, the Executive officer notified the cities of Costa Mesa and ZIewport Beach of vise review of their respective spheres of influence 30 days prior to the public hearing On same. NOW, Try}x',FQ7$Y;I IT IS iMM= z4BSOLVi' that this Commi.ssici3X` adopts the negative declaration and approves can amendment to the ,spheres i of influence of the cities of N-.,,47port Beach 3011tha-accompanying map attached heratoo 31 32 17-soluttion INTO. 74--1GK3 yr RECEIVED�� Community Develppment Dept AUG 3 019741- CITY OF NEWPORTBEACI CALIF. as shoran on I AYES c•ac''.Gu:zsIO=..S TAs 14O.-tTE.iu , ana L. aaKEIR. v_vrz3 t aipa 1. 2 DIMMZICA `' ;:L"uL : C:vi11iiB,slON11'2s i;`Ji� SI LD d . S."'I 'T.LL Z%L. 'iUTD ALA, R iMW1(2 4 a,si': Cc�i�Ilh Oiia_= in' itGs% 5 vna tE Cil (,Ik.7 lGii i 4 7 11 RICZ,'iRD Q. TLFI ERV Exe'.'.utiTJe Otfi--Or of the Local As-i7ncy 8 Fo atio.'1. Cowja .ssion of Ovangqe Country, :is?lifozmiag ,i3ore,107 that 9 Vhe above and foregoing resolution, vas duly and regularly adapted by 10 said Commission at a regular meatingy thareog s .heid on the 3.4tVa day of 11 Ilugust , 1974. 12 IN WITI M :M:' r, 1 have hesaunto set my hand this 14th 13 lay of august' 1974. 14 R14::.dhRD T. s'i!Z'.P3 15 Executive Officar Of th. Local Agenoy Poamation Commission 16 of Orange Coaant7Califo=il s '7 18 ,becr u-Ty 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Resolution %To, 74.--1O0 2. I CITY 0r NE WPOfT BEACH SOl E4 - --•, AMrNDE$ S01 BOUNDARY cP I I•I'I'i'1'1'I'I I'1 i'1 ,.i•,+,+,+1 PI'1'1'1 IN II+,1,+,111,1,1, 1,I,lil, l,11'i II'II'ilil,ll'I'I'1'I'1'I')+111'1'I'I'1'1'i h'i'I'1'I it JI't'i1r'r'rLr ir44'rLl',14'+ 44y11 �(�I 1 1ilrti1 1 It41J4 ri +44 +41i44144�I 1h' J— + I I+ t+) I I,I ij121 � 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2• +n 1,h �4I,�f'Ij;)hT}'i�l fi�i I' 'IIl'al'I 11 I t I IS� I i I I I 1 II'I T��'T`�r't�rTf'I'T'f �1FTTi'�+P�7`Itl'4f�1''T�`)-r)`r'+�'JI�1 rr I'I I I I I 1 I I 1��i I IYI I i '11I111 'ISI I'I'I'I'I I11 1i1'i'III'1'Ill i111'Iti'I'I'Ii1'I lllill'1'I'1 'IIII I'1'l liiill'I'f'I'Illli'tI1'Iil'1'I ll'1il' 'I i' i; I; 1;1�1 I;iIi I; I; Ii I; I; I;iil;llllll;l; I; I; I; I;I�I; i; 1; i; I�I�I;IIIII;I jl;l�l;l�lll;l I;I I; I;IIIIIiI;I;IIIII;IIi;l;i�ill;l;l;lllll;l;l jl;l;l;l;l;l;i;l;l;l�l;l; I;I; i;t�ill; l;l;lll;l; J;I Ii 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i t III llllllIIII, III,I,II t,Ili llitl'llll l l it I IIII'))) llllll Ili i'llllli illlllllllllllllllll11111iIIIIIII'llt'llllilill llllllilllilllil lllillltllll'ililllll'I II Iil I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I; i; I;i;l;l�l; I; I;I;IIII III II'll I; 1;1�11I;I;I;I;I I, I; I; I;ill 'I'IJIII'I'lll III I'lll'lil'li lil lllllllliilllllllllllllllllill IIIIIIiililll llllllllllilllilllilllilillli tl ll'i I'1 I'i IIIIIIIIIIIIII III II1111IIIIliIIIIIII'lllililll'IIIIIII11lIli'1 'llllllllillllilllllllllll ll'1llll'i II111 it 11111 Ill III IIiii;i;i;l;lil;l;Iil;t;l;IIi;1I1;i;l;jlli;l;l; i; I;Iil;lililll;l�l;l; I; 1; I;I;I II; II I; 1;1; I;I 1;1 I;I;I;I;I;iil; 1; 1;1;1; 1;1�1; I; 1;1; 1;1il; I;IiI;I;I;I;IIIil;l;l�l;l;lil;I;IIIIIIJI1;I�iii{II1;111t I;I I'lllllli'I'llill ll 111111i1111111'll1'I'ill'1'll;i;1; I; I; i'I'Il L'I 'I'l-l1l I�II1�1'I 11; I; I; 1;1;1;1 i;l I;I;I;I;I;Iil; ij l;lil; I;I;I�I; 1;1;J'lil'lllll ;I;i;l;i;l;lll;l;i;l;1; 1;1il; I;I;I; 1; 1;1;1;1; i;1 ;41 III '''I''''''''''I''''i''''1I1111t IIlII111lIItI t'I III11111''Iii it it ilri il'iiiliii IIIII I;I;llllll I I 'i'i'ili'iili'ilili'ililllllill'lll'llt'llll1'1'. I ICI I l;l IIII I I II'i'; I;I� it I,li �I'I iI'I'III'I'I'III'I'Iillll;t;iil;lilillllt't II II II III IIIII IIIIIIIIIi IIIII; I; 1;1 IIII, I; I; I; i;l lil I�1; I; I;III;III; I; I; I; I; i; I;I;I;I; IIII; I;IiI ;Iil; i; l; l;l; l;l;llllll; i;l;l�l;ll I; I I i i l t l l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I IIIIIII'lll'IIIli Illllilll'IIII111llllll'I II IIII I IIi II'i'1 I' i'i'ItI iiIl'ihii'iill i!vlill,illl.,ll-lllil.11,, �l-l+i llllli,ll',I,i ,I 1,11t,han}t✓o•3�ti J!1!1! t!lt W-1�1!l�L!i It iii i' I''' I)'' I' i' i' �1t 1 ii;1yiY� (�=.1�11'.' ''�l i'''ti''''I'i'I'I'I'I'I'tilll'I'Iil ll ll ll'I'111'I'IIII IIIIIIII II'lllll'ill'111 )llllll, i,lll,l I, I,III,I,I,I,I,Iii�l�l;lllit�l4lil,nl; I; I; I;I / � i I I IJ; 'Iliii'ilill l;IiI; I; 1;1�1; 1'i'Ili'Ill'I'Illll'Illlll'1i111111111111,1, i,lllll I l l l l i l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 �I l l l l l l Ili 11� I (c I t I t I I t IIII I I III'lllI 11' 'ill'I IIII iI II II IIii II II II II II II II II I II IIIIIIIIIIIIII_IIIII�I'`F�•)'I)�t'1i11'i-(,1!11,'�Jli,'ll jlkF ; +� ,� 11 IIIII < Illil Ill llll'I'Illll llllllll}}I�'1'I�f�F�111,111;I;I;I;iiil;l;l;l; I�I;I�I;I; I; 1; I; 1; I; I;I;IIIII; 'c •_,;•cucd� '''�'('I'111'11111IIIIIIiI�iP�'Ill'Illll'Illlti(i'Ijill'll''il'1'1'll'll lillllllllll ll li'lllllll 1'"''I'''I'I'I'''I'i'Ill'I'l'I'I'I'1'I''II'�' ' i,;lll'; G 1I,II„I,I_I,I,I_I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,LLI,LI,;,�Inar+Ot:.tiNI,1,I,l Ihi+I�+hf,LLLLLt.I I.LLI_+1I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,�I,LLLLLLL+.4-I-4." , AMENDED THE CITIES CITY O F N EWPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF COzTA MESA, - AND BEACH BOUNDARY FOR NEWPORT' • 74 AL .14 Ys - EXISTING BOUNDARIES. ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES t t : ri o o Y� 940°00'33".W 629.97} 7A 1 160'• f I s _ -- RITU11-J, tuc:C- { :i{�1. + mw.3pbA. r2.:}✓r42- 4iSrZO°0ju a S4 0'00"W 1321.82' `( f I ?. 7 f 6D, -- RERLANDS^ pRIVE ¢ c=. - >..: t k f • I . z MOST E'LY COR. •; �'f y=-• D n 3ai LOT I TR.3062 60, - t"• 0 ". - i Q- - - .i ?•i.:2 J.r}i.1 r w NNIE ROAD' w REDLANDS - DR7VE. a t o w ! 55 W - -i- i -i n .-r-_ ,{ n_1 •• r a=- 1 ¢ to NE'LY LINE 1 m :"• - '' r W Z Ff. } '; - -L; LOT LO$Q - ` i— Q is I O �. 1 L/ T t L., I r, t!1 tj i _ W L„ 2 I i.• ' Fai •+-Y 1'1 f!1 :X: \ T �{ �:'I �3�c i a �.! r\i :. I7t.: C.1)! r 1--DRIVE' p , ¢. .<, pHILL I t!1 '!- "s--- .2 F r N 50°00 50"W t 4 i. o Sd- 60.00' .` �'^'� •.00 -T U S-T t N f 'o AV E N U E is.•.Sa[_C:4t=Gi:.n�Sti 'o %1 rty - x 6 P�_ _�_ ; •• _,._ �• __ -_ __ 'D -_ __ -f 4'ERi:i'r?Ft4' � ', Ise "- -r _ 4 - � - _ `_• -� - i'•v ..._ 'd��:` •_ I 2 '"t T ti r .'•-{' d EXISTING BOUNDARY OF".T1 FE CITY OFidEWPORT BEACH,CAUF., �4EXISTING '$OUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CALIF `' 1 f .AS DESCRIBED IN THE;"TUSTIN.AVENU.E AND 22ND STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THE "MONTE VISTA NO,I ANNEXATION" ANNEXAT10fi1" TO SAID CITY,ORDJNANCE NO.B03 ADOPTED ' TO SAID CITY., ORDINANCE-NO.62.19,ADOPTED MAY20,1962 I' NOV.13,'1956 w r - 04" '' ; -- EXISTING BOUNDARY OF 7HE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CALIF, }� T �9�� f, d EXISTING BOUNDARY:OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC_H,CALIF., . AS.DESCRIBED IN THE-"L1NDA N0. I ANNEXATION" TO ��/"' / "AS..DESCRIBED`JN'THE"UPPER SAY, ANNEXATION"TO. SAID CITY, ORDINANCE-NO.65-38 ADOPTEDNOV,151965. � i 'SKETCH 70 ACCOMPANY- LEGAL DESCRIPT1t5N� SAID W--Y,ORDINANCE, NO. 748- ADOPTED APR. 25,1955, ( OF -PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY ,OF,': I © EXISTING. BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, NEWPORT BEACH BAY KNOLLS ANNEX r „ �3 EXISTINb:80U.NDAR�'_0� THE G17Y,-OF COSTAMESA,CALIF, CALIF,,A.S DESC-RIBED IN THE "MODEN ANNEXATION- ATtON y R y, - SAS AESCftif3 D INJI-1E.MONTE• VISTA- NOr2 ANNEXATION' ( BOUNDARY N0.59,." TO SAID CITY; ORDINANCE NO,1258, CONTAINING 44,65. AC4tfiS-� T4 SAID CITY' DRDINANCE;NO 63 1}AUGPTED JAN.21,1963. ADOPTED JULY 8, 1968. II7 �.' This description nd map of. proposed mea A ,�07Ai`st anXQllOn �- e 7 ne x t the uM1 y a r ' approval of the Surveyor's Offied es = ? - r ; .f . J REVISED 6/6 74 r REVfSED 5/9 74 4129//7/4 J N 152 9��.��ff August 13, 1974 Richard•P: Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission Orange,County,Administration Building Post O•fficc Box 687 ' Santa'Ana* California 92702 Dear Mr. Turner.:• At their. meeting held -on August 12,. 1974, the Newport Beach City Council had the following statement read into the record for the purpose o£:clarifying their position with regard to the Bay Knolls Annexations "The Local.'Agency Formation Commission -has determined that it could not as a matter of law.consider.a request by the Bay Knolls homeowners for annexation,to the City of Newport Beach until the . City Council acted -to initiate the annexation proceedings. "Because the•territory•in question,is•presently within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Costa Mesa, and because of certain boundary agreements with that city, the City Council has been reluctant to consent.to the Bay Knolls area annexation. The Council felt that this.matter should properly first be reviewed by LAPc « , . "For the purposet of giving LAFC jurisdiction over this matter, thereby--p'roviding the affected. homeowners with a forum -where their proposal coul&,be heard, the Council at their last meeting adopted a resolution••consenting•to the•ccr encement of the Bay Knolls,annexation proceedings (Resolution No. 8318 attached). This action -was taken solely for the purpose of satisfying a technical point of law in order to place this matter before LAFC. The City Council has not consented to the Bay Knolls annexation. This decision is being held in abeyance (that is, the decision to annex or not to -annex) until such time as it has been heard by LAFC and they have,made a report of their findings and con- clusions." DDO:mh cc: City Manager, City Manager City Clerk City of Costa Mesa Very truly yours, DENNIS D. O'NEIL City Attorney bcc: Thomas-P. Clark, ir., Rutan & Tucker 0 COUNCILMEN \�cO� OCR O ��11N ntn�0 N.� p'�vyZ�9 ROLL CALL -A F CITY OF NEWPORT August 12, 1974 0 BEACH MINUTES INDEX Referred to Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commis- Open sion, letter from Terry Watt urging more green space Space in the City. Referred to staff for report back on August 26, letter Intergov'1 from the State Office of Planning and Research, re- Relations i questing comments for an informal review of the Gen Plan . California Council on Intergovernmental Relations' Guidelines adopted General Plan Guidelines. R erred to staff for review, letter addressed to the Special City anager from Newport Center Fashion Island Permit protesting the increase in special event permit fees. Fees Referre\sla nding Ligislation Committee, resolution Police of Garda opposing 5B-2408, which would re- Officers i quire thof Police Officers by a statewide commis I Referrending Le islation Committee, resolutio Plea of Gardverelating o the practice of plea Bargaining bargainielony matter under the criminaljustice .Referrending Legislation C mittee, resolutio Workmen's of Orangng the California legis ture to adopt legislation providing that certain workrii n's compensa- Comp tion benefits shall be limited to retired p\ted ployees whose injuries developed and mathemselves during the course of their emReferred to Pending Legislation Commit State of Downey requesting members of the CaLegislature legislature to repeal and amend those sections of the California Government Code pertaining to the state employee retirement system for state legislators who \ are no longer serving due to loss of election or apportionment. \4 5. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: Letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission Bay Knolls from the Costa Mesa County Water District opposing Annex the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach. I iLetter from the Balboa Island Realty and Investment Company commending Building Inspector Jim Sinase for his thoroughness and fairness in dealing Building Code violations. Letter to Police Chief Gla from the Orange County Health Department osing results of the annual inspection of c'Newport Beach City jail. Volume 28 - Page 200 I i K Yh r RAY HUDSON IA DOOR{ DIRECTORS '//1 �G[N[RALMANAG[R � AND S[CRiTARY h1)yilMllir /VI/ / NATHAN L. READE .F •Rt310 [XT y_T� EDWARD J. L ASSISTANT TMANAG[R MA RIO DURANTE Vint PR[SID[NT .r F MARGE M. ROBINSON WARREN E. BOOTH V. _ _= t, f AUDITOR K1t ' tt'T A.L. PINKLEY .w.; _ 4 DV WAYNE LIOKE CARL R. STEVENS i "i. �!j,,,V*_ ,yw,,,,w? • �G•r'�''1�"Ir'v� s - tNGIN[[R H. RODGER HOWELL ' "%+ `Y - _ „t JOHN GRIMLEY 'y�l 1W' ,,yyv't r,-. .w C.P.A. ATTO RX[Y en _ .lM1tWim:��. _-Mit'3%(,Mnl•I. _Vi�•SYNYY`�"'C�f"YF3Ffs>)9fn COSTA MESA COUNTY W I DISTRICT (714) 556.5210 ■ 77 FAIR DRIVE [ P.O. BOX #9 105TA M CALIFORNIA 92627 my 29, 1974 s Vol Local Agency Formation Commissi 515 North Sycamore Street P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 ., Re: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: The Costa Mesa County Water District has received notice of the proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach before your honorable body of certain territory within the boundaries of our District. The Bay Knolls area is subject to a Service Area Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa County Water District. This Agreement specifically provides that the water service to this area by the Costa Mesa County Water District will continue and that the City of Newport Beach will not provide water service to this area without specific consent of the Board of Directors of our District. Such consent has not been given and has not been requested. We would additionally note that in the Sphere of Influence maps provided us by your Staff that this territory appears to be within the designated Sphere of Influence of the City of Costa Mesa. We raise serious concern to an annexation to one city when the territory that is the subject of the annexation is within the approved Sphere of Influence of another city. Only chaos can result from this circumstance because the utilities and other agencies that provide services to the land and inhabitants are increasingly relying upon the Sphere of Influence as approved by your honorable body and are making large expenditures for capital facilities in accordance upon these determinations. r Local Agency FoRmation Commission Page ,2 July 29, 1974 C� We, therefore, urge that you carefully and deliberately consider any Sphere of Influence; that having once adopted a Sphere of Influence, you thereafter respect it unless significant circumstances have altered which would justify a reconsideration. For your information, we are enclosing a map of our service system within the Bay Knolls area subject to this annexation request. Respectfullyyours, Ray HJ dson, General Manager -Secretary COSTA MESA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RH/ss cc: City of Newport, Attn: City Manager City of Costa Mesa, Attn: City Manager H. Rodger Howell, Attorney for Water District k Tu5 1//n/�/Iry �♦An 0 � 7 _ NIFI ` 3 4 L EGEIVD: EXISTING BOUNDARIES -- ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES COSTA MESA COUNTY WATER DISTRICI •I p I• 60' � Ali ♦._. � __. -.. I � . /� 1 - T-- 1 WW >z z 3a REDLANDS DRIVE o FAIRHILL DRIVE w LLI W iW �W �a ~z �, 2a UJ _ a U W REDLANDS aDRIVE MOST E'LY COR. LOT I, TR.3062 NE'LY LIN LOT 105 I W Z W Q ID EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF., ® EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CALIF., AS DESCRIBED IN THE "TUSTIN AVENUE AND 22ND STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THE "MONTE VISTA NO,I ANNEXATION" ANNEXATION" TO SAID CITY,ORDINANCE NO.803 ADOPTED TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE NO, 62-19,ADOPTED MAY20,1962, NOV, 13, 1956. (3) EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CALIF., EXHIBIT 'B'� 02 EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF, AS DESCRIBED IN THE "LINDA NO. I ANNEXATION" TO AS DESCRIBED IN THE 'IUPPE R BAY ANNEXATION"TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE NO. 65-38 ADOPTED NOV.15,1965. SAID CITY,ORDINANCE NO. 748,ADOPTEDAPR..25,1955, 0 © EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPQRT BEACH, EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTAMESA,CALIF,, CALIF., AS DESCRIBED IN THE "MODEN ANNEXATION - AS DESCRIBED,IN THE"MONTE VISTA NO.2 ANNEXATION" BOUNDARY NO. 59 " TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE NO.1258, TO SAID CITY ORDINANCE NO.63-I,ADOPTED JAN.2111963. ADOPTED JULY 8, 1968. SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BAY KNOLLS ANNEX- ATION NO. vUOsf F%UM4 f"YupgM[yi{A FMeYQgB 6 /NpZFYtp ' /9 ro. ..aVf WN VMP .F.FM.>.+b.r+KMwaZNi - 4/29/74 J.N.1525� COUNCILMEN m OyC+ O \�9y N FAO N.1 yyG�, 41f�� O ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT August 12, 1974 41 BEACH 'MINUTES INDEX 3. A report from the Community Development Depart- John Wayne \I ment regarding an off -site parking agreement with Tennis Clul the John Wayne Tennis Club, Inc. in connection with Use Permit 1697 for a private tenAis club located on the westerly side of Jamboree Road, adjacent to the Newporter Inn, was presented. Resolution No. 8339, authorizing execution of an R-8339 Motion x off -site parking agreement with the John Wayne Ayes x x x x x x Tennis Club, Inc. , was adopted. Noes x 4. A eport from the Community Development Depart- Atlas Hotel men regarding an off -site parking agreement with Atlas otels, Inc. in connection with Use Permit 1725 for a th'rteen story hotel complex located on the westerly -corner of Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in oll Center Newport, was presented. Resolution No 8340, authorizing execution of an R-8340 Motion x off -site parkin agreement with Atlas Hotels, Inc., Ayes xx x x x x xI was adopted. 5. A letter from O. D. llison requesting a reduction Parking Motion x in annual parking stic ers for Senior Citizens was Permits Ayes x x x x x xx referred to staff for re ommendation. 6. A letter from Claudia Hut n Hirsch requesting the Promontor} City to purchase several of a unsold lots in Bay/ Promontory Bay for a green ea and recommending Density that density in the City be dras 'cally reduced was ipresented. I Claudia Hirsch addressed the Counc'1 on the matters mentioned in her letter. Motion xl Subject letter was referred to the Parks, Beaches and Ayes x x x x x x x Recreation Commission and to the Plannin Commission. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: 1. A report from the Public Works Director regardin Traffic the traffic signal at Coast Highway and Dover Drive Signal was presented. Motion x The staff was directed to implement the modification Ayes x x x x x x of the traffic signal at Dover and Coast Highway to j allow manual operation daily from noon to 6:00 P. M. on a three weeks trial basis; and the expenditure of $1000 was authorized. Z. The City Attorney announced for the record that the Bay Knolls City as not approved the proposed Bay Knolls annexa Annex tion, and that the adoption_ of Resolution No. 8318 was for the purpose of giving the Local Agency Formation I Volume 28 - Page 205 0 40 COUNCILMEN 9 Pc O -f v OCR O ��9N C9�"`N9y2 Gay m� Op a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 12 1974 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commission jurisdiction over the matter, thereby providing the affecte omeowners with a forum where j I i their proposal could be heard; said action was taken i solely for the purpose of satisfying a technical point I of law in order to place the matter before LAFCo, and I the Council's decision as to whether to annex or not to annex is being Held in abeyance unti suc time as it has een earl by TZ �o a gencp orma ion Commission an the Commission as ma a its report of its findings and conclusions. Motion x The meeting was adjourned at 12:16 A. M. Ayes xxxxxxx / II I II I / I I i I � r r I`I I Volume 28 - Page 206 /I CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE-CHAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT I DONALD A. Me1NNi5 COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN I ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC i ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS I RICHARD 7. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER Local County Santa wr ®F N G LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1974 Agency Formation Commission Administration Building Ana, California ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 667' SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 AREA CODEai*—_1 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the, unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive Gentlemen: On June 25, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission determined that the common boundary between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach would be Tustin -Irvine Avenue beginning at a point northerly of 20th Street and extending northerly to Palisades Road (now Bristol Street), provided, however that the area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street designated as the "Clear Zone" be excluded from future annexations to either city. This determination had been preceeded by a study and a public hearing at which representatives of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and the general public presented information and arguments relative to the boundary line. The decision at that time was based on what the Commission considered to be good planning area boundaries based on the land -uses and services existing in the area. BACKGROUND In the past the "Corridor Area" has been the subject of controversy over annexations initiated by the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In June, 1969, three such annexations were before the Commission; the Backbay Annexa- tion No. 1 to the City of Costa Mesa (40 acres); La Canada Annexation No. 67 (23 acres) and west Santa Ana Heights Annexation No. 63 (89 acres) to the City of Newport Beach. .4 Page 2 In Re: -Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive These three annexations were located generally,south of Bristol Street between Santa Ana Avenue on the west and Irvine Avenue and Birch Street on the east. The City of Newport Beach's La Canada Annexation No. 67,overlapped the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. 1 proposal on its eastern half, west of Irvine Avenue. The third annexa- tion proposal, Newport Beach's west Santa Ana Heights Annexa- tion No. 63 was generally bounded by Bristol Street on the north, Orchard and Mesa Drive on the south, Santa Ana Avenue on the west and Acacia Street on the east. In order to resolve the boundary disputes in this area, the Commission suggested that the representatives of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa meet with the Commission staff and attempt to come to an agreement on boundaries in the Santa Ana Heights area to avoid future overlapping and controversial annexations. Meetings were held with representatives of the two cities. The IAF'C staff supported Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the most logical dividing line between the two cities. Staff based its position on a combination man-made and natural features that exist in the area and what would be considered good planning area boundaries based on existing land uses. To further substantiate the reasoning for establishing the boundaries along Tustin -Irvine Avenue staff initiated research to study the previous annexa;ions by both cities in this area. Such data revealed that Tustin -Irvine Avenue had been used as an annexation boundary by both cities on ten separate occasions. Consistent with the determination to make Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the ultimate boundary between the two cities,the Commission then took action on the three pending annexations as previously listed, by denying the two Newport Beach Annexations lying west of Tustin --Irvine Avenue and approving the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. 1. Backbay Annexation No. 1 was later turned down by the inhabitants for annexation to the City of Costa Mesa$ by an election that was hold in the area. Page 3 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Neviport Beach'in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive On June 13, 1973, the Commission reaffirmed its -position of June 25, 1969, by officially placing the unincorporated territory in this area designated as the Corridor Area in the City of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. On September 12, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on a partial sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach involving territory in the north and west areas of Newport Beach. During the hearing on September 12th, the residents of the "Bay Knolls" area sub- mitted petitions requesting the Commission to exclude their area from the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa and to designate the territory as being within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. Also, during this hearing there was a difference of opinion between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach over territory known as the "Banning Area" in west Newport Beach. The Commission directed the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. to meet and discuss the "Banning Area" and to report back to the Commission at their meeting of November 28, 19732 with a possible acceptable solution to the boundary problem in that area. Also at this time the Commission directed staff to place the reconsideration of the Costa Mesa sphere of influence as it related to the "Corridor Area",on the agenda for November 28, 1973- After presentations by property owners in the "Bay'Knolls" area and a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding amending the spheres of influence in this area, the Commission moved to continue with other Commission business and leave the reconsideration of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence in limbo pending an annexation request by the residents in the area. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Among the factors to be considered by the Commission in determining spheres of influence are the maximum possible Page 4 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach'in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive service areas of an agency based upon present and possible service capabilities, the range of services the agency is providing or could provide and the local governmental agencies presently providing services to areas and the present level, range and adequacy of services. These issues have been discussed in the staff reports on the spheres of influence for Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and in the staff report on the pending annexation to the City of Newport Beach, therefore will not be summarized again at this time. , Also mentioned in the summary and recommendation of the staff report on the pending annexation was the existence of social and economic interdependence and interaction between certain areas in this unincorporated territory and adjoining jurisdictions, as well as the desires of the property owners, which could lend some credence to an amendment to the adopted spheres of influence in this area. Staff has reviewed the June 16, 1969, report of the Inter -City Relations Committees of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, regarding their recommendations 5n the unincorporated area between the two cities along Tustin -Irvine Avenue from Bay Street to Bristol Street (formerly Palisades Road). The joint committees recognized that various possibilities existed for a future common boundary in this area and that more than one could be defended on the grounds of sound planning principles. The objective was to select a boundary that was logical in terms of land use, compatibility of neighborhoods, and the ultimate rendering of municipal services to the residents. Examples of alternative future boundaries were shown on a map accompanying the Inter -City Relations Committees' report for that area southerly of Mesa Drive. Tustin -Irvine Avenue or the rear property lines westerly thereof appeared to represent a more logical boundary` than Santa Ana Avenue. As previously stated, the decision of the Commission at that time was the ultimate boundary should be Tustin -Irvine Avenue. If the Commission takes action to amend the adopted spheres of Page 5 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive influence in the "Corridor Area", as an alternative to Tustin -Irvine Avenue being the ultimate boundary between the two cities, staff would recommend the Commission consider the rear property lines boundary as outlined in the map of the 1969 report. The rear property lines could be defined as the western boundary of the pending "Bay Knolls" Annexation between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue and the rear property lines west of Irvine Avenue, beginning at a point on Mesa Drive and extending southerly of the existing city limits of Costa Mesa, south of University Drive. Respectfully submitted, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih cc: City of Costa Mesa City of Newport Beach ENSIGN 8-8=74 MESA ASSAILS NEWPORT ON BAY KNOLLS ANNEX Costa Mesa counterattacked 'this week in the battle dents' attempts to get LAFCO , over whether that city or Newport to switch thesphereofinfiuence ,Beach should eventually annex map. Costa Mesa County Water Ithe Bay Knolls area of West Upper Bay., District, which servesthearea, Recent evidence that Newport reminded LAFCO thisweekthat "only officially covets the unincor- chaos can result" if the ' switch Is made. "Utilities and porated area brought a sting- ,ing attack Tuesday from Costa other agencies that prbvide Mesa Mayor Robert Wilson, "We services to the land and in - habitants are increasingly re- keep sitting down with Newport Beach city councilmen •, lying on the sphere of influence ,and making gentlemen's agree- as approved by LAFCO, and are making large expenditures ,ments, which they constantly ,break,11 said Mayor Wilson. for capital facilities" in A few days earlier, a letter accordance with the leaps. A, poll of Bay Knolls resi- drom the Costa Mesa County Water District urged the dents shows that they over - county's Local Agency Forma- whelmingly favor annexation to Newport. 'tion Commission (LAFCO) to "They favor it for one rea- ;keep Bay Knolls in CostaMesa's "'sphere , son only," Mayor Wilson of influence." Next Wednesday, LAFCO, charged, "to increase thevalue which rules on city boundaries of their property," and spheres, will be asked by _ Bay Knolls homeowners to take them out of Costa Mesa's ,sphere of influence and place them in Newport's sphere. If the switch is made, residents of the area, located just west of Irvine Ave, between 22nd and Santa Isabel, are expected to ask for annexation to Newport ' Beach, They now live in an •unincorporated "island" be- tween the 2 cities. "I am trusting LAFCO to stick by their guns," Mayor Wilson said Tuesday. "We can't trust the president,, and we certainly can't trust Newport Beach, so I hope LAFCO will prove trustworthy." He recalled that LAFCO placed Bay Knolls in Costa Mesa's sphere after boundary agreements between the two cities. "It's a sad thing," he said of relations between the „ cities. "You get up from a meeting with Newport Beach j city officials and you wonder how long it will be before you are stabbed In the back. 'It's almost like having a family .fight in public." On My 2it,iPewpoef s' City' - Council voted 4-2 to give its j blessing to Bay Knolls rest. r Q e "O U N—rNe O F ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 934-2239 1 1 RANGE AREA CODE 714 V LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION August 5, 1974 CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH Local Agency Formation Commission SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT County Administration Building Santa Ana, California VICE-CHAIRMAN In Re: Addendum to staff report regarding proposed '. NORTHRUPTIVOannexation to the City of Newport Beach designated REPRESENTATIVE OF REPRESENTATIVE GENERAL PUBLIC the Bay Knolls Annexation Gentlemen: ROBERT 1. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission moved to continue the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach in order to give notice to the DON k. MCINNIS cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that the Commission COUNCILMAN COU CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH would consider a possible sphere of influence change at its August 14, 1974 meeting and to permit the proponents of the annexation proposal to submit an annexation appli- DONALD J. SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN cation to the City of Newport Beach so the Commission could CITY OF TUSTIN obtain an answer to Newport Beach's position on the proposal at the time the Commission considers a sphere of influence for the area. ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR On July 22, 1974, the City Council of Newport Beach, by SECOND DISTRICT resolution, consented to the commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation in order to refer the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission for review. The City Council ALTERNATE REE BURNAP further reserved its right to consent or not to consent to REPRESENTATIVE OF the Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach until GENERAL PUBLIC such time as it receives the LAFC determination regarding Ithe annexation proposal. (See resolution attached) ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH In response to Commission direction, the Executive Officer, COUNCILWOMAN on July 9, 1974 gave written notice to the City Councils CITY OF CYPRESS of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that LAFC would consider a possible sphere of influence change in the annexation area RICHARD T. TURNER at their meeting of August 14, 1974. EXECUTIVE OFFICER I Page 2 In Re: Addendum to staff report regarding proposed hnnexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Accordingly, on July 16, 1974, staff placed a notice in newspaper of general circulation in the area stating a review and possible amendment of the adopted sphere of influence in the annexation area would be considered at the regular L•AFC meeting of August 14, 1974. In addition to notifying the affected cities as well as placing a legal notice in a newspaper of general circula- tion, the Executive Officer has reviewed the possible sphere of influence change in compliance with the Commission's "Pro- cedures for Environmental Impact" and the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act of 1970. The Executive Officer has determined that a possible amend- ment of the adopted sphere of influence in the annexation area would not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination was made based on the fact that the terri- tory in question is substantially developed with single family residences and the proposal would not change or alter the physical environment of the subject area. As such, the Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the , County Clerk of Orange County on Augusti'7.,1974. (See attached) Respectfully submitted, Tom."'_Of Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/JDB/ff cc: City of Newport Beach City of Costa Mesa Bay Knolls Homeowners attn: Tom Cla2k i City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 714/673.2110 July 26,. 1974 Richard Turner, Executive Director Local Agency Formation Colmnission P. 0. 8ox•'687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Prcposed.Bay..Knolls Annexation �UL 3 1 19741 CIC: ARD T. TJRP�ER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LCC"L AGE""»Y 57n,nATIO^; COG}f.!IS3!0+: Pursuant to the request of the Bay Knolls Homeowners, the City Council adopted Resolution No.'8318, consenting to commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings, in order to refer the matter to LAFCo for review. A copy of said resolution is enclosed. The City Council reserves the 'right to consent or not to consent to the requested annexation until the City receives LAFCo's report. U Laura Lagios, CHIC City Clerk LL:swk enc. cc: Bob Carolan (with enc.) - Erwin deMoeskonyi (with enc.) City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 83 18 fJIla, 1. UL 3 1 1974 i rrcRA2D r.%�Rru �rx 1 rcurnE oFFic ^CAI RuE^,CY FC..•.!•'Arlr i CC�R A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONSENTING TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 35106 requires the consent of the City Council before any annexation proceedings are commenced under the Annexation Act of 1913; and c WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the "consent" required under said Section 35106 is procedural and not substantive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this finding the City Council wishes to consent to the commencement of the Bay Knolls annexation in order to refer this matter to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC) for their review; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly reserves its right to consent or not to consent to the Bay Knolls annexation to the City of Newport Beach until such time as it receives the report from LAFC; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby consents to the commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings. ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 1974. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ` DDO:mh 7/15/74 '•PROJECT : PROPONENT• FINDING• NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Amendment to the Adpted•Spheres of Influenc& of the cities'of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Local Agency Formation Commission No significant effect on the environment SU,%0%RY OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: COPIES OF INITIAL STUDY RE AVAILABLE AT: HEARING DATE: 1. Property in question is substantially developed with single family residences 2. Proposal will not change or alter the physical environment of the'subject area Richard T. Turner, Executive'Officer DATED: RIC—liTR—D T. TAUNE � Executive Officer 515 No. Sycamore Street, Room 101 Caunty,Administrative Building Santa Ana, Ca. August 14,. 1974 August 7, 1974 � IFAAUG - T 1974 WE ST JCNN, Count/ Clerk D§P.UIY 113 oo �O lJ NTY O I' z _ o � F1ANGE O" LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION August 8, 1974 ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 CHAIRMAN Local Agency Formation Commission RALPH A. DIEDRICH County Administration Building SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT Santa Ana, nia IRe: Review1ofrt In -Re: adopted spheres of influence of the VICE-CHAIRMAN cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in. the, NORTHRUPTIVEOunincorporated STAREPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF area between the cities of Costa GENERAL PUBLIC Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive I. Gentlemen: ROBERT BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST On June 25, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission DISTRICT determined that the common boundary between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach would be Tustin -Irvine Avenue DONALD I. M-INNIS COUNCILMAN beginning at a point northerly of 20th Street and extending CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH northerly to Palisades Road (now Bristol Street), provided, however that the area northwesterly of'Irvine Avenue and I southerly of Bristol Street designated as the "Clear Zone" DONALD J. ALTARELLI COUNCILMAN be excluded from future annexations to either city. This CITY OF TUSTIN determination had been preceeded by a study and a public hearing at which representatives of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and the general public presented information and ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER arguments relative to the boundary line. The decision at SUPERVISOR that time was based on what the Commission considered to SECOND DISTRICT be good planning area boundaries based on the laud -uses and services existing in the area. ALTERNATE BACKGROUND REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC In the past the "Corridor Area" has been the subject of controversy over annexations initiated by the cities of ALTEBNATE Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In June, 1969, three such ALICE FRANKIEWICH annexations were before the Commission; the Backbay Annexa- COUNCILWOMAN tion No. 1 to the City of Costa Mesa (40 acres); La Canada CITY OF CYPRESS Annexation No. 67 (23 acres) and west Santa Ana Heights Annexation No. 63 (89 acres) to the City of Newport Beach. RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER Page 2 In Re: -Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive These three annexations were located gencrally.south of Bristol Street between Santa Ana Avenue on the west and Irvine Avenue and Birch Street on the east. The City of Newport Beach's La Canada Annexation No. 67,overlapped the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. 1 proposal on its eastern half, west of Irvine Avenue. The third annexa- tion proposal, Newport Beach's west Santa Ana Heights Annexa- tion No. 63 was generally bounded by Bristol Street on the north, Orchard and Mesa Drive on the south, Santa Ana Avenue on the west and Acacia Street on the east. In order to resolve the boundary disputes in this area, the Commission suggested that the representatives of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa meet with the Commission staff and attempt to come to an agreement on boundaries in the Santa Ana Heights area to avoid future overlapping and controversial annexations. Meetings were held with representatives of the two cities. The im staff supported Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the most logical dividing line between the two cities. Staff based its position on a combination man-made and natural features that exist in the area and what would be considered good planning area boundaries based on existing land uses. To further substantiate the reasoning for establishing the boundaries along Tustin -Irvine Avenue staff initiated research to study the previous annexations by both cities in this area. Such data revealed that Tustin -Irvine Avenue had been used as an annexation boundary by both cities on ten separate occasions. Consistent with the determination to make Tustin -Irvine Avenue as the ultimate boundary between the two cities,the Commission then took action on the three pending annexations as previously listed, by denying the two Newport Beach Annexations lying west of Tustin -Irvine Avenue and approving the City of Costa Mesa's Backbay Annexation No. 1. Backbay Annexation No. 1 was later turned down by the inhabitants for annexation to the City of Costa Mesa, by an election that was held in the area. Page 3 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport.Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive On June 13, 1973, the Commission reaffirmed its+position of June 25, 1969, by officially placing the unincorporated territory in this area designated as the "Corridor Area" in the City.of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. . On September 12, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on a partial sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach involving territory in the north and west areas of Newport Beach. During the hearing on September 12th, the residents of the "Bay Knolls" area sub- mitted petitions requesting the Commission to exclude their area from the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa and to designate the territory as being within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. Also, during this hearing there was a difference of opinion between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach over territory known as the "Banning Area" in west Newport Beach. The Commission directed the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to meet and discuss the "Banning Area" and to report back to the Commission at their meeting of November 28, 1973, with a possible acceptable solution to the boundary problem in that area. Also at this time the Commission directed staff to place the reconsideration of the Costa Mesa sphere of influence as it related to the "Corridor Area",on the agenda for November 28, 1973- After presentations by property owners in the "Bay'Knolls" area and a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding amending the spheres of influence in this area, the Commission moved to continue with other Commission business and leave the reconsideration of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence in limbo pending an annexation request by the residents in the area. SUMMARY AND RECOk f��IDATION Among the factors to be considered by the Commission in determining spheres of influence are the maximum possible Page 4 In Re: Review of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive service areas of an agency based upon present and possible service capabilities, the range of services the agency is providing or could provide and the local governmental agencies presently providing services to areas and the present level, range and adequacy of services. These issues have been discussed in the staff reports on the spheres of influence for Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and in the staff report on the pending annexation to the City of Newport Beach, therefore will not be summarized again at this time. Also mentioned in the summary and recommendation of the staff report on the pending annexation was the existence of social and economic interdependence and interaction between certain areas in -this unincorporated territory and adjoining jurisdictions, as vrell as the desires of the property owners, which could lend some credence to an amendment to the adopted spheres of influence in this area. Staff has reviewed the June 16, 1969, report of the Inter -City Relations Committees of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, regarding their recommendations in the unincorporated area between the twro cities along Tustin -Irvine Avenue from Bay Street to Bristol Street (formerly Palisades Road). The joint committees recognized that various possibilities existed for a future common boundary in this area and that more than one could be defended on the grounds of sound planning principles. The objective was to select a boundary that was logical in terms of land use, compatibility of neighborhoods,'and the ultimate rendering of municipal services to the residents. Examples of alternative future boundaries were shown on a map accompanying the Inter -City Relations Committees' report for that area southerly of Mesa Drive. Tustin -Irvine Avenue or the rear property lines westerly thereof appeared to represent a more logical boundary than Santa Ana Avenue. As previously stated, the decision of the Commission at that time was the ultimate boundary should be Tustin -Irvine Avenue. If the Commission takes action to amend the adopted spheres of r Page 5 In Re: Rbview of the adopted spheres of influence of the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in the unincorporated area between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach south of Mesa Drive influence in the "Corridor Area", as an alternative to. Tustin -Irvine Avenue being the ultimate boundary between the two cities, staff would recommend the Commission consider the rear property lines boundary as outlined in the map of the 1969 report. The rear property lines could be defined as the western boundary of the pending "Bay Knolls" Annexation between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue and the rear property lines west of Irvine Avenue, beginning at a point on Mesa Drive and extending southerly of the existing city limits of Costa Mesa, south of University Drive. Respectfully submitted, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih cc: City of Costa Mesa City of Newport Beach _B' 2, �_ s ..s. •sn: Office Of CITY ATTORNA"r rJUN..24. r74 RiCHARD T. TUR10% EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORATION COWISSIP'J To: City Clerk June 20;. 1974 From: City Attorney Subject: Initiation of Annexation Proceedings For purposes of determining the manner in which annexation pro+• ceedings shall be initiated and conducted-, a major consideration depends on whether the territory to be annexed is inhabited (Annexation Act of 19131, Government Code 95 3510U-35158),`or uninhabited (Annexation Act of 1939, Government Code §§�35300- 35326). Under general provisions tontrollinr, both acts (§ 35002). a proposal for the annexation of the new territory must be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission for a report upon. various matters affecting the proposed boundaries before an annexation petition may be circulated or filed, or proceedings initiated by the City Council. However, if the proceedings are to -be under the ir.'iabited act, the consent of the City Council- must be secured before the filing with the LAb"C. (Section 35106, McDowell and Craig v, City of Santa Fe Snrinas, 54 Cal..2d 33.) The^general rule as set forth above may not be applicable When there is a contest between two cities for annexation of the same territory. if two cities are competing to annex the same territory, the provisions of Section 35002 requiring prior review by the LAFC may be mandatory regardless of whether the area is inhabited or uninhabited. (City of Torrance-v.- City 6i Gardena, 192 Cal. App. 2d 686.) The annexation under question, Bay Knolls, in-mlves to some degree both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa 34esa. Therefore, it would seem appropriate in this instance to allow ;the Bay Knolls proposal to be submitted first to LAFC for a report before the formal -proceedings are commenced before the City Council. Should the Council adopt the .resolution consenting to the annexatiop, the matter would have to be referred back to LAFC ford their approval. DIS D. O'NNZIL city Attorney DDO:mh cc: Community Development Director Richard Turner, TAFC .o- Newport Beach, August 8, 1974 Local Agency Formation Commission 515 N. Sycamore St. P.O. Box 687 rAUG1 51974• Santa Ana, Ca 92702 MOM T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER Gentlemen: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Subject: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City' of Newport Beach' It has been brought to our attention that the Costa Mesa County Water. District (hereafter CMCWD) is opposing our proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach. CMCWD has implied that they should be consulted and a request be made of them for their consent to allow the City of Newport Beach to provide water service prior to annexation proceedings. - This is misleading and apparently not valid since the CMCWD currently provides water service to existing portions of the City of Newport Beach (East and West of Superior Ave and North of Pacific Coast Hwy; South of 22nd between Irvine and Tustin). This point is further diminished by the fact that only a portion of the subject area is served by CMCWD, in the words of LAFCO Executive Officer in his May 30, 1973 report to the -commission on the Sphere of Influence for Costa Mesa: ".The Corridor Area obtains its primary water supply from the Santa Ana Heights Water District; however, a portion of the area South of 23rd is served by CMCWD". The next point objected to by the CMCWD is the annexation of territory within the approved sphere of influence of one city into another city. We agree that once all the elements (guidelines set up for determining spheres of influence) have been carefully and deliberately considered and an area is properly included in a city's sphere of influence that that sphere be respected. However, we do not feel that LAFCO's decision, on June 13, 1973, to include Bay Knolls in the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa took into consideration all of the applicable elements as outlined in California Government Code 54774. We ask only that the commission reconsider their previous decision on Sphere of Influence by carefully examining each of these elements. Respectfully Submitted, Valerie B. Avellar Bay Knolls Homeowners Chairman 340 Cherry Tree Ln, Newport Beach cc: Costa Mesa County Water District W F- O F CAS GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAM June 5,- 1974 Local Agency Formation Commission Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California TELEPHONE: 834-3733 AREA CODE 714 211 WEST SANT%A ANA BOULEVARD SANTA AN4^, CALIFORNIA 92701 N ro 1974 RI , D T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL GENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO t Attention Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Gentlemen: RE: Meeting of June 26, 1974 Proposed annexation to the city of Newport Beach designated Bay Knolls Annexation This department has reviewed the subject annexation and forwards the following comments for your consideration: 1. This property is primarily developed with single-family subdivisions in unincorporated territory. 2. The entire "corridor" between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach is shown on the county's general plan as high density residential use at a density f 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre. H1W 6 79F- 3. hile ths proposal would eliminate a portion of a county island, it may not be in the ling -term best interest of the Qub i c to create a zigzagging city boundary in this area. However, if it can be established that the.nublic in sts and those of the X_P_ .tts, can be best served by annexation of the or in its entirety to one city or the other, the geometric orderliness of a straight line would be less important. Very truly yours, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT H. G. Osborne Interim Director HGO:SWB:bd L CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORNIA 92626 P.O. BOX 1200 JUN 10 1974 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RICNARO T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION June 7, 1974 Local Agency Formation Commission P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Richard T. Turner Executive Officer Re: Proposed Bay.Kaolls ,,• Annexation to -the City of Newport Beach, Gentlemen: It is with a great deal of regret that a formal protest must be lodged concerning the Bay Knolls Annexation. This protest is made knowing the desired wishes of a majority of the residents of that area. Nevertheless, we believe that until the following issues are settled and agreements reached, no annexation can or should proceed: A. An approved Sphere of Influence Map for each of the cities involved. B. A resolution of the problem of possible double taxation within this area; i.e. Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and Costa Mesa County Water District. Once these basic issues are resolved by the cities involved, and approved by the L.A.F.C., we will, of course, adhere to the agreement. Ress��peectfully,./ N!/ p1 aft"` William L. Dunn Director of Planning WLD/dh cc: R. Wynn, City Manager, Newport Beach Fred Sorsabal, City Manager, Costa Mesa Roy June, City Attorney, Costa Mesa Eileen Phinney, City Clerk, Costa Mesa City Council, Costa Mesa Planning Commission, Costa Mesa Advance Planning Division, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa County Water District Costa Mesa Sanitary District H. G. OSBORNE CHIEF ENGINEER ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE wEsT SANTA ANA, CALIFOANIA MAILING AOORESS: P. O. BOX 1078 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE! 834-2300 AREA CODE 714 in 141914 Local Agency Formation Commission Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Gentlemen: FILE No. MS82.00 \��t J.UN 14197n RINARD F^^ORMER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LCCLL AG...PY FORAIA.TI I COMM.SS.O`" This is in response to your request for a report on the advisability, in terms of general public interest, of the proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach, designated as Bay Knolls Annexation, located westerly of Tustin Avenue, between Santa Isabel Avenue and Twenty - Second Street. The majority of the area has been developed for residential purposes. There is a natural unimproved watercourse flowing through the north- easterly corner of the annexation which conveys storm runoff originat- ing westerly and northerly of the subject property. Development of the unimproved property adjacent to the watercourse will require proper grading of the land and the construction of the necessary drainage facility for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff. Anticipating that at such time as the unimproved property adjacent to the natural watercourse is developed the City of Newport Beach will require proper grading of the land and the construction of the needed drainage facility, approval of the subject annexation is recom- mended from a flood control and drainage standpoint. cc: City of Newport Beach Very truly yours,. H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer By C. R.. Nels Assistant Chief Engineer 3.2 �Uuta Eig4tei pater (90. Local Agency P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA June 12, 1974 Formation Commission 92701 1126 S,E. Bristol -Palisades Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 545-1060 e� - J t1 N 1 1974 RIMARD T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 1.00AL ACEPICY E0. MP.TIOM COMMISS!T! Attn: Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Re: Bay Knolls Annexation Dear Mr. Turner: In the Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach of Orange County; California, we wish to bring to your attention that this annexation is within the Santa Ana Heights Water Company service area. Also to remind you of your letter on re- commendations made on the proposed formation of the Santa Ana Heights Water District dated August 9, 1968 - page 4 - paragraph #1. Thank you. FDK/nto Encl: 1 Very truly yours, Fred D. Kell Secretary -Manager I v%" E1`I �; ORANGE COUNTY AD ` R00qt 2 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING GO U N-nr O F �P`P. O. BOX 687 rev CIP0. ^(]�Qd SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 DG GNI TELEPHONE: 834-2239 RAN G E $ Qj ! AREA CODE 714 V LOCAL AGENCY FOCOMMISSION August 5, 1974 CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH Local Agency Formation Commission - SUPERVISOR County Administration Building THIRD DISTRICT Sfnta Ana, California VICE-CHAIRMAN In Re: Addendum to staff report regarding proposed STAN NORTHRUP annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC tale Bay Knolls Annexation I Gentlemen: ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission moved to continue the proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach in order to give notice to the DONALD A. MCIHNIS cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that the Commission P COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH would consider a possible sphere of influence change at its August 14, 1974 meeting and to permit the proponents of the annexation proposal to submit an annexation appli- DONALD J. SALTARELLI cation to the City of Newport Beach so the Commission could COUNCILMAN CITY O�TUSTIN obtain an answer to Newport Beach's position on the proposal at the time the Commission considers a sphere of influence for the. area. ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR On July 22, 1974, the City, Council of Newport Beach, by SECOND DISTRICT resolution, consented to the commencement of the Bay Knolls IAnnexation in.order to refer the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission for review. The City Council ALTERNATE REE BURNAP further reserved its right to consent or not to consent to REPRESENTATIVE OF the Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach until GENERAL PUBLIC such time as it receives the LAFC determination regarding Ithe annexation proposal. (See resolution attached) ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH In response to Commission direction, the Executive Officer, COUNCILWOMAN on July 9 1974 gave written notice to the City Councils CITY OF CYPRESS of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that LAFC would consider I a possible sphere of influence change in the annexation area RICHARD T. TURNER at their meeting of August 14, 19.74. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ' Page 2 In Re: Addendum to staff report regarding proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Accordingly, on July 16, 1974, staff placed a notice in newspaper of general circulation in the area stating a review and possible amendment of the adopted sphere of influence in the annexation area would be considered at the regular L•AFC meeting of August 14, 1974. In addition to notifying the affected cities as well as placing a legal notice in a newspaper of general circula- tion, the Executive Officer has reviewed the possible sphere of influence change in compliance with the Commission's "Pro- cedures for Environmental Impact" and the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act of 1970. The Executive Officer has determined that a possible amend- ment of the adopted sphere of influence in the annexation area would not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination was made based on the fact that the terri- tory in question is substantially developed with single family residences and the proposal would not change or alter the physical environment of the subject area. As such, the Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk of Orange County on August 7,1974. (See attached) Respectfully submitted, an Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/JDB/ff cc: City of Newport Beach City of Costa Mesa Bay Knolls Homeowners attn: Tom C1axk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 . 714/673.2110 July 26, 1974 Richard Turner, Executive Director Local Agency Formation Coniission P. 0. Box- 687- Santa Ana, CA • 92702 Subject: Proposed_Bay.Knolls.Annexation rJJ1 L 3 1 1974 fiCMARO T TUNJER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER C^C4: F,SEn w Fes•"• XION COA,9141 OnI Pursuant to the request of the Bay -Knolls Homeowner's, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8318, consenting to commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings, aM order to refer the matter to LAFCo for review. A copy of said resolution is enclosed. The City Council reserves the right to consent or not to consent to the requested annexation until the City receives LAFCo's report. Laura Lagios, ClC City Clerk - LL:swk enc. cc: Bob Carolan (;with enc.) - Erwin deMocskonyi (with enc.) City Attorney JUL 31 197�t RIn1'ARD T. iUR,VER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 83 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONSENTING TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 35106 requires the consent of the City Council before any annexation proceedings are commenced under the Annexation Act of 1913; and a WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the "consent" required under said Section 35106 is procedural and not substantive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this finding the City Council wishes to consent to the commencement of the Bay Knolls K annexation in order to refer this matter to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC) for their review; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly reserves its right to consent or not to consent to the Bay Knolls annexation to the City of Newport Beach until such time as it receives the report from LAFC; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby consents to the commencement of the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings. ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 1974. Mayor ATTEST: L c City' Clerk DDO:mh 7/15/74 . PROJECr r;'• PROPONENT: FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Amendment to the Adpted Spheres of Influence•o.f the cities'of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Local Agency Formation Commission No significant effect on the environment SUA%MRY OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: COPIES OF INITIAL STUDY RE AVAILABLE AT• HEARING DATE: DATED: RICHARD T. 5AUN Executive Officer 1. Property in question is'substantially developed, with single family residences 2. Proposal will not change or alter the physical environment of the'subject area Richard T. Turner, Executive'Officer 515 No. Sycamore Street, Room 101 County Administrative Building Santa Ana, Ca. August 14,. 1974 August 7, 1974 AUG • 71974 W E. STJOE, County Wert .�B Aopuq� C4TY OF COSTA MESA, CALiFG / dA J I( To be attached to File No. MS28.20 Orange County Flood Control District October 310 1967 1. SANTA ISABEL STORM DRAIN Through the efforts of the city of Costa Mesa, the city of Newport Beach and Orange County Flood Control District substantial storm drain improvements were constructed between 1960 and 1963. Two drains on this system now terminate in a natural drainage Swale southeast of Santa Isabel Avenue It is proposed under the project that these drains, a 36" R.C.P. and a 72" R.C.P., be extended, joined and continued to discharge into Cherry Lake south- east of Tustin Avenue. Length of project is approximately 1000 feet. Total drainage area is 692 acres. Right of way does not now exist for such a project, therefore, such acquisition must strike an economic balance between right of way cost, construction cost and property owners demands. It appears an extension of the 72" storm drain to its junction with the 36" R.C.P. followed by lined open channel would most nearly fit the requirements. Total estimated right of way and construction costs of $75,000.00 See Exhibit "A" attached. "EWPORT' CAU 6EACH, . rear-- . I , - i � k 20 j 2? f kk 1 ! - - _ I j 1 -- i- _7mJ i - t- . , t1Li,t-„4-r' i _ Yi. - I rc._e. u. �.0 ! -(• -.5 _ s1 r: _+ 1 J -'� 1 i i i s ! C F' - _ T 1 ' - .. -. _ i. , � ... e 1 I' + 4 � � � ", :r``LL-- , _ _ _ -' - �—R•` _ _ AVE Nuta_ . _', i t i � w[ '�>� -r-: I ;: j,.�! I 1 w , ,�,- .. s •z� { a i "�. I Ir 2 i F -J - i ♦1�, h a. wl -; .W - I f7 +k4{j __ I r� Jt �; - j .. : it f F_� - lam+ iv,�i_.�, ' -. '• F ` _ _ _ I _ f < I -. "4N -gVENU•E All _ Fj _ t- ✓. . f.: +'-_` ! - ; _.� .. 1'• \ y .� fn ...�::=-n j( rl .`.�Ji .. j��� yyyl • S - � 'iK+'�; ° �'. - ie�i ¢�,/Ta r••� � 1 �i.. :' . ^. o � I_^• _ _ J. � __., _ � .c'�=R, i IF, n(' �I, ICY .. n"�,, q , t _ L 173 ' r33 I t 103 �.�i3 -7 21b I 22] - @t, A —� kl-:' +� i11 �I j�j oa ° s -�: e- I - (= 'i `•a>I, 17 }y` e_3 3 3 I I 3�3- - _ it 1 _ ! "�� .Lq..:=- s r - 1 I •-�� , ��1 .ei ��.'e - +u° ._ ,e_ -i j .li +':1?' rd ca _ t 17.7 ' t t -_{ - - iti 2 Ih.t', a3aa� � � _'�! lI I r..--¢...••�-'.`•. -hE �wnei�-� It z'�]�' .. el^ ., ,•J i WEST,n 5 � I �• +TFR. r NO F/„4w�,/ _L ,v E- ,¢w/.YL_ �_ Ji y�. >r � � � � � i - � `' "_�. �� � _ I �� {. rN��t�-���� - - 1- �' ' lc„vt- e� wr - � I �a'e i.u�a�r� ti_ r'".� lug �•'1 wuw �a+n � � - ,! WE57M,NSTr_Q AVE ,-) .trek - _ ,.--.�, - 4•. - i-; - I r,e.nv J F�'a',yw .x:ar i I" d9�O '. ...I1 .. �s.� - [ �.? r�1 7i.r2T '� � � _. _ 1e. s:..v ,z F'^9 •_h��..� _— �' .•�� ,. ;. r ... _ - ii I ,'Fi ".�1:-. - �:. I •� , c a -�w.�, �' ! .- I l_i.—.�� _r _ _ 7 9 I 7_ k ..r<sr vrs l,.�.: 7,�_ '' Ir ? "2i I , f}r( i-i __ —_ .o� kl k)u: ; °_I.!" 4' 1 1 wo I ! _ '� i". .,.. .. .'.,..{ - -. . � + !.. �....�- H:- i e•�-"- e•N, c_ J''• �.-( :I _�.x� _r 2I•i' IpI :HMI. cG�, �-" ,�.•r, 1- < is !7. i,� 313 d 324. _ - _.r.sry_r5,,. Srf raeCr .v0 �'; r ___"-_ _ ,., i •1. _{ .,, j ', p ,U ir. ,'�' I �- I5 Mi y) E -, 1 ,.r w {-A - '�- aver: wzo ' t r1_.-...1 '{ •'j TI . y ,�' �, == I`--f_—, li'J r w._.�. 1-EX157I oiiM _-D, BAN �. I•l_j' I. 4VE "'A` _ ' �— 54NT4 4NA - AV(•NUE ^ f � 1 � � � - � I, I, ` t s � 1 - z •—� i � I + I y ' N.+! .7Y ' � ' _ :. s _ . IX k i _ { 1. • i .. w 245 � -c'S5 ( Y �qs `< ems. ...n�.�ww�� �? +I _ <i - -1 . -i j r z. - _„- ti. .Y.cisE ,< _ j]]j _7 `-� , _ � 'l' _ ,> 'e • < $ I I ,., I - f- < t R ,^ �cl- i� -'1Ta^cr .. ., IT2ALT 7 1( s LA zwJil•^carve �10 a+! - �.Z UJI NP 3728r _ I ' rrF _ - ' ...�Q_ ++dd w,, se� "•' p -�•e - %�-J ,, ,�1 Jo - •-N . `•I �! ! 1 ; — , 4r jjj Ga Fn i ✓ ! . �e 3� 317E ` :,.246 �" �j�o•' 3?b f<��P I Lw' '_c �'" -� •• ,e - I —__ -,� F 'i _... I � II LL� �- 7 F r_il z•� F- 'r.," � �i ! { i '' � > �e !t`'q �5'.+., r,F,r - __. -•q i. d: _ 6 ¢. r." I ( if `yF� —„--'-• n rs-`_ i STtN Yam_ a ._. _ ___ - -__ _ i .L=.. .-s,•::-Y + •- I __ ..-.,}..._7 ,a.', .. '!.... i. �E 9 1 6 f J[ i t •-, li!_!i .•� I e' *•. �� sYe47 -I I'u� _I ; t 1 ,h..5 ! _1i_ �_ ^+s - I �ZI; e- ,hd/KE I lu ?I�N4 O� -,9` i ^ "�' �J`(�- •--li I r ^I �.-_ '^�� i . alt���i.¢!_ , q .� - 4,z'I•- _. 207,Ie' '�c b 2 `•'' 1 I. '� �'^J of _ .97 - i '- � I rrr"r j I� �1 I i i ^ �• _ i. . •:� � 1 ,a to r: �„�s«; � I '.. . � I :� r n r � - � l V ,'° • a i_ J �31 �.� - �• ��+ - _ ' - {-`. s_+t � '-: _- ! 1^Ra - � �,,. _.- - •✓!�-..! ^+~� - F_ 1\\\ 1t wn . is p' • i w _ . L m w� i, •v 'y ? ') ,I ;.",E ^• F S^r"�..r... [ a'r '; ' Ihie-L^n ^ 7_� J _I.. v;? nvk - —.T� Fez L 'I j - � ���� s - .. S..- ss rf « ��o....h �� .�' � .e ., � � ,C 3J �`�! d2y - J�%�%✓%� S^ r� �•. !'��'✓ .O�V A i �{ R 1•., i i. t 'I � . � .� `• i.,...-Jr _ Y+, -_:«, e s »s+ _ 'i -Yy ,!' v � Il �6L 5/� � - r qjj Jjj 1 •- -e � � It i 1 � � � � jq7 L-.,..J L..9P_i E..'".5 �:.� F� �...-t �—s 1 32 � v�r - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH`S MEMORANDUM: From ROBERT L. WYNN, CITY MANAGER To ....COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR .............. July ... 23 SUBJECT: ATTENDANCE AT LAFCO MEETING On August 14th the LAFCO will consider the Sphere of Influence which covers the Bay Knolls annexation. The City Council on July 22nd adopted Resolution No. 8318 concerning this subject. Please have a representative at the LAFCO meeting and supply them with a copy of Resolution No. 8318. co oe� 2 eve omu� t` o Ocpt�nz r !. L� n NZw 0RT OF,.�jy� Reply wanted ❑ Reply not necessary p 915A 18.1i. COUNCILMEN � m om�oa a(i Im��m ae ROLL CALL N T 9C N 2 a'Am CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Iuhr 22. 1474 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Ale from Joseph Rosener, Jr. resigning from the Planning ission due to demands of his personal affairs, was pres d. Joseph Rosener's resignation r the Newport Beach Planning Commission was accepted wi egret; and Ray Williams was appointed as a member of Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Joseph Rosener, ending June 30, 1976. Planning Comsn Z. A letter from the Bay Knolls Homeowners requesting Bay Knoll; Council consent tot e commencement of annexation proceedings for annexing the Bav Knolls area to the City of Newport Beach, consisting of approximately 153 lots located between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, northwesterly of Tustin Avenue in the unin- corporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, was presented. A report was presented from the City Attorney. A letter from the Local Agency Formation Com- mission was presented. Bob Carolan, representing the Bay Knolls Home- owners Association, and Erwin de Mocskonyi addressed the Council in favor of the annexation. Motion x Resolution No. 8318, consenting to commencement of R-8318 Ayes x x x x the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings, was adopted. Noes x x x CONSENT CALENDAR: / Motion x The following items were approved by one motion affir g Ayes x x x x x x x the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. The following resolutions were adopte Resolution No. 8319 authorizi he execution of an Health agreement between the Ci_ of Newport Beach and the Services County of Orange to �rarily extending the agreement R-8319 for provision of>r-tain health services; to cover the control of veckors until that responsibility has been transfer d to the Mosquito Abatement District. (A lotto rom the County Health Department was pre - se ted) J Resolution No. 8320 approving the application for 1974 BI Comm r State Grant funds for Balboa Island Park Project. (A Park / report from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation R-8320 Director was presented.) Volume 28 - Page 184 A� Honorable Mayor Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 J Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully request that your Honorable City Council consent to the commencement of annex- ation proceedings by the Bay Knolls Homeowners pursuant to the Annexation Act of 1913. G - a The residential neighborhood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. A precise legal description is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In ad- dition, Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach, has been provided with a copy of the "Justification of Proposal" submitted by the Bay Knolls Homeowners to the Local Agency Formation Commission in June, 1974.. The same is hereby incor- porated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Said request for "consent" pursuant to Government Code Section 35106 is made on behalf of an overwhelming majority of the Bay Knolls Homeowners. A survey of the 132 homeowners indicated that 107 favored annexation to the City of Newport Beach; 18 could not be reached; 4 preferred remaining County; and 3 desired annexation to the City of Costa Mesa. Respectfully submitted, ual�..7..:. ..... ... ...�..`� COPIES SENT TO: M1fu+ur Mnnn�cr 4ilurnry LhibUr \5'urkn Uirecl9A + Jor 'Inn ning Ulccul9p � n UILeS ❑ For the Bay Knoll Homeowners '+ , h. RAUB, BEIN, FROST & ASSOCIATES 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach, California April 29, 1974 Job No. 15259 Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION BEGINNING at the intersection of the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue, 60.00 feet wide, with the northeasterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as said streets are shown on the Map of Newport Heights, recorded in Book 4, page 83 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, said intersection being an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Newport Beach, as described in the "Tustin Avenue and 22nd Street Annexation" per Ordinance No. 803, adopted November 13, 1956 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue and northeasterly prolongation thereof, being also the northwesterly boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as described in the above mentioned annexation and the "Upper Bay Annexation" per Ordinance No. 748 adopted April 25, 1955 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, to the intersection thereof with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of "Monte Vista No. 2 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 63-1, adopted January 21, 1963 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence northwesterly along said prolongation and said southwesterly line 360.00 feet to an angle point in said "Monte Vista No. 2 Annexation"; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said last men- tioned annexation 132.00 feet to the northeasterly line of Lot 105 of Tract No. 300, as shown on map recorded in Book 14, pages 11 and 12 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, being also a point in the southwesterly boundary of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 62-19, adopted May 20, 1962 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence along the boundary of said "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" the following courses: northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 105 to the southeasterly line of Tract No. 3062 as shown on map recorded in Book 92, page 20 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County; thence southwesterly along said southeasterly line 5.20 feet to the most easterly corner of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 3062; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly line of Santa Isabel Avenue, as shown on said map of Tract No. 3062, to the north- westerly'boundary of said Tract No. 3062; thence leaving said boundary of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation", southwesterly along the northwesterly boundary of said Tract No. 3062 to the most westerly corner of said Tract No. 3062, being also a point in the northeasterly boundary of "Linda No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 65-38, adopted November 15, 1965 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; v•.a.., r vb rtaub, Bein, Frost & Associates - Description April 29, 1974 Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach JJoabN2.o15259 thence southeasterly along said northeasterly boundary, being also the north- easterly boundary of Tract No. 5615 as shown on map recorded in Book 209, pages 42 and 43 of Miscellaneous Maps, to the most easterly corner of said Tract No. 5615 and an -angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; thence south- westerly along the boundary of said last mentioned annexation, being also the southeasterly boundary of said Tract No. 5615, to the northeasterly line of 23rd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as shown on said map of Tract No. 5615, being also an angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; thence leaving the boundary of said last mentioned annexation, southwesterly along the south- easterly boundary of said Tract No. 5615, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 3609, as shown on map recorded in Book 126, pages 29 and 30 of Miscel- laneous Maps, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 2609, as shown on map recorded in Book 80, page 35 of Miscellaneous Maps, and along the north- westerly boundary of Tract No. 2819, as shown on map recorded in Book 117, page 31 of Miscellaneous Maps, all records of said Orange County, to the northeasterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, said northeasterly line being parallel with and distant 30.00 feet northeasterly, measured at right angles, from the centerline of said 22nd Street, as said centerline is shown on said map of Tract No. 2819, and being also the northwesterly prolongation of the northeasterly boundary of "Moden Annexation - Boundary No. 59" per Ordinance No. 1258, adopted July 8, 1968 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence southeasterly along said parallel line and said northeasterly boundary of said last mentioned annexation to the POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: All Covenants, Rights, Rights -of -Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof. TABLE - GI ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES* TYPICAL YEAR Service - Library ($7.58/person) Street Maintenance (8449/mile) 1.1 street miles Street Lighting ($30.19/acre) Street Sweeping ($149.76/curb mile) 2.2 curb miles (street mile x 2) Sewer Maintenance ($3.05/person) Park Maintenance S Youth Program ($540/person) Refuse Collection ($26.00/D.U.) Parkway Maintenance ($1296.00/street mile) 1.1 miles Police Protection ($19.32/D.U.) Total - f G-2— Expenditures $ 3,032.00 $ 9,393.90 $ 1,346.47 $ 329.47 $ 1,220.00 $189,540.00 $ 3,380.00 $ 1,425.60 $ 2,511.60 $212,179.04 * The figures in Table G1 are based on a cost/revenue system compiled by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department in September, 1972. G-1 TABLE - G2 ANALYSIS OF REVENUE* TYPICAL YEAR Revenue Source Total .'Property Tax ($1.20/$100) $ 14,852.00 Sales Tax $ _0 State per Capita Subventions $ 39.33 ($18.75 x 4 of persons per dwelling unit x 0 of dwelling units per acre) (includes gas tax apportionment, trans- portation act apportionment, motor vehicle license fee apportionment, cigaret tax apportionment) Share of Non -Differentiable City Revenue $ 82,956.00 ($1,860/acre) School Property Tax ($4.7025/$100) $ 580333.35 'Dotal $156,180.68 0 * The figures in Table G2 are based on a cost/revenue system compiled by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department in September, 1972. G-2 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY To: The Honorable Mayor and July 22, 1974 Members of the City Council From: City Attorney Subject: Bay Knolls Annexation On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission discussed the proposed Bay Knolls annexation to the City of Newport Beach. The matter was continued in order to first obtain the approval of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Government Code Section,35106 which seems to require Council consent before any annexation proceedings of inhabited territory are commenced. In lieu of initiating formal annexation proceedings at this time, the Council may wish to merely consent to the commencement of annexation proceedings and refer this matter back to LAFC for their review. The "consent" requirement of Section 35106 can be interpreted to mean procedural consent to commence annexation proceedings as opposed to actual substantive consent to the annexation of the subject property to the City. A resolution has been prepared which if adopted would constitute City Council procedural consent to commence annexation pro- ceedings. Planning Commission review, the public hearings, and the decision on whether or not the Council wishes to consent to the Bay Knolls annexation would be held in abeyance pending receipt of the report from LAFC. DENNIS D. O'NEIL City Attorney DDO:mh cc: City Manager City Clerk Community Development Director G2 0 0 o CO//F:tANGE CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE-C IAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT DONALD A. McINNIS COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I DONALD I SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC I ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS I RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION City Council City of Newport 3300 W. Newport Newport Beach, Attn: Robert L Dear Mr. Wynn, ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 T EL E PHON E: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 July 9, 1974 Beach Boulevard ,alifornia 92660 o Pr o, Wynn, City Manager On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated as the "Bay Knolls Annexa- tion" as filed with the Commission by property owners in the area. The annexation is approximately 44.6 acres located north- westerly of Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. As you are aware, the area proposed for consideration for annexation to the City of Newport Beach is in the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission on June 13, 1973. The Commission took action to continue the hearing on the proposed annexation to August 14, 1974, and that the matter of a review and possible sphere of influence -change in this area will be considered by the Commission at that time. The Commission directed the review of the spheres of influ- ence be noticed to the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. This letter is to serve as an official notice that at its meeting f August 14, 1 4, the Local Agency Formation Com- mission, in conjunction with continuing the public hearing on the pending annexation, will also review the adopted spheres of influence in this area. Yours truly v Richard T./Turner Executive Officer RTT/ff COUNCILMEN N o y2 A ROLL CAl_l_ �NYf in =Zma pin CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ii,L. 99 I (a7n MINUTES INDEX CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. etter from Joseph Rosener, Jr. resigning from the Planning Planni ommission due to demands of his personal Comsn affairs, was p'3 nted. Motion x Joseph Rosener's resignation m the Newport Beach Planning Commission was accepted tth Zee@ret; and Ayes xxxxxxx Ray Williams was appointed as a member of`the_._ Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of tee` Joseph Rosener, ending June 30, 1976. 2. A letter from the Bay Knolls Homeowners requesting Bay Knoll: Council consent to the commencement of annexation prococdings for annexing the Bay Knolls area to the City of Newport Beach, consisting of approximately 153 lots located between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, northwesterly of Tustin Avenue in the unin- corporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, was presented. A report was presented from the City Attorney. A letter from the Local Agency Formation Com- mission was presented. Bob Carolan, representing the Bay Knolls Home- owners Association, and Erwin de Mocskonyi addressed the Council in favor of the annexation. Motion x Resolution No. 8318, consenting to commencement of R-8318 Ayes x x x x the Bay Knolls Annexation proceedings, was adopted. Noes x x x CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following items were approved by one motion affirm' Ayes x x x x x x x the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. The following resolutions were adopted - Resolution No. 8319 authorize the execution of an Health agreement between the C' of Newport Beach and the Services County of Orange to rarily extending the agreement R_ -8319 for provision of rtain health services; to cover the control of v ors until that responsibility has been transfe -d to the Mosquito Abatement District. (A left • from the County Health Department was pre- ented) Resolution No. 8320 approving the application for 1974 BI Comm State Grant funds for Balboa Island Park Project. (A Park report from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation R-8320 Director was presented.) Volume 28 - Page 184 L'l RECEIVED �/ C-'�1LC,O i Du. Dept. JUL 161974r> /� J• e �CITY OF 5 _ NEWPORT BEACH, � �e �• Ly` ;J' _ ''+,� CALIF. "—� �•i•_:�i ajJ jl Honorable Mayor Honorable City Council CO City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully request that your Honorable City Council consent to the commencement of annex- ation proceedings by the Bay Knolls Homeowners pursuant to the Annexation Act of 1913. The residential neighborhood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. A precise legal description is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In ad- dition, Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach, has been provided with a copy of the "Justification of Proposal" submitted by the Bay Knolls Homeowners to the Local Agency Formation Commission in June, 1974. The same is hereby incor- porated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Said request for "consent" pursuant to Government Code Section 35106 is made on behalf of an overwhelming majority of the Bay Knolls Homeowners. A survey of the 132 homeowners indicated that 107 favored annexation to the City of Newport Beach; 18 could not be reached;_4 preferred remaining County; and 3 desired annexation to the City of Costa Mesa. Date ..7..... /.'�............t... - CONES SENT TO: ❑ .%W, or l<§ \•lorrcy r I ral4h• \^•.'&a Vircetog Plooeirr„ (IfrCcl7S ' ud,cc ❑ Respectfully submitted, fl , f y 0 1 R f/ G ��P1(.+ � 1 � • � -lei., l � n.`l. /� For the Bay Knoll Homeowners RAUB, BEIN, FROST & ASSOCIATES 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach, California April 29, 1974 Job No. 15259 Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION Annexation to the City of Newport Beach BEGINNING at the intersection of the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue, 60.00 feet wide, with the northeasterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as said streets are shown on the Map of Newport Heights, recorded in Book 4, page 83 of Miscellaneous Flaps, records of Orange County, California, said intersection being an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Newport Beach, as described in the "Tustin Avenue and 22nd Street Annexation" per Ordinance No. 803, adopted November 13, 1956 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Tustin Avenue and northeasterly prolongation thereof, being also the northwesterly boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as described in the above mentioned annexation and the "Upper Bay Annexation" per Ordinance No. 748 adopted April 25, 1955 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, to the intersection thereof with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of "Monte Vista No. 2 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 63-1, adopted January 21, 1963 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence northwesterly along said prolongation and said southwesterly line 360.00 feet to an angle point in said "Monte Vista No. 2 Annexation"; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said last men- - tioned annexation 132.00 feet to the northeasterly line of Lot 105 of Tract No. 300, as shown on nap recorded in Book 14, pages 11 and 12 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, being also a point in the southwesterly boundary.of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 62-19, adopted May 20, 1962 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; thence along the boundary of said "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation" the following courses: northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 105 to the southeasterly line of Tract No. 3062 as shown on map recorded in Book 92, page 20 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County; thence southwesterly along said southeasterly line 5.20 feet to the most easterly corner of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 3062; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly line of Santa Isabel Avenue, as shown on said map of Tract No. 3062, to the north-, westerly boundary of said Tract No. 3062; thence leaving said boundary of "Monte Vista No. 1 Annexation", southwesterly along the northwesterly boundary of said Tract No. 3062 to the most westerly corner of said Tract No. 3062, being also a point in the northeasterly boundary of "Linda No. 1 Annexation" per Ordinance No. 65-38, adopted November 15, 1965 by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa; t r, Ac ub. Bein, Frost & Associates - Description Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach April 29, 1974 Job No. 15259 Page 2 of 2 thence southeasterly along said northeasterly boundary, being also the north- easterly boundary of Tract No. 5615 as shown on map recorded in Book 209, pages 42 and 43 of Miscellaneous Maps, to the most easterly corner of said Tract No. 5615 and an�angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; thence south- westerly along the boundary of said last mentioned annexation-, being also•the southeasterly boundary of said Tract No. 5615, to the northeasterly line of 23rd Street, 60.00 feet wide, as shown on said map of Tract No. 5615, being also an angle point in the boundary of said "Linda No. 1 Annexation"; thence leaving the boundary of said last mentioned annexation, southwesterly along the south- TeastelyractrNo.b3oundarf 609, asoshownd nrmap recorded Tact No. �innBook 126, pages d along the t29este andr30 ofuMdiscelarof laneous Maps, and along the northwesterly boundary of Tract No. 2609, as shown on map recorded in Book 80, page 35 of Miscellaneous Maps, and along the north- westerly boundary of Tract No. 2819, as shown on map recorded in Boot: 117, page 31 of Miscellaneous Maps, all records of said Orange County, to the northeasterly line of 22nd Street, 60.00 feet wide, said northeasterly line being parallel with and distant 30.00 feet northeasterly, measured at right angles, from the centerline of said 22nd Street, as said centerline is shown on said map of Tract No. 2819, and being also the northwesterly prolongation of the northeasterly boundary of "Moden Annexation - Boundary No. 59" per Ordinance No, 1258, adopted July 8, 1968 by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; thence southeasterly along said boundary of said last mentioned annexation parallel line and said northeasterly to the POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO: All Covenants, Rights, Rights -of -Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof. CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE-C IAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT DONALD A. MOHNIS COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I DONALDJ.SALTARELLI COUNCILMAN CITY OF TUSTIN I q LTE MATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC I ALTERNATE ALICE PRANKIEWICH COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF CYPRESS I RICNARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LINTY OF N G E LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Dear Mr. Wynn, ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 July 9, 1974 G-4 A ciG` Ah9C�9�z`FA c9��r0o may, On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated as the "Bay Knolls Annexa- tion" as filed with the Commission by property owners in the area. The annexation is approximately 44.6 acres located north- westerly of Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. As you are aware, the area proposed for consideration for annexation to the City of Newport Beach is in the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission on June 13, 1973. The Commission took action to continue the hearing on the proposed annexation to August 14, 1974, and that the matter of a review and possible sphere of influence change in this area will be considered by the Commission at that time. The Commission directed the review of the spheres of influ- ence be noticed to the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. This letter is to serve as an official notice that at its meeting of August 14, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Com- mission, in conjunction with continuing the public hearing on the pending annexation, will also review the adopted spheres of influence in this area. Yours truly Turner Executive Officer RTT/ff Q�G°0`�DeQ�ll�� cr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,J�' GQ•rCT Office of nr CITY ATTORNEY I To: The Honorable Mayor and July 22, 1974 Members of the City Council From: City Attorney Subject: Bay Knolls Annexation On June 26, 1974, the Local Agency Formation Commission discussed the proposed Bay Knolls annexation to the City of Newport Beach. The matter was continued in order to first obtain the approval of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Government Code Section,35106 which seems to require Council consent before any annexation proceedings of inhabited territory are commenced. In lieu of initiating formal annexation proceedings at this time, the Council may wish to merely consent to the commencement of annexation proceedings and refer this matter back to LAFC for their review. The "consent" requirement of Section 35106 can be interpreted to mean procedural consent to commence annexation proceedings as opposed to actual substantive consent to the annexation of the subject property to the City. A resolution has been prepared which if adopted would constitute City Council procedural consent to commence annexation pro- ceedings. Planning Commission review, the public hearings, and the decision on whether or not the Council wishes to consent to the Bay Knolls annexation would be held in abeyance pending receipt of the report from LAFC. DENNIS D. O'NEIL City Attorney DDO:mh cc: City Manager City Clerk Community Development Director►/ Y AGENDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JUNE 26, 1974 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION 2:00 P.M. SWEARING OF WITNESSES MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1974 CONSENT CALENDAR MATTERS (Items Al - A5) (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved by one motion unless a Commission member requests separate action on a specific item) A. PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 56261 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE SET FOR DETERMINATION WITHOUT -NOTICE AND HEARING 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-395-74 Approximately 0.37 acre located on the north side of Lilac Avenue east of Gates Street, in the southwest Santa Ana area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on June 11, 1974) 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-400-74 Approximately 0.90 acre located on the west side of Newhope Street north of Westminster Avenue, in the south Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The City,,of Garden Grove filed a negative declaration on the under- lying project in May, 1974) 3. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT 1 ANNEXATION NO. K-402-74 Approximately 1.59 acres located on the north side of Trask Avenue, east of Newhope Street, in the south Garden Grove area. Filed by the Garden Grove Sanitary District on behalf of the property owner. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on June 11, 1974) PAGE 2 AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION JUNE 262 1974 B. 4. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT KNOTT-KATELLA ANNEXATION Approximately'6.2 acres located at the southeasterly corner of Knott and Katella Avenues, in the west Stanton area. Filed by the Stanton County Water District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Stanton approved a negative declaration on the under- lying project in November, 1973). 5. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO STANTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT COVINGTON BROTHERS.ANNEXATION Approximately 1.75 acres located on the west side of Knott Avenue north of Cerritos Avenue, in the west Stanton area. Filed by the Stanton County Water District on behalf of the property owner. (The City of Stanton approved a negative declaration on the underlying project in January, 1974). PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 6 ANNEXATION NO. 74-1 Approximately 120 acres located west of E1 Toro Road between Irvine Boulevard and Serrano Road, in the north E1 Toro -area. Filed by E. L. Pearson & Associates on behalf of the property owner. (The County of Orange approved a final Environmental Impact Report on the underlying project in May, 1973). 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION Approximately 44.6 acres located northwesterly of Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Filed by Bay Knolls Homeowners. (The Executive Officer filed a negative declaration with the County Clerk regarding the proposal on June 11, 1974). PAGE 3 AGENDA - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1974 ' r C. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54774 1. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF FULLERTON (Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from the agenda) 2. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF A PARTIAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR SOUTH LA HABRA (Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from the agenda) 3. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF A PARTIAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR NORTH AND NORTHWEST BREA SUGGESTED HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 282 1974 FOR CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT EIR ON SUBJECT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SUGGESTED HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBJECT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE D. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: POLICY ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO THE ANNEXATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE LANDS TO CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY E. COMMISSION INFORMATION: NEW LEGISLATION NOW EFFECTIVE (AB 1346 AND AB 1347) AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE KNOX-NISBET ACT AND THE DISTRICT REORGANIZATION ACT i F. CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTING WAIVER OF FEES ON ANNEXATION NO. 41 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 G. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS 55-012 ORANGE CO SANITATI 55-012 ORANGE CO WATER 01 55-012 ORANGE CO HATER D ,'55-000 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .000T 55- 09 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY _ 55-009 UEWPORT MESA UNIT -COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.4337 55-009 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND- .101 048 _ _ 55-009 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND 1/R FUND 1 55-009 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND_ . 68 55-009 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND _ -_ _ .361 .9347, __55-009 55-009 SC NOOI INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .9347 5.8196 1.6050 55-009 COUNTY FUNDS .2044 55-009 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .0010 55-009 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST Al 55-009 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION .3991 .0y 50_ 55-009 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. _ - _. -.-- - _ _j' 55-009 ORANGE COUNTX FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 55-009 ORANGE CO. PARK CnHARBOR DIST .1643 55-009 ORANGE -COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .0082 55-009 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND .2300 .0000 55-009 55-009 ROAD DISTRICT 65 METRO RATER DIST-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA _ .1400 55-009 COAST BUN WAt ER DIST ORIGIFGL AREA .0006 8.8588C 55-009 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 16 .2275 55-009 ORANGE CD ST LIGHTING MAINT DIST R12 •2570 .5545A _ 55-004 ORANGE CO RATER DIST .0700 ?5-009 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE _ - _ _. _ _ -. .0090R_ _ 9.41334• -- 55-010 COUNTY SCNYOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19E83.5 .0007 55-010 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 4.4337 55-010 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA RESA GENERAL FUND 55-010 COSTA MESA "EL-BASIC-BOND_I/R FUND -BA SIC-BONO I/R FUND .1451 .1048 S5-9T0 NEW POR T.MAR BOR HS-CM EL 55-010 NEWPORT MESA-.UNIF BOND I/P FUND _ _ 57-710 OEYELOPMENT'tENTEP TAX .1361 55-010 COAST% COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .g3hT.9347 _ 5.6196 _ 55-010 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TA% 1.6050 _ 55-010 SS-0 0 COUNTY --- -- -- - - ---• COUN Y_LIBRARY D1STRtCT - --;20M _ .GO10- 55-010 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST Al -.- - - - - ' ' _ 56-DLO COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION .3991 5S-5-010 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. _ _ _ _ _ .0450 --.2222 --- -OO10 CRINGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 1843 55-010 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST__ '�0j- TO OR NGE COON T R SOU FTO �BRTEMEMT oi3T"-'- `- 55-010 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST. GENERAL FUND -- - .0800 - QQOQ-- _ l5-010 ROAD DISTRICT PS 55-010 MET0.0 WATER DIST-HUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA -_ _, DIST. OF ORANGE EO=ORIG(NA1 AREA _ -_ _ .3600 - .1600 - - 35=010 MUNICIPAL WA7ER 8.7288C --55=bTD-Ok�N�E'CITS'AFITAYTb1-+-UI-ST is---- '--"E273'------ 15-OLO ORANGE CO ST LIGHTING MAINT DIST Al2 _ - .2570 -. '- 55-010 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .OT00 OOOOR 55-010 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .0000A 9.38334• i5-0IF OOURTY SCROOL 55-012 DEPARTMENT OF 55-012 NEWPORT MESA _ 55-012 COSTA 4ESA EL 55-012 NEWPORT HAROC 55-012 NEWPORT MESA 55-012 DEVELOPMENT C 55-012 COAST COMMUNI 55-012 SCHOOL INSTIL 55-pp12 COUNTY FUNDS 55-012 COUNTY LIBRAF _ 55-012 COUNTY STRUCI 55-0L2.0RANGE CINATI 16 EO `t03€3v68iJ� ION CAPITAL OUTLAY STA MESA GENERAL FUND BOND I/R FUND - Fi.-BASIC-AONO I/R FUND F BOND I/R FUND ER TAX COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND ON TUITICN TAX, ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD ORANGE CO. PARK C H....__. ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT, DIST ROAD DISTRICT 95 [UN ORANGE CO-OPIGINAL AREA ST. Of ORANGE CU-ORIGINAL AREA ON DIST P6 ST IST-WATER RESERVE L DIST .0027 4.4337 .1451 .1046 .1361 .0168 9347 .0450 5.8196 1.6050 .2044 .0450 .4 .2222 _. .1843 .DD8z _ .0000 .1600 .0000 8.fi478C .2275 .9700 .2975A _ .000OR 8.9453P• _ ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total hate computed on Net Taxable Vnluc A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Minetal Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Lund & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 29, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & improvement Value R —Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Bate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Not Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 29, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Ram computed an Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L—Total irate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total tiara computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights _ 55-010 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 55-018 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 55-018 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 55-018 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND _ 55-015 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -SONG I/R FUND 55-018 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND 55-018 DEVELOPMENT CENTEF TAX 55-010 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-018 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-018 COUNTY STRUCTURAL __3T-_ __0_ANGE COUNTY TRA 55-018 .ORANGE COUNTY FLO 55'-019 ORENGE'C0. -PARR_C TION IST ENT GIST 55-018 ROAD DISTRICT 15 - 55=018 METRO'MAER-OIST-CMYO-DRIGINAL AREA ' _ 55_-_018 COAST_ M_UN_VATER GIST ORIGINAL AREA _ 55-018 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST #6 _ 55-018 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE -'55-019 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID EO CODE 19683.5 55-019 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY -3SOL9'AEGRORT'TIE57C UNIF-COSTA-NM GENERAL FUND 55-019 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND 55-019 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND 55-019 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND _ _ 55-019 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-019 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-019 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-019 COUNTY FUNDS 55-019 COUNTY LIBPARY DISTRICT 55-019 OPANGE CO CEMETERY DIST tl 55-019 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-019 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-D19 ORANGE COUNTY FLOODC DNTROL DIST 55-019 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-019 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST _ 55-019 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-019 POAD DISTRICT 05 55-019 METRO WATER DIST_-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA 55-614 COAST RUN WATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA 55-019 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST t6 55-019 ORANGE CO WATER DIST 55-019 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE 55-020 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 55-020 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 55-020 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 55-020 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BONG I/R FUND 55-020 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND 55-020 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND 55-020 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-020 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND _ 55-020 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-020 COUNTY FUNDS 55-020 COUNTY _LIBRARY DISTRICT 55-620 GRANGE CO CEMETERY DIST it 55-020 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-020 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-020 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-020 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-020 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 55-020 ROAD DISTRICT 15 55-020 METRO WATER DIST-CMWO-ORIGINAL APEA 55-020 COAST MUN WATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA 55-020 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 06 _ 55-020 ORANGE Cn WATER DIST 55-020 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .0007 .0027 4.4337 .1451 .1048 _ w .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 5.3196 1.6050 .2275 ".OTOa .2973F- 000OR 9.02I2if ' .0007 .0027 4.037- - -'- _-- .1451 .10-48 .1361 .0160 .9347 .0450 5.8196 .2275 .0700 .0007 .0027 4.4337 .1451 .1048 .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 .2275 .0700 ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Taal Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value, excludinx L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights V — Taal Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1914 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights V — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights 210 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19663.5 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY -"55=03�CIISTi`RESA'EL=SASiFBaAO-fIR'"FQND_ ___ __._..�__ 55-026 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND - 35-026 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND IIR FUND 55-026 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAR _ 55-026 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-026 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-026 COUNTY FUNDS _ 55-026 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT 55-026 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST Al 55-026 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55--026 OP ANGE CO. PARK 6 HARBOR DIST _ 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 55-026 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-026 ROAD DISTRICT 95 55-026 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA 55-026 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF_ORANGE CC -ORIGINAL AREA 55-026 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 06 55-026 ORANGE CO WATER DIST 55-026 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .0007 _ .7 4.433337 .1048 .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 5.8196 .2275 .0700 scWbbC 8600 AID EO CODE'19683.5 -6001 MENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 T MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.4337 MESA EL -BASIC -BOND TIP FUND .1451 T HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND .1048 T MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND _ .._ 361 TMENf C€NTERTAX ^ - --� - _ .0168 COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 1.6050 .2014 .0010 .3991 .0450 .2222 .1843 .0982 .2300 .0000 .1600 .0000 e.e78Bc .2975A .000OR 9.1763*• "-"" 55-027 " - SCHOOL IN5'f ITUTfON TUITION TAX .0450 S.A196 5.8196 55-027 COUNTY FUNDS -DISTRICT _ - _ 55-027 DOUNTY LIBRARY .6050 55-027 COUNTY_ STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION_ .3991 -.p450 5$-02TOlt4�E COUNT- TRANSITOIST. 55-027 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 1543 ".2222 --65-D27 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-027 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST '- .0082. 0000 --- 55-027 ROAD OfSTRTCT 45 55-027 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA ATE6.011f. -D oF-'R�ANL€-c0 a Tc7Fai ek"E"A - _ .1600 _ -o L 8.6476C78C - 53-6£Y�ORAFGE"CO SANITATION D1Sl P6 •2215 55-027 ORANGE CO WATER DIST _ .0700_ .2975A _ 55-027 ORA-i1BE CO HATER GIST -WATER RESERVE .00009 8.9453hs 55-025 -35'=033-6ETA7t71iENTOF COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 EDUCATTOKCAPITAL OUTLAY .0007 .0027 55-020 SAN�JOAOUIN EL-NMU-SJ1966-BOND TIP FUND .0558 _ _ -55-62E TUST IN NS-NNU-S JO L966-BOND I/R FUND 55-028 -S5�2TTlEYEORT--N NEWPORT MESA UNIF. BOND I/R __ _ _ FL-FI1F-T9b6 SJ�NX-GEII-ER►� FURC _ _ _.1361 4.11-4 --- 55-020 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAR -- 55-028 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .0168 50. 5.4h2A 5.4426 55-029 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAR _ _ .9S4- - - - 0-026 COUNTY FUNDS 2050 44 55-028 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT _ ___ __.____._m6 -- -- SS-020 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-020 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-029 ORANGE CO. PARK C HAR60R DIST 55-028 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST -53=028'TOSID DISTRICT 8555-028 METRO -- 55-028 COAST NUNEWATERT DIST ORIGINAL L AREAA 55-028 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST P5 .3991 .0450 - .2222 .1843 .0082 .0000 .1400 .0000 8.2520C .2593A 8.51134♦ ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total hate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Irate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Irate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights V — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C—Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding I_ -- Total Rate computed on Lend Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate compared an Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total flare computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights 212 55-041 COUNTY SCHOOL SLOG AID ED CODE 19603.5 .0007 _ 55--041 DEPARTMENT CF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 155-041 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-COSTA_NESA-GENERAL FUND 4.4337 Pi$-Z3 COSTA_MESA El -SA ANX-A2-BOND_I%R NO .0925 55-041 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -SA U ANX 42-_BOND I/R FUND .0716 55-041 NEWPORY MESA UNIF: SOND OR .1361 55-041 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0165 _ 55-041 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 55-041 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 3.7338 35-041 co IT NUS _ _ _._ 1.6bO-_ 55-041COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .2044_ - SSDiI_ _ _ _bRARGE CO CEMETERY DIST 41 .0010 55-041 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION .3991 55'-041 4R ANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 55-041 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST •2222 -D�"ORANGE LD. _4RV"€_MWCk D13'1 -' - ----- - - - -. 843 55-041 ORANGE COUNTY MOSOUITO ABATEMENT DIST .Obo2 i - 55-041 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-BASIC .0944 55-04L ROAD DISTRICT 45 .0000 NETRd QWTER-DIST-MUN ORANGE bD-_ORIGiNAL AREA - _ .f6b0 55-041 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -'ORIGINAL AREA .0000 . _ _ _ _ __- 8":6579L 55-041 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 47 .4026 - 55-041 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .4726A 55-041 ORANGE CO WATER OTST-WATER RESERVE .000OR 9.130544 �BCDT'7T0-�0 CODE 19663-:5` - - -_ - -53=0i2"COORTP-SiM1iQOC 55-042 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 55-042 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.4337 55-042 COSTA MESA EL-6AStC-BON0 3/R FUND .1451 ' 55-042 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CN EL-BASIC-SOND I/R'FUND .-1048 55-042 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND i/R FUND .1361 05-042 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0168 55-042 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 55-042 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 5.8196 55-042 COUNTY FUNDS 1.6050 55-042 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .2044 55-042 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 41 _,. _.__ _ ___ ___ •0030 55-042 _ COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE FROTECTION .3991 55-049 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 55-042 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST •2222 55-0J2 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST •1843 j _ 55-042 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .0002 55-042 [OS71 MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND _ . -_- _ .2300 _ 53-042 ROAD DISTRICT 15 •0000 55-042,NETRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .1600 55-042 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .0000 8.8786C 55-042 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST ►6 •2275 SS-042 ORANGE CO ST LIGHTING_ NAINT DIST #12_ „2i70-- 55-042 ORANGE CO WATER D[ST .0700 .5S45A 55-042 ORANGE CO WATER 01ST-WATER RESERVE :000OR 9.43334+ 55-043 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .0067 55-043 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 -0 3 N WORT-R€SA UTV-Z03 A NESA-GENERAL FUND 5.4337 55-043 COSTA MESA EL GRNVL ANX RIND 1/R FUND .1092 55-043 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL-GRNVL ANX-BOND 1/0- FUND .0116 55-043 NEWPORT MESA UNIF. BOND t/R FUND _ _ .1361 _ 55-043 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0168 55-043 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE-GENERALFUND _ .9347 _ OL STITUTION TUITION TAX- .645D 5.7305 55-043 COUNTY FUNDS __ _ _ 1.6050 _ 55-041 __ COUNTY LIBRARY bIBYaTCT .2044 55-043 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 41 .0010 55-043 _._ COUNTY STRUCTURAL F1RE,PROTECTION .3991 55-043 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 0450 - O AN Z'OUNTT Ft.OGFCONTAOI b15T 55-043 ORANGE CO. PARK 8 HARBOR DIST .1043 --5}�-013 ONJAW COUNTY 1f0S7UT0 ASATEMENT DIST-' .0082 55-043 ROAD DISTRICT 05 .0000 _ _ 55=043 _ MOETRMATER OIST-MUN GRANGE CO -ORIGINAL UREA .1600 55-043 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA 0000 .. 1 f9rr 55-043 --53=6T3-pRA'P'GE' ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 41 ---.-'---------�-.01 .3671 t� WATER DIST 55-043 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE _ _ .000OR ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed an Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights tt — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed an Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights It — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excludinx 1. —Total Rate computed an Lend Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed an Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed an Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value It —Total Rate computed on Lund & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights 55-061 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG RIO ED CODE 19683.5 .000T 55-061 OEPAFTPENT CF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY •0027 55-061 NEWPORT HARBOR NS-NPT BCH FL -BOND 1/R FUND .3048 55-061 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-NEWPOPT BEACH -GENERAL FUND 4.1961 55-061 COSTA MESA EL-NPT 9CN CM 07 ANX-900t/R FUND .0640 55-061 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND i/R 131 . 55-061 DEVELOPMENT CENTEP TAX 0165 .9347 55-061 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-062 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19083.5 - '.0067 55-062 Si-6d2-NEWPORT-HARBOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY H3=NPT"AtF-Ei=90N 6-t7 R-FUND"--'�------1b4E-- .0027 55-062 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-NEWPORT BEACH -GENERAL FUND _ -__ _ 4.1961 1640 55-062 COSTA MESA EL-NPT BCH CK 07 ANX-6046 T/R FUND '11 55-062 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R, . _ . -- ---- 36 6 55-062 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAN .13 55-062 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND _ _ _ -- _ - .93479347 - - 55-052-SCHOOL INSTITUTION' TUITION"TLX- 55-062 COUNTY FUNDS- 55-062 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT 55-062 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST Al 55-062 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-062 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-062 ORANGE CCUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-062 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-062 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 55-062 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-062 ROAD DISTRICT A5 55-062_METRO PATER, DIST_MUN ORANGE CO-O 11 GIN. SS-062 1111N [CIPAL WATER GIST. OF ORANGE CO -OR 55-662 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST A6 .2275 55-062 ORANGE CO WATER DIST 4790 ,L975A_ 55-062 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .0000R 55-063 55-063 55-063 COUNTY 55-063 06ANGE 55-063 ORANGE 55-063 ORANGE 55-063 ORANGE 35-063 ROAD D 55-063 METRO 55-063 COAST BLDG AID ED CODE 1R603,5 -- EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY E-GENERAL'FUNG - TION TAX_ 115T Il--�_--- IRE PROTECTION PROTECTIONIT DIST. CONTROL DIST ARBOR DIST ITO ABATEMENT DIST___ WO -CAP BCH-5 CLEMENTE AREA T LAP BCH-SAN CLEMENTE .0007_ _ -- -- ,0027 .10 0__.. _-_ __ 4.1961 __- .1361 .01.61L _ .9347 .0450-- 5_4999 1.6050 .204h .0010 .3991 .0450 .2222_ _ .1843 .0082 .0000 .1600 _ .0000 8.3291C _ 8.32904 ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total state computed on Net Taxable V,ilue A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding, L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Tota', Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 29, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Not Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mtncral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Righn ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights I11 15-026 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .0007 15-026 DEPARTMENT OF -EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 15-02b NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.4337 15-026 COSTA MESA EL-BASIC-80NU I/R FUND .L451 15-C2b NE.PORT HARBOR HS-CM EL-BASIC-SONO I/A FUND .1048 15-02o NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND .L36L 15-C26 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .OLb8 15-D2o COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE-OENERAL FUND .9347 15-026 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITIUN TAX .0450 S.BL96 _ 15-02b COUNTY FUNDS 1.0050 13-026 COSTA MESA CITY .9b68 15-026 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .2044 0-020 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 01 .BOLO _. . 0-G26 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 L6-020 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 13-026 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST .1543 13-026 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .QO82 15-026 COSTA MESA PARK AND RECREATION DIST .3500 15-020 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND .23DO __- 15-026 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .1600 IS-C2b MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE C0-DR161hAL AREA .0000 9.79b5C 15-026 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 46 .2275 11-026 COSTA MESA CITY STREET LIGHTING MAINT DIST .2300 0-G26 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .5275A 15-C26 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .000QR 10.3240** 15-027 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .0007 _ 15-027 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 L5-027 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.1337 15-027 COSTA MESA EL-BASIC-dOHO I/R FUND .1451 15-027 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND .1043 , I5-027 NEWPORT MESA UNIF dONO I/R FUND .136L 15-027 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .016E 15-D27 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 15-027 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 5.8L90 15-027 CUUNTY FUNDS L.b050 LS-027 COSTA MESA CITY .966E 15-327 COUNTY LIBRARY,DISTRICT .2044 15-027 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST rl .0010 _ L5-027 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 15-627 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 15-027 04ANGE CO. PARK 6 HARBOR DIST .1643 15-027 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT GIST .0062 15-027 COSTA MESA PARK AND RECREATION DIST .3500 15-027 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .L600 15-027 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .0000 9.5665C 15-C27 ORANGE C3 SANITATION DIST 46 .2275 15-027 COSTA MESA CITY STREET LIGHTING MAINT DIST .2300 15-C27 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .5275A 15-e27 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .000OR 10.0940" 15-G26 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG 410 cD CODE 19.83.5 .0007 15-028 CO PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED TAX .OG20 15-023 UEPT OF EOUC CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS .0028 15-02d HUNTINGTON BEACH ELEM SCH DIST-30ND I/R FUND .2977 15-028 HUNTINGTON BEACH HS-H.8 EL -BOND I/R FUND .1779 13-C23 HUNTINGTON dEACH "ELEM SCH DIST-G6NE4AL FUND 1.4493 15-026 CD SCH BLDG AID HUNT BEACH HIGH .0001 IS-026 AREA WIDE SCHOOL TAX-HUNTINGTON BEACH HI SCH DIST .9940 15-C26 HUNTINGTON BEACH HI SCh DIST-GENERAL FUND 2.4314 15-028 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0168 15-028 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 15-028 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0460 6.3524 15-026 COUNTY FUNDS 1.6050 15-D23 COSTA MESA CITY .966E 15-023 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .2044 13-02a ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0430 15-025 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 15-026 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBUK DIST .LA43 _ 15-026 ]RANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO A3ATEMENT 013T .0082 15-023 METRO WATER DIST-MUN OFANGE CO -ORIGINAL AFEA .1600 15-023 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .000O 9.74B3C 15-028 ORANGE CO SANITATICN DIST Ill .3559 15-V23 COSTA MESA CITY STREET LIGHTING MAINT DIST .2300 15-028 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .6559A 15-026 ORANGE CD WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .000OR 10.404244 ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 A: —'total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights 11 — Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rare computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excludinx L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A —Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L—Total Rate computed an Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights V—Total Rare computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights 51 07-057 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .0007 07-057 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 01-037 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-NOT BCH EL -BOND I/R FUND .1048 07-057 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-NEWPORT BEACH -GENERAL FUND 4.1961 07-057 COSTA MESA EL-NPT BCH CM 07 ANX-BOND 1/R FUND .0640 07-057 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R .1361 07-057 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0168 07-057 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL_ FUND_ 01-057 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 5.5009 07-057 COUNTY FUNDS 1.6050 01-057 NEWPORT BEACH CITY 1.1800 07-057 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST #1 _ .0010 07-057 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450� 07-057 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST _ _ _ .2222 _ 07-657 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST .1043 07-057 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 'DIST .0082 07-057 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND .2300 07-057 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .1600 _ 07-057 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CG-ORIGINAL AREA .0000 9.1366C - 07=07 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 06 .T275 07-057 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .2975A 07-057 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE _ .000OR 9.4341*! 07-058 SCHOOL MENTALLY RETARDED TAX .0226 -07-056 _ CO SCHOOL 'BLDG AID WD CODE 19683.5 .000'( 07-058 PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED TAX .0899 07-056 DEPT OF EDUC CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS .0030 07-050 IRVINE UNIFIED BOND I/R FUND .4626 07-056 NEWPORT BEACH EL S JO NMU NO 60 S JO BOND I/R FUND - _ .Ob30 07-058 SAN JOAQUIN EL NMU NB 60 SJ BOND I/R FUND .2575 - --07--038-9E9FDRT �lAR'EOR"A5=57-RMU NB'60 S 1D BOFD I7R-FOND"_--1OT.8 07-058 TUSTIN HS DIST SJ NMU NB 60 SJ BOND I/R FUND .1246 07-058 NEWPORT MESA UNIF SAN JOA NO 60-NB ST SCH BLDG .0220 07-056 IRVINE UNIF SCH DIST-GENERAL FUND 5.5201 07-050 _ _ DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .0160 07-058 SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOND I/R .0642 07-058 SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL "' ' -.6363-- -`-' 07-058 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 7.4331 07-0511 COUNTY FUNDS - 1.6050 07-058 NEWPORT BEACH CITY 1.1800 _ 07-058 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST Al _ .0010 07-058 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 07-058 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 07-058 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST .L843 07-055 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .0082 07-058 METRO WATER DIST-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA .1400 07-058 COAST MUM WATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA .0000 30.6188C _ 07-058 OPANGE CO SANITATION DIST 05A .0086A 07-058 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST .4695 C7-058 IRVINE RANCH WATER IMP DIST Al .6156 1.2851L 12.1119*4 07-059 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 07-059 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 07-059 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-NPT BCH EL -BOND In FUND 07-059 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-NEWPORT BEACH -GENERAL FUND 07-059 COSTA MESA EL-NPT BCH CM A7 ANX-BOND I/R FUND 07-059 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R 07-059 DEVELOPMENT CENTEP TAX _ 07-059 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 07-059 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 07-059 COUNTY FUNDS 07-059 NEWPORT BEACH CITY 07-059 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 01 07-059 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST._ 07-059 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 07-059 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 07-059 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 07-059 METRO WATER DIST-MUM ORANGE CO-OPIGINAL AREA 07-059 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL APEA 07-059 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 17 07-059 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST .0007 .0027 .1048 4.1961 .0640 .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 5.5009 1.6050 1.1800 .0010 .0450 .2222 .1B43 .0082 .1600 .0000 8.9066C .4026A .4695L 9.7787*4 ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 U — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value It — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value It — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L—Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate compared on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1914 C —Total Rate computed on Not Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C —Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L—Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights 115 15-043 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG A10 ED CODE 19663.5 .0007 15-943 TL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUAY _ 15-043 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-COSTA NESA-GENERAL FUND 1.4337 i�43 SU.STA M.A.-E-L_StRNYS�.N% BOND L/R FUND 15-043 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL-GRNVL ANX-BOND I/R FUND .0716 15-043 NEWPORT MESA UNIF. BOND_ I/R FUND _ _ .1361_ 15-043 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX .016E 15-043 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND. .9341 _ _ 15-043 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAR-­- .0450 8.1565 15-043 COUNTY FUNDS _,__ 1.6050 15-043 COSTA MESA CITY .9666 15-043 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT -ZP44 _ lb-043 _ _ _ ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 01 .0010 15-043 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT GIST. .0450 15-043 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST .2222 15-043 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST _ .1843 _ --15-43 Dot COUNTY MO SOU d ABATEMENT DIST • 15-043 COSSTATA MESA PARK AND RECREATION DIST •33003500 15-043 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST GENERAL FUND .600 15-043 METRO WATER DIST-MUM ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA .1600 _ 15-043 DIST MUNICIPAL PATER . OF ORANGE C0-0RIGINAL AREA DIST .0000 9.5774C 15-043 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 01 .3671 15-043 COSTA MESA CITY STREET LIGHTING MAINT DIST .2300 11-043 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .6673A 15-043 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .000OR _ 10.244544 15-044 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID EU CODE 19663.5 .0007 15-054 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 _ - 15-044 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 4.4337 15-044 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND .L45L _ 15-044 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/R FUND .1046 L5_044 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND _ 15-644 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX •0166 15-044 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 _ 15-044 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX .0450 5.6196 15-044 COUNTY FUNDS 1.6050 _ 15-044 COSTA MESA CITY .9666 15-04y DDUHTT LIBRARY_DISTRICT_ _ _ ___ _ _._ _ ___�20AA 15-044 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST P1 .0010 15-044 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 _ 15-044 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST •2222 15-044 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST .1643 15-044 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .0062 15-D44 COSTA MESA PARK AND RECREATION DIST--- _ _ _ .3500 1$-044 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND .2300� 15-044 METRO WATER O1ST-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA .L400 0-044 COAST MUM WATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA .0000 9.7165C 15-044 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 16 .2275 15-044 COSTA MESA CITY STREET LIGHTING MAINT DIST .23A4_ ___ .- _ 15-044 ORANGE CO WATER DIST .0700 .5275A LS-044 GRANGE CO WATER GIST -WATER RESERVE •000OR _ 10.304044 ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rare computed on Net 'Payable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R -- Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, oxcluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L -• Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights Lr — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C—Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Load & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Right% U — Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net `taxable Value A — Total Rate computed an Land & Improvement Value R Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L — Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U —'total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Righrs ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C — Total Rate computed on Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed on Land Value, excluding Mineral Rightn ORANGE COUNTY TAX RATES ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1974 C—Total Rate computed an Net Taxable Value A — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value R — Total Rate computed on Land & Improvement Value, excluding L —Total Rate computed on Land Value only Mineral Rights U — Total Rate computed an Land Value, excluding Mineral Rights ti CII �\v I 19 1 b n, 10 LEGEND: -- h - EXISTING BOUNDARIES -- �_,- F_,,• }.'• ANNEXATION ___ _ BOUNDARIES - o� y� 1 940000'33"W i_4�_ , —�• - 629.97• ww mow.�CC - _. is o J70 B40'00'00"W 1321.82' 1E. ROAD _ DR0A: REDLANDS •; ;t jF�% Q� 1 Z Lu < DRIVEC-A MOSTE'LYCOR. LOTI,TR.30h2IrL.NREDLANDS Q ;, cn NE LINE W LO O LL � x I , }f:),•% � - 'i.�-. •_• P i � ./`.'(j ::' _- 2 _ DRIVE='_ r) w T' �� `-1 �•Ji •) 1 _ i o cn _ * _,: r Z. - W r �. CI. L ¢ F :''i?. ,;iii V !_/ i i-F- L_) �F Alp FA ''Y:. ': <'{.: • . :'.f-, a r w. •.ter." - _ _t- _, r_.. Lfl ]- -- i r ,; i� w 1 1 3 .. s ;;. td f'• 6D s ,i ti.i o � C... T- �, N50°00'SD'W - 60' 'G 1` ' , - s T U S T 1 N A V E N U E \ Ut•!t?!C0,1Z Ot' ATEV. ci ` D EXISTING BOUNDARY OF.THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF., ® EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,CALIF., .l • DESCRIBED IN THE "TUSTIN AVENUE AND 22ND STREET AS 1 I AS DESCRIBED IN THE 11MONTE VISTA NO 1 ANNEXATION" ANNEXATION" TO SAID CITY ORDINANCE NO.803 ADOPTED TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE NO. 62-19, ADOPTED MAY20,1962, NOV. 13, 1956. _ 05 EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIF, !' �X17"IBI , B YI Q EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF., AS DESCRIBED IN THE LINDA N0. I ANNEXATION TO AS DESCRIBED IN THE "UPPER BAY ANNEXATION °TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE NO.65'38,ADOPTED NOV.15,196b. SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY. LEGAL DESCRIPTIOR;, ' SAID C1TY;ORDINANCE N0.748,ADDPTED APR.25;1?55. OF PROPDSED ANNEXATION TOTHE•CfTY OF-: © EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, NEWPORT-BEACH BAY KNOLLS ANNEX 'Q EXISTING..BOUNDARY.O� THE CITY.OF CO.STAMESA,CALIF, CALIF.,AS DESCRIBED IN THE "MODEN ANNEXATION- ATION AS,DESCRIBED 1N.THE"MONTE VITA N0,2 ANNEXATION" BOUNDARY N0. S9," TO SAID CITY, ORDINANCE N0,1258, - .TD SAID CITY ORDINANCE NO:63-►:ADOPTED JAN.21,1963. ADOPTED JULY 811968. CONTAININ6='A4.&5 ACRES �.. _ x,i Pt . �F 4 1 7�� 4�, LL��' A{'}j^'1�4•'i'•it!�.Yf#YfK1PZ_�' _ S•1 - --_ REvisEb 6 6/74. R¢viSED 5 74 + 4/29/ 4 'J.N.15259 - '477 r ✓� yg 00 -2- It n%W eve \OPS BOt RANGE COUNTY DMINISTRATION BUILDING o CDU N- Y ®F N 2 Aog �� O. BOX 087 Qz S _ JU NTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 C\4'I� B�,Gt11 � � EL EPHON E: 934-2239 © O �9/".1� T%11 1c3i PH AREA CODE 774 CV LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION June 194144c �Vs e� �v s lV 2 CFF/C s �U F CHAIRMAN N�1UP.Q 419�9a. RALPH A. DIEDRICH Local Agency Formation Commission C4iFL�4Cy St SUPERVISOR nistrative THIRD DISTRICT County Santa Ana, 1California 927021ng VICE-CHAIRMAN STAN NORTHRUP In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach REPRESENTATIVE OF designated the Bay Knolls Annexation GENERAL PUBLIC Gentlemen: ftOBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT This proposal is an inhabited annexation consisting of ap- proximately 44.6 acres located between 22nd and Santa Isabel DONALD A. MCINHIS Avenue, northwesterly of Tustin Avenue in the unincorporated COUNCILMAN CITY OF NEWPOREWPORT BEACH area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The proposal was filed by the Bay Knolls Homeowners and they DONAI.D.I.SALTARELLI ComluLMax are considered the proponents. The reason stated for the CITY OF TUSTIN annexation is that the residents of the territory proposed for annexation overwhelmingly favor annexation. In addition, ALTERNATE the proponents state that the subject territory is socially, DAVID L. BAKER geographically and economically a part of the City of Newport SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT Beach. ALTE INATE Government Code Section 54796 delineates factors to be con- REEBURNAP sidered by the Commission in the review of a proposal. Re - REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC garding this annexation, staff provides the following analysis of this proposal relative to the factors to be considered: ALTERNATE ALICE FRANKIEWICH COUNCILWOMAN (a) Population, population density; land area and land CITY OF CYPRESS use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural bound- aries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; RICHARD T. TURNER the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adja- EXECUTIVE OFFICER cent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. Page 2 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation The annexation area is developed as a single-family resi- dential area consisting of 132 dwelling units with an estimated population of 351 persons. The area is surrounded by similar type development in the City of Newport Beach to the east and the City of Costa Mesa to the west. Growth in the area will be limited due to current development existing in the area. There are some vacant lots within the annexation area, however, development of such lots would not impact significantly the population in the area. The total assessed valuation in the annexation area is $1,238,560. Based -on 132 dwelling units, the average as- sessed valuation per dwelling unit is approximately'$9,383.00. Regarding drainage, the Orange County Flood Control District submitted a report regarding this annexation. The District states: There is a natural unimproved watercourse flowing through the northeasterly corner of the annexation which conveys storm runoff originating westerly and northerly of the subject property. Staff has consulted with the District and has learned that storm run-off from the annexation area will drain toward Irvine Avenue into a small body of water designated "Cherry Lake." From this point, run-off would enter the Santa Isabel Flood Control Channel for conveyance into Upper Newport Bay. (b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. As used in this subdivision, "services" is to be construed as referring to governmental services whether or not the services are such as would be provided by local agencies subject to this chapter, and as including,the public facilities necessary to provision of services. Page 3 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach .designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Annexation of the property to the City of Newport Beach will increase the level of services, i.e., primarily fire and po- lice protection, library service, etc. Essential services such as sewer and water service are provided by special dis- tricts and a private water company. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District provides sewer service to the entire territory while the Costa Mesa Water District supplies water to proper- ties south of Twenty-third Street in the annexation area. Water service north of Twenty-third Street is provided by the Santa Ana Heights Mutual Water Company. Staff would note that since sewer service in the*City of Newport Beach is provided by the general tax rate funds, - annexation of the territory to Newport Beach would result, in a double taxation situation. Double taxation would oc- cur in the amount of $.2550 per $100 assessed valuation which is the 1973-74 tax rate of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Another potential double taxation situation would be in the area of street lighting services. Currently, approxi- mately 50% of the territory is provided street lighting service by Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance Dis- trict No. 12. Since the City of Newport Beach also provides for such service out of general tax rate funds, annexation would create another double taxation situation. If annexa- tion occurs, however, the City of Newport Beach could initi- ate detachment proceedings with the Board of Supervisors and take over the street lighting function, thus alleviating the double taxation situation. To ascertain the probable effect of the proposed annexation on the cost of services, staff has prepared the following brief analysis: Tax Rates Assumed Upon Annexation City of Newport Beach ($1.20/$100 A.V.) Page 4 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Tax Rates Deleted Upon Annexation County Structural Fire Protection ($.3573/$100,A.V.) County Library District ($.1948/$100 A.V.) The resulting net increase in property tax rate for resi- dents would be $.6479 per $100 A.V. Based on the average dwelling unit assessed value of $9,383.00 mentioned earlier in this report, the increase in property tax per dwelling unit upon annexation would be approximately $60.79 per year. This increase would not be as great for properties currently within Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 12, if the City of Newport Beach were to assume street lighting services for such properties. (c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic in- terests and on the local governmental structure of the county. The proponents have submitted a substantial amount -of infor- mation regarding social and economic factors which they feel lends support toward their position of desiring annexation to the City of Newport Beach. The proponents state that 107 of the 132 homeowners in the annexation area favor annexation to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, a questionnaire was designed to determine the existence and extent of social and economic interdependence and interaction between the residents of Bay Knolls and the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. This questionnaire revealed that a majority of Bay Knolls residents belong to no less than 47 different service, com- munity, social and sporting clubs serving Newport Beach. Additionally, the proponents cite the fact that almost 90% of those polled in the questionnaire do a majority of their family shopping in Newport Beach. The proponents attribute this fact to the topography and street layout resulting in primary ingress and egress to and from the City of Newport Beach. Page 5 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation The subject annexation area is located within the Newport - Mesa Unified School District. This fact is, however, not significant since both the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach are included within this school district. (d) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. On June 11, 1974, the County Surveyor's Office notified the Local Agency Formation Commission that the map and legal description of the proposed annexation were definite and certain. If the Commission were to approve this annexation proposal, a county unincorporated "island" would be reduced in size. This annexation proposal, however, would split the remaining unincorporated area into two smaller unincorporated "islands." (e) Conformity with appropriate city or county general and specific plans. Since the area is almost totally developed, the importance of the proposal being in conformance with city or county plans is relatively insignificant. Staff has, however, re- viewed the general plans of the County of Orange, the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Newport Beach relative to the pro- posed annexation area. The 1983 County of Orange General Plan Land Use Element designates the property for high density residential use at a density of 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The City of Costa Mesa designates the territory on its General Plan for Low Density Residential Use (0 to 7 dwelling units per acre). The City of Newport Beach does not include the annexitory territory or any other territory west of Tustin Avenue on the Newport Beach General Plan (Land Use Plan). Page 6 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation The annexation territory is also not included on the Comprehensive Land Use Map (Revised) of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. (f) The "sphere of influence" of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. On June 25, 1969, the Commission determined that the common boundary between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa be Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Palisades Road, provided, however, that the area northwesterly of Tustin Avenue and southerly of Palisades Road designated as the "Clear Zone", be excluded from future annexations to either city. This determination had been preceded by a study and a public hear- ing at which representatives of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and the general public presented information and arguments relative to the boundary line. This decision was based upon what the Commission considered to be good planning area boundaries based on the land uses and services existing in the area. On June 13, 1973, the Commission reaffirmed its position of June 25, 1969 by placing the "Corridor Area" to include the proposed annexation area within the sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa. On November 28, 1973, the Commission held a public hearing, at the request of property owners in the area, to reconsider a portion of the sphere of influence for the City of Costa Mesa as it related to unincorporated territory west of Tustin Avenue --Irvine Avenue extending from 20th Street north to Palisades Road. The Commission action at that time was to leave the reconsideration matter in limbo pending an annexa- tion request by residents in the area. If the Commission were to consider approval of this annexa- tion proposal at the June 26, 1974 meeting, the sphere of influence would, in effect, be changed to include the proper- ty in the Newport Beach sphere of influence. Based on Page 7 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Commission discussion relative to spheres of influence in the past few months, it may be that the Commission would desire to hold a separate hearing on the sphere of influence question in the area prior to acting on the annexation pro- posal. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Relative to this annexation proposal, the Executive Officer has made the determination that the Local Agency'Formation is the "lead agency." The proponents, the Bay Knoll Homeowners, have submitted a "Request for Negative Declaration Status!' Since the annexa- tion area is nearly totally developed, with the exception of a few undeveloped lots, the Executive Officer has made a determination that the annexation will not have a signifi- cant effect on the environment. Subsequently, the Executive Officer filed a negative declaration relative to the propo- sal with the County Clerk of Orange County on June 11, 1974. (See attached) SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION As mentioned in this report; the Commission is required to consider various factors prior to approving or disapproving a proposal (Reference: Government Code Section 54796). As such, staff has attempted to address each required factor in the text of the report. While the Knox -Nisbet Act defines the factors which shall be considered by the Commission, it does not, however, state what weight each individual factor shall carry. Mutual social and economic factors as well as the desires of the property owners lend some credence to approval of the an- nexation to Newport Beach. Drainage of storm run-off toward the City of Newport Beach also would lend support to such a decision. Page 8 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation Although the factors to be considered by the Commission are not weighted, the emphasis of the Code Section revolves pri- marily around the cost, adequacy and need for governmental services and what impact the annexation proposal will have on the provision of such services. Services such as water and sewer service are provided by special districts, i.e., the Costa Mesa County Water Dis- trict and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and the Santa Ana Heights Mutual Water Company. As mentioned earlier in the report, approval "of the annexation would result in a double taxation situation regarding sewer service. Based upon the average dwelling unit assed valuation of $9,383.00 within the proposed annexation area and a 1973-74 tax rate of .2550/$100 assessed valuation for the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, the individual homeowner would pay approximately $23.93 per year more than his counterpart in the City of Newport Beach who receives sewer service from the city. This cost would be included within the $60.79 property tax increase which will take place upon annexation. The proponents state the streets open toward Newport Beach with little access to Costa Mesa and that the City of New- port Beach can provide the quickest response time to the area in terms of fire protection. Staff has visited the site and has found that access to the area via Santa Isabel Avenue, 22nd Street or 23rd is easily accessible to both cities for the purposes of fire or police protection. In addition, the matter of fire response time is also a relatively similar issue. The most proximate Newport Beach fire station is located 1.2 miles from the annexation area on Irvine Avenue, while the closest Costa Mesa fire station is located approximately 1.4 miles from the area on Rochester Street. The sphere of influence of the City of Costa Mesa, adopted by the Commission on June 13, 1973, determined that Tustin Avenue/Irvine Avenue should be the boundary line between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Staff is of the Page 9 In Re: Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated the Bay Knolls Annexation opinion that this sphere of influence determination was the correct determination based upon viable planning, land use and governmental service factors. As outlined in the Knox -Nisbet Act, one of the purposes of the Local Agency Formation Commission is to encourage the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based on local conditions and circumstances. In view of the potential creation of double taxation situa- tions, the further overlapping of special district and city boundaries, as well as the creation of illogical boundaries, which lead to future confusion regarding governmental agency jurisdiction, staff cannot offer a favorable recommendation for this annexation proposal. As an alternative regarding this proposal, the Commission may want to hold a separate hearing to reconsider the sphere of influence of Costa Mesa prior to acting on this annexa- tion proposal. If it is the Commission's desire to act on the annexation at this time and if the Commission approves the annexation, staff recommends the following condition be attached: 1. That the City of Newport Beach initiate procedures with the Orange County Board of Supervisors to de- tach properties included in the annexation proposal which are currently within Orange County Street Light- ing Maintenance District No. 12; and Any other conditions the Commission may deem necessary. RTT/er CC: Bay Knoll Homeowners Attn: Tom Clark City of Newport Beach Attn: J. Hewicker City of Costa Mesa .Attn: William Dunn Respectfully submitted, Richard T. Turner Executive Officer Orange -Co��y Planninp Department Revised k _ember 29, 1-972 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL, DESCRIPTION FORM (Request for Exemption Declaration Status) use PROJECT NUMBER ED 72- YL MAY - 7.1974 RICHARD T. TYUAER �pyu�OFFICER AGENFORAIAOMMSS O (NOTE: Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of 'an Environmental Impact Statement. In order to make a determination as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed proiect,.the•following Preliminary Environmental Description must be filled out and submitted to the appropriate department's Environmental Impact Evaluator. A "yes" response to any of questions 3 through 20, (and the lack of an adequate explanation of extenuating circumstances in item 21) will indicate.- that significant environmental impacts may result from the project and therefore, that an EIS must'be submitted.) As soon as possible, the Environmental Impact Evaluator will' determine whether or not the project will require an Environmental Impact Statement and will notify the.project sponsor accordingly. Please fill out the following: 1. Describe the proposed project, including 'its 'location and full address. (Please attach any maps or photographs which will assist in determining the significance of this project's impacts): The project area, located at the northeast corner of Newport Beach, is a portion of County territory bounded by Costa Mesa on the west, north, and east and Newport Beach on the south (see attached Exhibit "A") The area is single family residential, as -is the surrounding area. The homeowners of the area propose to petition the City of Newport Beach for annexation. e 2. Describe briefly the existing environmental area impacted: The major portion of the dwellings constructed approximately 10 to 20 years ago. There lots existing. The roads and utilities serving the conditions in the in the area were are a few undeveloped area are existing. q I:EGATIVE' DECI J RATION p),oI,0SAT,,: Proposed Bay Knolls .Annexation to the City of Newport Beach P110PONENIT: -Bay Knolls Homeowners 7,0CATION: 44.6 acres located between 22nd Street and Santa Tsabel Avenue, northwesterly of Tustin Avenue in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. P,E UEST To annex a portion of an inhabited "County island" to;the City of Newport Beach. F110ING: No significant effect on the environment. Reasons j 1. The territory proposed to be annexed is substa*ti developed with only a few undeveloped lots exi ti The roads and utilities serving the area are a •s 2. No construction is anticipated subsequent to e: HEARING DATE: June 26, 1974 DATED: June 11, 1974•1. L L (' JUN 111974 IN. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk By...............................Deputy . 4IC4M41r. TttiER Executive Officer tion. . 3. Could•the project disrupt•dr divide an Yes No_x established community or disrupt orderly, planned development or is it inconsistent with plans and goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located? Could it cause increased congestion or result in higher densities than desired by the community? 4. Could the -project result in the temporary Yes No X or permanent displacement or annoyance of neighboring community residents? 5. Could the project have an effect•on Yes '.No X natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources of national, state, or local concern? 6. Is the project in an area characterized by Yes No X unique physical features? Is the project near the shoreline, near any natural or partially channelized flood plains, or on any hillsides visible to surrounding properties? 7. Could views by neighboring property owners Yesr_ 110 X be disrupted by the project? S. Could any geologic features (slide prone Yes. No X areas, earthquake faults, etc.) cause adverse conditions to'result from this project? 9. Could the -project disrupt or alter'the Yes Nc X appearance of the surroundings of --a historic or archaeological site. 10. Could the project affect the potential use, Yes 110 X extraction or conservation of a scarce �• natural resource? 11. Could the project affect the continued'use of a•recreational area or area'of . important aesthetic value? -12. Could any wildlife or unique vegetative communities be disrupted or displaced by -the project? Could any wildlife migration'patterns be disrupted by the project? Yes No X Yes No X 13. Could- existing noise levels be increased by this project (including 'during its construction period) to the extent that present or future residents or passers-by Mould be annoyed to any degree? Would recreational or wildlife areas be detrimentally affected by noise increases? 14.. Could the project increase air pollution levels in the area or exceed any existing air pollution standards?. Particulate - matter (dust) as well as chemical pollutants should be considered. Yes No X Yes No X 15. Could any unique characteristics be intro- Yes—_ -No X duced into the areas atmosphere, such as - sonic booms, radiation, annoying electronic transmissions, vibrations, etc.? 16. Could the proposed project have any detri- .Yes -No X mental effect on existing water.quality or quantities, of either surface :or subsurface supplies? :• 17. Could the project disrupt or alter any of Yes. No X the items listed on the Physical Environment Checklise which are not specifically discussed above, including Land Resources., ." .. Water Resources, Air Resources, Noise Levels, or Biological Resources? 18. Could the project establish any precedents Yes No•X -.or facilitate any other projects of which the impacts of these may be significant? Ip Could the project serve to encourage... .. - development of presently undeveloped.areas;..� or intensify development of already =' undeveloped areas? (Examples include the introduction of facilities such as streets,.-. roads, water mains or sewerage lines.in such a manner as to facilitate development or intensification of the use of an area.) 19. Could the project generate a controversy? Yes No X 20. Are there any feasible and less'environ- Yes. No X mentally offensive alternatives to this' project? Attached 21. If you have answered yes to one or moreYf the above questions, but still think the project will not or cannot have any significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: SUBMITTED BY: f> !1C Ln,��7-yt C -DATE:J� 7 7¢ Mailing Address: 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach, California ' ZIP CODE: 92663 STI/f wT I' >w�'>iC•C>-/L � E ic9[YELCTT )TAi10R W) tl.In/C... S Ttt[RnT T ..5! F �-�• • Law a, Li ICC RD YIRCIC4^ CPiYi ySt. ClI1RW STC• nN. ILCAMIVO JIS ii •1fCP OtM 'r.Irr:.ahCPA> '.r[ �a A e V �Rtslmaa g `'•, won \\� LL$o[ pMr 4L x1 SCN J Ya •. r.. ,fin• \ / •` Lj ` A9ttViiOY of%<x� l±_l; e_ � ,> \` ORPVOC LVO UVSY fAII•a00VN05•'v /� �'.', :�•^S� NtINEL'� M[ �[CLC/ Y � � � • ' ' SV'lNC f19P. �•ar. •�'v DR ar' �.' �ArY('TPL GGG5555 J, `CEI�•^L•^A��C,•�y CYJ13%` � ,, tom' _ J(. �My/iA•. He<r,x<rt L.xC. � =l VNIVLRiI/Y rylI d ` ' •� C °a / 28 ryfN1u. '`` 1 � rri u plwmrcraw-r•na•.+.r Tot Fromt subjects CITY of VMPORT SUCH office of cxTY, a7rnr .. City tClerk City Attorney ,nine 20, -1974 initiation of Annexation Proceedings For'purposes of determining they manner.in which annexation Pro- ceedings shall'be initiated and conducted,,& major consideration depends on whether the territory to be annexed is inhabited, ,Annexation act of 1913, Qovernment Cody $$ 35100-35158), Or uninhabited (Annexation Act of 1939, Government Code $$ 35300- 35326). Under general provisions controlling both acts ($ 35002), a proposal for the annexation of the new territory must be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission for it report upon . various matters affecting the -proposed boundaries before an annexation petition may be cirxulated or filed, or proceedings initiated by the City Council. However, if the proceedings are to be under the inhabited act., h consent of the City Council must be secured before the filing with the XAM. (Section 35106, McDowell and Craig v. City of Santa'ro Sttrinaw 54 Cal. 2d 33.) The general rule as not forth -above may not be applicable when there is a contest between two cities for annexation of the. . same territory, If two cities are competing to annex the same territory, the provisions -of Section 35002 requiring prior review by tho LAFC may be ma0datory,,regardless of whether the area is inhabited or uninhabited. (-City of, Torrugg ve_gity. of Gardena. 192 Cali App, 2d 686,) The'annexation under quovtIoni. Day Knolls, involves to some degrees both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa', Therefore, it would -seem appropriate in this instance to a4ow the Bay Xnolls proposal to be ,submitted first to LAM for a keport before the formal proceedings are commenced before the City Council. should the Council adopt the resolution conseatapq to the annexation, the matter would have to be, referred back to LAM for -.their approval. DMMIS D. OINRIL City Attorney DDOsmh cos COMWity Development Richard Turner, LA,1+'C Director e--- ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (4) I ,fC1� l4 ti+'tay fwal APCy POWMAtimx .Casaaiatsiaaa Prat offift No 487 a;atnta Ami Califoraix ' !z Iiimilsrrsaai: this 'La trr raroepa sa, tp y"r Xe %wet for a vapovt on for advioobtlity* in terms of 06aral .public interest, of 00 p"Posed "Rozatift to t1w city of *Kent samobt 4e0is"t4l es 7! Y 14wita ,6=wadoos' lecst" wastarly of 'xnstiaa AwanuA, betwoft Sarpta lspul Avollut rrrd 'T+rrornty. sesoad street. - ,Tht majority of ;hat aarsna has > 040 dsvarlopad for rsMidentisl Purpasaa. Tharrnt is A taatural enimpg v wateraourve f1wing tb"UA tM north• wstarly totarer of tbA a MWAtion'Hhish coaveys Storm ruwafl oriAttit- inp wetarly sad n►orrthovly of tto subjoa:t property.' Wvslopmsat of the to the a iaq of lands aMedathetCagaftwill a�Ir atruti►n of ft"SndUASs frciiity far the prnpen aantxol cad disposal of Storer rumff. Antieipstia; that at swb time as the unimproved property Adjecoat to the,mstuxal wrtterevorse is 4#walaped the, -City of Newport Beach will taquire proper ytrr414108 of the law aA the coutruetiftrlt of the owed dralaa8a facility, approval of the vubjcaxt aaarouation is racoaa- MWASd from a flood coAtrol *ad dratna&e standpointo 'Very truly your#* X. ,G. 0 6t ins, Gklef fiaffarott ',Qriginal Signed 8y C. R. Nelson T. �w.lkisoa Assistant chief Ingivaer MISS ao: City Of llwgoxt 1004k i�'1 riaj i I� S E I V 50 R: RC n�munity 15 Development Dept, n £ JUN 121974W n v o 0.9 n manCAM- In 1. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-396-74 Approximately .38 acre located on the north side of Lilac Avenue, easterly of Gates Street in the west Santw Ana area;'request is to annex territory to the district for the purpose of obtaining sani- tary sewer service.. A negative declaration was,filed with the County' Clerk of Orange County on -June 11, 1974:. 2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANIT'ARY"DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-402-74 Approximately 1.594 acre located -on the north side'of Trask Avenue east of Newhope Street in the southeast Garden Grove area; request is to annex territory to the -district for the purpose of obtaining sanitary sewer service. A negative declaration was.filed"with the County Clerk of Orange County on June.11, 1974.-- 3. PROPOSED BAY KNOLLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEG,iPORT BEACH Approximately 44.6 acres located between 22nd Street and Santa Isabel Avenue, northwesterly of Tustin Avenue in the unincorporated area between the cities of Newport.Beach and Costa Mesa; request is to annex a portion_ of an. inhabited_ "County inland" to irhe G;.ty of Newport Beach,, A negative declaration was -filed with tkie' County ' Clerk of Orange County on June ll, 1974. CITY OF CUSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92626 P.O. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 7, 1974 Local Agency Formation Commission P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Richard T. Turner Executive Officer Gentlemen: Re: Proposed Bay Knolls Annexation to the City of Newport Beach It is with a great deal of regret that a formal protest must be lodged concerning the Bay Knolls Annexation. This protest is made knowing the desired wishes of a majority of the residents of that area. Nevertheless, we believe that until the following issues are settled and agreements reached, no annexation can or should proceed: A. An approved Sphere of Influence Map for each of the cities involved. B. A resolution of the problem of possible double taxation within this area; i.e. Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and Costa Mesa County Water District. Once these basic issues are resolved by the cities involved, and approved by the L.A.F.C., we will, of course, adhere to the agreement. Respectfully, William L. Dunn Director of Planning WLD/dh cc: R. Wynn, City Manager, Newport Beach Fred Sorsabal, City Manager, Costa Mesa Roy June, City Attorney, Costa Mesa Eileen Phinney, City Clerk', Costa Mesa City Council, Costa Mesa Planning Commission, Costa Mesa Advance Planning Division, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa County Water District Costa Mesa Sanitary District o -OUNTY OF (0)rANGE CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE-CHAIRMAN LOUIS R. REINHARDT COUNCILMAN CITY OF FULLERTON ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT ROBERT J. NEVIL COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA S TAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DONALD A. McINNIS MAYOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Robert L. Wynn, City of Newport 3300 W. Newport Newport Beach, Gentlemen: City Manager Beach Blvd. California 92660 ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 June 4, 19 'ff .n'►• Notice is hereby give at a is hearing will be held by the Local A cy Formation ommission of Orange County on June 26, 1974 at 2:00 P.M., in Room 503, Orang County Adminis ation Building, 515 North Sycamore na, California on proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated Bay Knolls Annexation Pursuant to Bylaw No. 25 representatives of cities and districts may be required by the Chairman of the Com- mission at the time of the hearing to present, or to have previously filed, a resolution of the legislative body of the city or district authorizing such representa- tives to appear on behalf of the district or city. Authorization may be for a specific proposal or, generally, for any proposal'under consideration by the Commission. Ve truly your /�-CCi'� v V1lil�lut/ Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih ® OUNTY OF � L CHAIRMAN RALPH A. DIEDRICH SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT VICE•CHAIRMAN LOUIS R. REINHARDT COUNCILMAN CITY OF FULLERTON ROBERT W. BATTIN SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT ROBERT J. NEVIL COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA STAN NORTHRUP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DAVID L. BAKER SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT ALTERNATE REE BURNAP REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC ALTERNATE DONALD A. MCINNIS MAYOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RICHARD T. TURNER EXECUTIVE OFFICER G E LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P. O. BOX 687 SANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2239 AREA CODE 714 June 4, 1974 Judy Kelsey, Administrative Assistant City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County on June 26, 1974 at 2:00 P.M. in Room 503, Orange County Administration Building, 515 North Sycamore Street, Santa Ana, California on proposed annexation to the City of Newport Beach designated Bay Knolls Annexation. Pursuant to Bylaw No. 25 representatives of cities and districts may be required by the Chairman of the Com- mission at the time of the hearing to present, or to have previously filed, a resolution of the legislative body of the city or district authorizing such representa- tives to appear on behalf of the district or city. Authorization may be for a specific proposal or, generally, for any proposal under consideration by the Commission. V/r�your I Richard T. Turner Executive Officer RTT/ih TO: 10CAL AGT'??CY FORTIATTO.T CO:E•11SST.0;.T FIRST ].':LOOK •- 11100:•T 1.01 C011i)'PX -BUF.LDING 515 zTor1c�:1I sxc.�:i:oIL1� s�:il��T . SAITTA ARA, CALIFORNIA TTE 1't MAILIXG ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 687 SAIT'.i'A ANA, CALIII�RSTIA FROM: SUBJBZCT: JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL 1 II ' MAY 3 1 1-0741 PJC9ARD T. TURNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TITLE OF PROPOSAL Proposed Annexation to the City of Newport Beach, Bay Knolls Annexation No. A. GEIMA.L 1, TYPE AND'DESIGITATION OF PROPOSAL: Annexation of a portion of an inhabited Co. island to the City of Newport Beach. • . • • 2• STATUTORY FROVISIONS•GOVERITING PROCr'DINGS: Annexation Act of 1913 - Inhabited territory 3• TBE REASONS FOR THIS PROPOSAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: The residents of the territory proposed for annexation over- whelmingly favor annexation. The territory is socially, geographically and economically a part of the City of Newport Beach. • .• •y s RECEIV ED Coma U"Ity ev Delopment 9 6- u� t 1� JUN 2 51974p- �0 _ ary OF CH,, . NEVWFCRIF.E • e JUSTII y..c.-vc.* OF P3 01'OSAL B. PIIZSICAL F1E,ATUI'.ES 1. LAND AREA: SQUARI: MILES 0.07 ; ACRES 44.6 2. STATE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF "aTOPOGRAPIIY: Gentle sloping terrain easterly and south easterly to the flow line of C. natural drainage course located in a portion of Tract 300 and tie Back Bay of Newport Beach.. 3. DESCRIBE "NATURAL" BOUNDARIES: (RIVERS, MOUNTAINS, FREEWAYS, ETC.) Tustin Avenue, Santa Isabel, 22nd Street and 23rd Street. 4. DESCRIBE DRAINAGE BASINS, RIVERS, FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, ETC. Natural drainage swale runs southerly from Santa Isabel toward the intersection of 23rd Street and Irvine Blvd. in the City ot Newporteac . 5. ,DESCRIBE MAJOR HIGHWAY ACCESS TO THE AREA: Irvine Boulevard at Santa Isabel, 22nd Street and 23rd Street in the City of Newport Beach (shown as a primary street on the Orange County 6. DESCRIBE 'THE LOCATION AND DISTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL FROM ANY AIRPORT IN THE COUNTY: Orange County Airport is 2.0 miles northeasterly of parcel. 1� POPULATION AND RELATED MATTERS. '' 1. POPULATION IN SUBJECT AREA: 351 Japprox• based on 2.7 persons per home estimated after p_ling 114 of 132 homes in t area). ` 2. POPULATION DENSITY (I.E. PER SQUARE MILES, PER ACRE.): 516 per square rhile 7 8 per acre. JUS'1gFICATION OF PROPOSAL • 3. NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS: 326 4. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS 132 1- eoN�JCTio J 5. PROXIMITY TO OTHER POPULATED AREAS: Surrounded by residential development 6. .LIKELIHOOD OF SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN POPULATION IN NEXT 10 YEARS: None 7. LIKELIHOOD OF SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ADJACENT AREAS IN NEXT•1O YEARS: A. IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS: None B. IN INCORPORATED AREAS: The City of.Newport.Beach 'projections are for 0-6 dwelling units per acre in the un- developed land to the West. D. ECONOMIC FACTORS 1: 'ZONING AND RELATED MATTERS: A. DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LAND USE IN THE AREA WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PROPOSAL. The entire 44.6 acres is devoted to single family residential development. 3• • Jt);:,'�'.Cl'lc;; i:COi: Gi, PRiJ!'i+:I�iL D. D.';aTAIL EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single FamilyResidential. C. -DESCRIBE PROPOSED NEW ZONING OR CHANGES IN ZONING, IF ANY: Zoning would be R-1 Single Family as it now is under County jurisdiction. 2. ASSESSED VALUE IN AREA: A. LAND: 517 600 �c7 B. IMPROVEI4ENTS : 7201960 C. AMOUNT OF PUBLICLY OWNED LAND IN AREA: None. 3.. AMOUNT OF SALES TAX COLLECTED IN AREA: None E. GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES IN AREA: (DESCRIBE IN SUCH DETAIL AS•IS APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND CONTROLS IN THE AREA INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, POLICE PROTECTION, FIRE PROTECTION, HEALTH SERVICES, GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION, LIBRARIES, PARKS AND PLAY- GROUNDS, SEWERS, STREETS, STREET LIGHTING, ETC.) Police Protection - County Sheriff's Office Fire Protection - County Fire Department Refuse Collection - County Service Area #11 Streets - Orange County Road Department Health Services - Orange County Health Department Library - Orange County Library and Newport Beach Library .Sewers & Sewaae Treatment - Costa Mesa Sanitary District -_ General Government - Orange County. �-. � Jlt:�'1'll'.l"c.:•T:t� c:�i' i`i1C!'�?3i:T.• F. Aut•.11 FOl: ADUI l IOt,,.L GOVI,:JIi:i r id'tAL .,1.i:ViCJ.3 tail CU;eT.ROL 1. DESCRIP.131 TliO:i G0VBRJ!1-:;.:1•JTAT, S; CViCES OR CO',•:'PiIOLS IMICH SHOULD T3i; PROV:11) ;D 1;liy ;if A E N01-1 NoT 1'i;OVID:a) M 1-MIC11 SHOULD, 13E PROVID'iID IN 11RA "ASED AMOUNT IN TJ1E AREA. See page F-1 attached. ' 2. ESTIMATE PROBABM FUTURE. NEED FOR NEW OR INCREASED GOVERNMIENTAL SERVICES Oil CONTROLS IN TIM AREA. It is anticipated that no increase will be necessary. 4 It is felt the City can adequately handle the inclusion of this territory with existing service facilities and staff. 3. DESCRIBE HOW YOUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE NEED WHICH YOU j HAVE DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS F. 1 and 2 ABOVE. The proposed territory is immediately adjacent to City territory already receiving City'services. WHAT ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION EXIST FOP, MEE' TING ' THE_ NEED DESCRIBED ABOVE? DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE:' See page F-4 attached. .. WHAT REVENUE MILL YOUR PROPOSAL REQUIRE FOR THE ACCOMPLIS: MENT OF ITS GOALS AND WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTIVE SOURCES OF SUCH REVENUE? See attached Tables G1 and G2 and Methodology For Calculating Revenue Generation/Cost Allocation attached • hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. s • JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL Need for Additional Governmental Services and Controls: Central Government - The City of Newport Beach is a charter city based on a council-manager form of government with a seven member city council, elected for 4 year overlapping terms by districts. The seven member planning commission is appointed for four overlapping terms by the city council. The city hall is about two miles from the proposed annexation, thereby being considerably more, convenient for residents of the area in handling of local goverhmental matters affecting their area. Any problems, such as street maintenance and so on, could receive localized attention. As the proposed annexation area is immediately adjacent to .the City, any development, growth and/or lack of development will affect, to some extent, the remaining portions of the City. Police Protection - The size of the area and population would not impose an undue burden on the present police strength. The City of Newport Beach police station is within two miles, of the area proposed to be amended. Coupling this with the fact that patrol units now service adjacent areas would indicate that the revenue generated by the area would not be offset by the cost of providing' police protection. Fire Protection - The area is contained within an existing City fire zone which is served by a station only minutes away. Because of existing mutual aid agreements, this station responds to fires which break out in this area even though it is not included within the City. This being the case, it seems natural that the area should be annexed to the City in order to derive revenue to offset any existing stand-by cost. Parks and Recreation - The City has a wide variety of programs for both children and adults alike. See answer to question K for further details. . 1. JUSTIFICATION PROPOSAL • Alternative Courses of Action 1. Alternative - The area proposed to be annexed to Newport Beach might be annexed by another city. Evaluation - The proponents are vehemently opposed to annexation to Costa Mesa. 2. Alternative - Remain an unincorporated territory. Evaluation - The proponents believe that governmental . services would be enhanced by a local government with the representation of a locally elected council. Zoning problems could receive a consideration by an agency faced with similar problems in the adjacent area. By remaining an unincorporated territory, it is also costly to the County governmental structure to provide governmental services to these fragmented portions of the County scattered throughout the entire County area. I TABLE - Gl ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES* TYPICAL YEAR Service- Expenditures' Library ($7.58/person) $ 3,032.00 Street Maintenance (8449,/mile) $ 9,393.90 1.1 street miles a. Street Lighting ($30.19/acre) - $ 1,346.47 Street Sweeping ($149.76/curb mile) $ 329.47 2.2 curb miles (street mile x 2) Sewer Maintenance ($3.05/person) ; $ 18220.00 Park Maintenance & Youth Program $189,540.00 ($540/person) Refuse Collection ($26.00/D.U.) $ 3,380.00 Parkway Maintenance ($1296.00/street mile) $ 1,425.60 1.1 miles Police Protection ($19.32/D.U.) i $ 2,511.60 Total $212,179.04 * The figures in Table G1 are based on a cost/revenue system compiled by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department in September, 1972. G-1 ITABLE - G2 ANALYSIS OF REVENUE* TYPICAL YEAR - ti. ff Revenue Source Total ,'Property Tax ($1.20/$100) $ 14,852.00 Sales Tax $ -0- State per Capita Subventions $ 39.33 ($18.75 x # of persons per dwelling unit x # of dwelling units per acre) (includes gas tax apportionment, trans- ' portation act apportionment, motor vehicle license fee apportionment, cigaret tax apportionment) Share of Non -Differentiable City Revenue $ 82,956.00 } ($1,860/acre) t f School Property Tax ($4.7025/$100) $ 58,333.35 Total $156,180.68 c 1 R * The figures in Table G2 are based on a cost/revenue system compiled by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department in September, 1972. - . G-2 M 7 Y 11. E.ST11'"1'E TO 'TL•E I)I3ST OF YOUR: A331LITY THE F... FECT OF TILE PROYOS.:L ON: 1. COST OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND CONTROLS. See Cost -Revenue Chart - (Attached) 2. ADEQUACY OF GOVEP.NI,ENTAL SERVICES AND CONTROLS. The annexation would enable the area to receive additional fire and police services. The annexation would also result in representation at the local governmental level. 3. I4M UAL SOCIAL AND ECONOPfIC INTERESTS. The territory is -included in the Newport Beach postal area, and the residents have traditionally associated themselves to tne Ciry. Most residents shop in the nearby shopping facilities and use Newport Beach'as their main recreational outlet. See also K. k. LOCAL GOVEMMENITAL STRUCTUP.$ OF THE COUNTY. The territory is contained in the 5th Supervisorial District, and the proposal will not have any substantialet ec upon local governmental structure of the County. • I. IS THERE ANY SERVICE NOW BEING PROVIDED IN THIS AI'INEXATION WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE AMNE .I2;G CITY OR DISTRICT? Ii' SO, DESCRIBE IN DETAIL WH.iT STEPS YOU WILL TA.L'E UPON APT.?EXA- TION TO DETACII FROM ANY DISTRICTS „HERE A DUPLICATION OF SERVICE AND TAXATION WOULD BE INVOLVED: This annexation will not result'in double taxation. JUSTIFTCATION 0)-' NROPOSAL ' J. THE NAM"S OF ALL OT:11 R APPi;C`1'ED COUNTJFS, CITIES AND DISTRICTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: See attached J incorporated herein by reference. • K. ANY•OTHER COMMENT WHICH YOU WISH TO MAKE: See attached narrative, designated K. and incorporated herein by reference L. TO BE COMPLETED FOR FORMATION PROPOSALS ONLY 1. SERVICES AND MAJOR PROJECTS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROPOSED AGENCY IN FIRST AND SECOND YEAR OF OPERATION: a 2. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FIRST TWO YEARS OF AGENCY'S EXISTENCE. ATTACH PROPOSED BUDGET SHEETS AS EXHIBIT ' "B" TO PROPOSED REQUEST. 3. ESTIMATED TAX RATE FOR FIRST TWO YEARS OF AGENCY'S EXISTENCE. ATTACH TAX RATE PROPOSALS AS EXHIBIT "C" TO PROPOSED REQUEST. 4. ALTERNATES TO PROVIDING SERVICES OTHER THAN BY INCORPORATION OR FORMATION J. THE NAMES OWL OTHER AFFECTED COUNTI* CITIES AND DISTRICTSt IwCLUDING ALL TAXING ENTITIES, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Newport Mesa Unified School District. 2. Costa Mesa Elementary -Basic -Bond I/R Fund. 3. Newport Harbor High School - C.M.E.L. - Basic - Bond I/R Fund. 4. Newport Mesa Unified Bond I/R Fund. S. Development Center Tax. 6. Coast Community College - General Fund. 7. School Institution Tuition Tax. 8. County Funds. 9. County Library District. 10. Orange County Library Cemetery District No. 1. T 11. County Structural Fire Protection. 12. Orange County Transit District. 13. Orange County Flood Control District. 14. Orange County Park and Harbor District. 15. -Orange County Mosquito Abatement District. �6. Costa Mesa Sanitary District - Group B. 17. Road District No. 5. .18. Metropolitan Water District -Costa Mesa Water District - Original Area. - t 19. 'Coast Municipal Water District - Original Area. 20. Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. 21. Orange County Street Lighting District No. 12. 22. Orange County Water District. 23. Orange County'Water District - Water Reserve. 24. Municipal Water District. �5. Costa Mesa Water District. 26. County Service Area No. 11. K. The residential neighborhood, known by its owners as Bay Knolls, is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" of the County of Orange. It is..comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street and on the west by.the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. On June 13, the Local Agency Formation Commission (hereinafter LAFC) designated Bay Knolls as within the sphere of 4 influence of the City of Costa Mesa. In response to this designation, several homeowners circulated a petition in an effort to demonstrate opposition to LAFC's decision. Homeowner remonstration was overwhelming; of the 132 homes canvassed, 125 homeowners signed the petition in opposition. Based on the petition and the oral testimony of concerned homeowners at a September public hearing of LAFC, the Commission agreed to reconsider the Bay Knolls sphere of influence issue at their November.29,-1973 public hearing. It•was.sometime during the three-month period mentioned above, that the residents of Bay Knolls realized that "sphere of influence" connoted a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local government agency. Cal. Gov. Code 954774. Coupling the clear intent of the statute with the Commission's declared policy of eliminating unincorpo- rated islands and corridors, the homeowners sought to present the Commission with a viable alternative to the negative ap- proach of merely opposing the designated "sphere of influence". Thus, several homeowners again canvassed the Bay Knolls area to.determine not only who would oppose the June 13, 1973 LAFC designation, but also who would favor immediate annexatiln.to the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, these same homeowners, accompanied the petition addressed to the City of Newport Beach requesting annexation, with a questionnaire to determine the extent of the Bay Knolls -Newport Beach socio-economic ties. Again, the response overwhelmingly opposed any connection with Costa Mesa. More importantly, 107 of the 132 homeowners favored annexation to the City of Newport Beach; of the re- maining 25 homeowners, 18 could not be reached, 4 preferred remaining county and 3 desired Costa Mesa annexation. As alluded to above, the questionnaire was designed to determine the existence and extent of social and economic inter- dependence and interaction between the residents of Bay Knolls and the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. >The responses indicated that a vast majority of the residents of Bay Knolls are inextricably bound, in a socio- economic sense, to the City of Newport Beach. For example, the fair market value of the Bay Knolls homes indicate a quality equivalent to Newport Beach's Back Bay and only sporadically present in the east side of Costa Mesa. During the last two years, real estate appraisals indi- cate that the homes range'in value from the mid 40's to $110,000 with the vast majority falling between $55,000-$80,000. Significantly, a majority of the residents of Bay Knolls belong to no less than 47 different service, community, social and sporting clubs serving Newport Beach. Furthermore, more than 50 residents hold library cards from the Newport Beach. library. Another -clear example of the Bay Knolls=Newport Beach socio-economic ties is the fact that almost 90% of those polled do the majority of their family shopping in Newport Beach. This fact is attributable to the topography and street layout resulting in primary ingress and egress from and toward Newport Beach. Finally, over 40% of those polled work in Newport Beach, while only 22% work in Costa Mesa. The questionnaire•ralsb asked for additional comments either for or against annexation to Newport Beach. The re- sponses evidence the following primary homeowner concerns: (1) The area has a Newport Beach mailing address and any attempt to create a connection with Costa Mesa would sim- ply confuse the issue-. (2) Present police and fire protection are inadequate as indicated by the fact that several weeks ago, county corridor residents watched a fire burn endlessly while awaiting the fire department. The Newport Beach fire station provides the quickest response time and therefore, the only viable alternative. -3- w (3) The topography of bay Knolls demonstrates easy - assimilation into the Back Bay Area of Newport Beach. The western boundary of the Area (Redlands Drive) is at the peak of a hill. The hill continually moves downward along 23rd Street to Irvine Boulevard and the Back Bay. Similarly, the streets open toward Newport Beach with little access to Costa -Mesa. Realizing.also that the City of Newport•Beach is deeply concerned with its ultimate boundaries and its ability to provide adequate services and facilities for its citizens, It should be noted that the Bay Knolls area comes to Newport Beach with all amenities in place and operational. The streets are fully paved and abutted by paved sidewalks. Both are ade- quately lighted and landscaped. With the exception of police and fire, most other facilities and services are provided T.by districts or private corporations. Newport Beach should consider also the fact that Bay Knolls is within the jurisdiction.of the.Coastal Conservation Commission. Should Newport Beach desire to chart the destiny of its coastline, annexing Bay Knolls provides an excellent opportunity to continue to establish the desired land uses for property surrounding the Back Bay. In conclusion, annexation to the City of Newport Beach would be the final step in carrying out the clear intent of the Annexation Act and to fulfill the declared policy of the Commission. Any other -approach would frustrate both the intent of the Act and the declared policy of the Commission. -4- 1 Jt1S'rIl'):Cn'1'IOIv 01' PROPOSAL. M. SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INRORMATION WHIC11 MAY Bs OF VALUE TO THE COl•1:17I3SIOiN 114 REACIIING `i`HEIR DECISION ON SEPARATE SHEETS. N. NOTICES AND CO MUN1CATIOI1S REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGE SHALL BE DIRECTED TO M'' FOLLOWING (3 MAXIMUM) Robert L. Wynn, City Manager NAME City of Newport Beach TFLF.P1i0NE 673=2110 ADDRESS 3300 Newport BoulevardCITY Newport Beach, Cali Miss Judy Kelsey, Admin. Ass't. NAI4E City of Newport Beach TELEPHONE 673-2110 ADDRESS 3300•Newport BoulevardCITY Newport Beach, Cali Tom Clark NAME. 10201M.TELEpHONE 835-2200 ADDRESS 401 Civic Center DriveCilfy Santa Ana, Calif. Legal description_ and Location Map are being reviewed by County Surveyor's office. EXHIBIT "A" 4 H Bay Knolls Homeowners: As you probably know by now, the City of Costa Mesa has brought the area known as Bay Knolls, described on the attached map, within its "sphere of influence". The sphere of influence designation was accomplished at a meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on June 13, 1973, without input from the affected homeowners. The petition that was circulated by a few Bay Knolls property - owners at'the end of August was presented to LAFCO in September. Based.upon the petition and oral testimony offered by several of our homeowners, LAFCO agreed to reconsider the matter at a public hearing on November 29th. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term "sphere of influence", it is basically a forerunner to annexation. Of course, under the present state of the laws, Costa Mesa would be unable to annex our property without our approval, in which case we would remain unincorporated, but under Costa Mesa's sphere of influence. t Unfortunately, the law is subject to change. Moreover, present trends indicate that amendments to.the annexation laws are a distinct possibility. Due to the recent environmental concerns, state governments have begun imposing land -use controls on local governments. The California legislature will consider Assembly Bill No. 1 (A.B. 1) at its next session, which if enacted, will give the State Land Use Commission the power to supercede local land -use decision making in areas of critical state concern. Although AB1 will not affect existing annexation laws, several states that have already taken a more dominant role in local land - use planning consider the process of boundary adjustment an intricate aspect of land -use control. For this reason; many of these states are considering state -level boundary adjustment agencies that will have the power to mandate annexations and incorporations, even in the absence of landowner approval. In fact, several bills were before the California legislature during this session that would have taken the annexation vote away -1- c N t from the landowners, particularly with respect to unincorporated islands. In light of these developments, it would seem.appropriate that we, the residents of Bay Knolls, initiate annexation proceedings with city of our choice before the choice is taken from us. Aside from the ultimate goal of annexation'to Newport Beach, proceeding in this manner would reinforce our opposition to Costa Mesa at our November hearing with LAFCO. Many among us would place our priorities in the following order: 1.,_; Remaining unincorporated. 2. Annexation to Newport Beach. 3. Annexation to Costa Mesa. Our fundamental concerns have been the property tax structure and the possibility that the uses to which we put our property may not conform with Newport Beach zoning and other land -use requirements. After being made aware of the possibility that our primary choice of remaining unincorporated may be precluded by legislative fiat, several among us undertook a comparative study of the various alternatives. We are convinced, and hope that you will be convinced, 'that annexation to Newport Beach is the only viable alternative. As for property tax variations, the - local newspaper published the following figures which represent the district with the highest dollar amount assessed valuation. Entity Tax assessment per $100 assessed valuation *County .9.63 Newport Beach 9.44 Costa Mesa 10.46 *County indicates the tax assessment as unincorporated property. We decided to research the matter further to get an approximate figure for our area since each city has many tax variations depending upon the taring district. We consulted with Jim McConnell of the,Auditor Controller's Office, and he estimated that our tax M 'assessment per $100 assessed valuation would have the following variations among the three alternatives. Entity Tax assessment per $100 assessed valuation County 9.63 Newport.Beach 10.20 Costa Mesa 10.19 The difference between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach is insignificant. The difference be Newport Beach and County is approximately .60 per $100 assessed valuation. Even this difference becomes insignificant when we consider the increase in the availability of police and fire protection and other services and facilities. As for the so-called non -conforming uses, we have been informed that, for example, horses would be permitted in Newport Beach, but subject to law of non -conforming uses in Costa Mesa. If you have ;any specific questions concerning "uses" please contact Tom Clark at 646-2681, who will research the question for you. Of course, the additional aspect of property values must be considered. A recent purchaser in our area has informed us that she priced homes in Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and the Bay Knolls area and found that for substantially similar homes (approximately $45,.000 - $55,000), Newport Beach homes were approximately $7,000'- $10,000 more than Costa Mesa homes and $3,000 - $5,000 more than.Bay Knolls homes. For some unfathomable reason, being within the boundaries of Newport Beach has a substantial impact on property values. Further support for the proposition that our property values would be substantially affected by annexation comes from a local real estate agents who claim that the differential approaches 10 to 15%. Pursuant to our desire to initiate annexation proceedings, we have enclosed a questionnaire and petition. If the petition is signed by a large majority of the homeowners, it is our intention to proceed with the annexation proceedings. The questionnaire is -3- r �� . ` designed to determine whether our primary economic and social ties lie with Newport Beach or Costa Mesa and will be incorporated in our letter and petition to Newport Beach requesting annexation. Keep in mind that the questionnaire is anonymous and that no specific names will be used with reference to any answers. If Newport Beach approves the annexation we will present our case to LAFCO. If LAFCO approves, the question of annexation will be submitted to us, the homeowners, at an election. We will do our best to keep you informed and hope that you will be able to show your support at the public hearing. The next hearing is November 28th, 2:00, at the Orange County Administration Building in Santa Ana. If you think you might have time available to contribute to the cause, or have any further questions, please contact Valerie Avellar at 548-1815. Thank you for your support. L w4_ Bay Knolls Property Owners. CIT \ r \� FOUNTAIN VALLEY A SANTA AN��KIVER\ TAiN., ;'11--�'��•�. , CENTEI' �� _ CITY of _ E S R'fDl ,SINE �: i j••• —t;. +� \ oOS� * r5LICmr ��- s�;.;..5 SPHEI;E f NF /j/ J} il F�� !l 'EDIASE S.11OpE ` AR �I'1 -T ?. - "�•:•;., ;:l ��• I , UEi\'lj .. CITY nou%unY ^ SC& ,.:� .FS•:'. Ir �_ —�= Ff FIRM5ED STREET - ••• ' `• ``. AS BY FIRE STATIGR T. "")•, �`p tl. tt'r ADOPTED e PJGIiC PARK J" ♦ ,xT '••'•' r• r +.. Y r.,s`1'..i((, ` 6\ A On V ti a• .�':°� a /' (j, �� ,.. \a\\ y p�c y .0 L.AFCO 13/ s/�0 ""us TRY f: fit' rt :!ys•••.; ;\, 'Si •• its\f'r•. , rl .� / s'x: / .. 'i •�W •� J CA;,D6TRRIDV CITY t :� l 3 HUNTINGTO EACVICTORIA H-�'' �"\,� `` ��� .V•���i:j:�'%srt% ;_.li!;=„_Y��r \ta*a` CAN O T•'>: /. !•.:............ : ARL'{� (i _� <`' >> :;' •'> :v a �`� CI Y of . SANT � �.,:•,, �y„�-��� A �• \ F: .,\XSv yi% ' .•ir a<, y y ` A AN rvti� •4f AFS 'a, `T ` Y•j' G .. ,. t���,v'-.r,\i' � - <.•l�l tillh• \ /f'�` •.'.� ,\ ,. S'.. .��� 4.' > BRI Q ST. jF\✓ °'t,•`(�i•i�.t %•.` ly.a �`r �yo ii .R. �•• r"t. 3'c�C '• (y�•UIEJC Nfv. \•%, , �/ rr�g. -",>'� fi' I'�"�, J:,s:i `J �� �s� Jn. •,, �„ • r.�"\..l iii ` 'A 1 l E A)@ it 1/ iycfy� ���e`�o+l":�\ ��.•�\, ..., J` ,•fGA�r,'j.,^.,_1--�:r�.S.a;.� 'aa�.__. if y :O i i ''Jt ♦ ' ' ! • e r .•�\•' i J' .e9 ii �''•1 ' ! • 'lA G`' ` .: ; ti .:a ,o G'a,•jr sir\, \•..' r=9, \ •:4 . oP 4 % i E`y 4 �\/Q•/� :. t'o.••. �ri .`� 'SC.S�/ '.� tip, ~� i�iFlr_'1 \,'•. L/. � Ir'\ r•• .!�`� / ' A h f�' /� Cy r � J'�Jr•f'��v%y \�y(� y '�'<< �'a�• b i v .1 R'; 1F....,F X�' r�: 'Yr•'f��?; •�•`/ l`VS •\..• w 6✓ V/ •Y '. '"4�t`4 1:. r�'� %'\' 'K<e.• tt�-.�.'rf�•' fY i�'•'cg,J I �Y y.`` r TC.• :iiQ !.+ .7 `a :, a' / `.. @• ° ^s ✓ roe � 1` ��,;, ✓ i.: s 'ur ° n. E, t a-y�:�\\ \• .? . y\`�, ••y ,.. �•�,<v'� 1 i; P 3�., or , ,ri.,w! o ,Q' \ r�r ryf.. '� ��ta y^'-y.,,..+e� ` Tiy`',.P :� ��• • i et. .•. \'p\ .\' '.�,:! \•' ,yfay — d` J. •`. C t �. )Tr vA .,.��\• i ;1 •�y ✓, •.•:. �. rF�L..Y%;�'` ,r'` \*'r � � r\ ro \`\y�E j•- (\f r'. •'... \.?\.. '�1� pp \•uEWPORP+ DLV D. \I)'��•�yy ..�.IIT :.i.l ,. ...rc..........•.111 �^�• ! +••,f - _ '•�\�'C.. r.:..... :°7.�- '4' li li t •�• �' I rna ^E+ i I' .�� %� ' L,.' � x, __ _:� sJh:A 9•'d ;�> : rr: (\ �r, ' ah �' i2t •" )I. L.. •1I'�: 'r 'e �r ,I� •n yyJor m....:�! 6 .ii• . �f" 9 •t ^I, wP•^.. u. vF':: a I. I~.. •••P �.u.uf ^:r:.r. aJ • %I ?. 11 '� °: f:i Er-�V �SAU TAI I iy �Sp I:: __I" f{ I I••• nLc If C\ }J7- t : hr y.'Cr•n _ _R.Yr�ryy.t •1"' — -]`_% '1 ♦..-.t.... •l:i:�-i-,—..'.._ n'�.. Ir.:nir.im..V1J' ;r..-.. ».`:. : .. .h- f:�.f. `, ....�...7µr ^In. I�i ��' 111 :1 •.�^: � � �.�'I:�.. )y ;�'. _..J �:.n.....•..I ..t 9 :h .. _ .i.•...... ',y.... TuSTw 4 1, I: iV,;.l`�I• i_ �. .. a •''`V'�,T : '�i i T,: ; 'i''. °i a •.�. :� UP/IIGj5 cO2[0)' 3;eF a`•,�n�Ct I.•TI� `�r?II .�iYi f !'Li \i.!;0::II �f„1(:�.J.•.1�_7.«: �..;I.t�\R 't/m ..;vi,�•�yI„ \\ sF... _ I • ., `.:q�. i.....•rMD-0R­-XAA'REllA , • - 1, 'IfriOJRY n 77 , •\ l_t. �_"". 'rI -.•C __txf_.•,_ty_ r '`' - \iWEWRORT BEC_N ` ::.•,.. , .:.1..r1:/ :i1':w,,M ,,,- � � <t,�_ j_ t sr_ _ � y\\,.:•. %. :. •,. .I.. .I I...."�` i'\Yr'`•` 2y: �''L�"�_d Y.• Y'Q' 'rf P F �F,� _ \__� _ CITY R n 1" `i;'' '\O .i �,,�. ,.•:1.:'.: i e�:•.,, +,y �y1 p� J�p . , 4.k1 `,° 4`^ fRI �`-\� s• J.`, ;`.:'��� per. J�u1��`•V �'', : _-�� � ... I�r?� { iclg��glkl��.'�' .,,.•✓/\ 1�' - '•-•�;' r •� Y o tt�ir ORANGE COUNTY LRFCO TEL No.1-714-569-1173 May 1,90 9:32 No.002 P.01/04 o • MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 280 1973 The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County, California, was held November 28, 1973 at 2:00 P.M. Members of the Commission present were:, Ralph A. Diedrich, Chairman, Robert W. Battin, Robert J. Nevil; Stan Nbrthrup:and Louis R. Reinhardt. Alternate Members: 'David L. Baker, Res Burnap and Donald A. McInnis Absent:,None In Attendance: V.•T. Bellerue, Deputy County Counsel, Richatd T, Turner, Executive Officer and the Secretary. Commissioner Baker lead the Pledge of Allegiance and gave the Invocation.. IN RE: SWEARING OF WITNESSES Persons wishing to appear before the Local Agency Formation Commission are sworn in by the Executive Officer. IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-367-73 - APPROVED BY TH9 FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT, STAN NORTHRUP, ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No.' 73-187 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. K-372-73 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT, STAN NORTHRUP, ROBERT,J. UTTIN NEVIL, ROBERT W. AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-188 - See file IN RE, PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN IRVINE-HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 83 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT STAN NORTHRUP, ROBERT'J. UTTIN NEVIL, ROBERT W. AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-189 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PACIFIC VIEW MEMORIAL PARK PHASE II - ANNEXATION NO, 77' APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP, ROBERT J, NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN, LOUIS R. REINHARDT AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-190 - See file IN RE. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TC THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ANNEXATION NO. 78 - IRVINE AVENUE -MESA DRIVE ANNEXATION Commission discussed conditions suggested by staff to exclude from the annexation proposal approximately two acres north of Irvine Avenue (Condition No. 1) and to add territory between the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and Irvine Avenue to the annexation proposal. (Condition No. 2) On motion of Commissioner Nevil, duly seconded, the Commission moved to approve the 165. .ORANGE COUNTY LAF(TO TEL No.1-714-569-1173 November 2$, 1973 May 1,90 9:32 No.002 P.02/04 • annexation with the deletion of staff suggested Conditions Nos, 1 and 2 and to delete from the annexation proposal all properties not owned by the Irvine Company, specifically a portion of Irvine Avenue and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. In addition, the Commission deleted staff suggested Condition No. 3, i.e. that if a golf course is not developed on the property, whatever is developed on the site be in con- formance with the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Compre- hensive Land Use Plan for the Orange County Airport, on advice from County Counsel, Counsel stated that such a condition would be in violation of Government Code Section 54790, sub -section (3), which provides that 1AFCO shall not impose any conditions which would directly regulate land use or subdivision requirements. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. RERALPHA. DROBERT IEDRICH. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN NOES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-191-See file IN RE: PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT, ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN, STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSEt T : COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-192 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 7 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT, ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN, STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH"A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-193 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 11 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R. REINHARDT, ROBERT J, NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN, STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No, 73-194 - See file IN RE: PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 15 On motion of Commissioner Reinhardt, suly seconded and unani- mously carried, the Commission moved to approve the dissolution of County Service Area No. 15 subject to the condition that the County of Orange be designated the suceessor'to the County Service Area for the purpose of winding up the affairs of County Service Area 15 and all assets of County Service Area No. 15 shall be distributed to the County of Orange. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS LOUIS R, REINHA=t ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN, STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-195 - See file COMMISSIONER NEVIL IS CALLED FROM THE MEETING COMMISSIONER MC'INNIS ASSUMES.THE DUTIES OF A REGULAR MEMBER 166. ORANtE COUNTY LRFCO TELNo.1-714-569-1173 May 1,90 9:32 No.002 P.03l04 Y November 28, 1973 IN RE: PROPOSED FORMATION OF ROSSMOOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 21 APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP, DONALD A. MC INNIS, ROBERT W. BATTIN, LOUIS R. REINHARDT AND RALPH A. DIED NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE Resolution No. 73-196 - See file COMMISSIONER NEVIL RETURNS AND RESUMES HIS DUTIES IN RE: REPORT FROM THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND NEWPORT BEACH ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR A SPHERE OF -INFLUENCE AS IT RELATES TO THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS THE "BANNING AREA" The City of Newport Beach presented and distributed a report to the Commission containing six proposals regarding mutual boundaries between the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In regard to the Banning property it was Newport Beach's contention that since the Banning property was completely surrounded by Newport Beach and had been legally annexed to the City in 1950 that the Banning property should be located in a Sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach (Proposal No. 1). The City of Costa Mesa requested that the hearing in regard to the Banning property be continued to allow for more negotiation time for the two cities A representative 6f the property owner stated that due to the current use of the land (oil production, the property owner, Beeco Ltd:, felt that inclusion of the Banning property in either the Sphere of Influence of the City of Costa Mesa or the City of Newport Beach would be premature at this time. Proposal No. 2 of the Newport Beach report proposed to include a 40-acre parcel (the former Newport Beach dump site) in the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence; Proposal No. 3 proposed to designate 16th Street between Monrovia and Babcock Street as a boundary between the two cities; Proposal No. 4 proposed to establish 15th Street from Newport Boulevard to Tustin Avenue as a Sphere of Influence boundary between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. On motion of Commissioner Nevil, duly seconded the Commission moved to continue indefinitely the Sphere of influence kor the Banning property and to adopt Proposals Nos. 2, 3 and 4, APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN AND LOUIS R. REINHARDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH IN RE: COMMISSION RECONSIDERATION OF A PORTION OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AS IT RELATES TO THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY WEST OF TUSTIN AVENUE-IRVINE AVENUE FROM 20TH STREET EXTENDING NORTH TO BRISTOL STREET Commission discussed the reconsideration of a portion of the sphere of influence of Costa Mesa i,e. the Corridor Area extending from Twentieth Street to Bristol Street between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, as adopted on June 13, 1973. The reconsideration hearing by the Commission was set at the September 12th LAFCO meeting. Residents of the Bay Knolls area located west of Tustin Avenue between Santa Isabel Avenue and 22nd Street, protested the inclusion of their properties within the adopted Sphere of Influence of Costa Mesa and indicated they would initiate proceedings toward annexation to the City of Newport Beach. A motion to refer the reconsideration of Costa Mesa s Sphere of Influence to staff for study died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Nevil, duly seconded, the Commission moved to continue with Commission business and leave the reconsideration matter in limbo pending an annexation request by residents in the area. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT J. NEVIL, ROBERT W. BATTIN AND LOUIS R. REINHARDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS STAN NORTHRUP AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE 167. •ORANGE COUNTY LAFCO TEL No.1-714-569-1173 May 1,90 9:32 No.002 P.04iO4 Nomrember 28, 1973 COMMISSIONER BAKER IS CALLED FROM THE MEETING IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF•NOVEMBER 14, 1973 On motion of Cominissioner Reinhardt, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1973 are approved. IN RE: LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LAFCOS The Chairman read into the record a letter from the Executive Board of the California Association of LAFCOS regarding the Boards total opposition to AB No. 882 (Knox). The letter further urged LAFCOS to communicate to Cal LAFCO the position of the Commission regarding AB No. 882.' The Commission acknowledged the letter and cited its previous resolution of October 31, 1973 (Resolution No. 73-180) opposing the special district LAFCO representation bill (AB No. $82). Staff was directed to notify Orange County legislators of the Commission's position on this bill. The meeting adjourned. ATTEST: S 14 c� ��,2d.1 ecret y � 168, October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It,is a comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature Date l eH 'f�.lcue �37� -D2 Q aha v bI /fbCs/,4u D.3 ,S' 4,414 iiZ�� ,0,6 . C ell ZEM/L S ,?0 (J7 ,E, 'A L-4-i YGrRA fl -1 v o_ e< 2, 7 2-f3 l r 6a IV 717 '-7-73 2 —7.3 173 az /14� -ao�111`F17j 0 C� a JDH 1/3 Include in report to Council on Bay Knolls Annexation necessary steps for Council action re annexation procedures. (Check with Laura's calendar as to steps.) RVH October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County.o£.Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls., respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated heroin by reference. Pri.ntod Name Address Signature Date ;S. 10 .�Q73 p /Uau,ll,A� i;d-v% 0 �6�ktFot (�F, 3 /D ✓kiT.l'lr�ue �iiYT' Ll/Y ) 3 7-T 74 L :�MDS_,_ /o e ZAT �3 October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The resident's of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name' Address Signature Date 5/E�- 230 2- ,(:a//Lff/u- 9A, N �i .-� j'I • ca u �s 2a 1 z Fa_ir/i� i/ I s _Al �1f-tl-7,r /y/3/73 j7.3 ,F- •« �v _1 .,...:.,.-err-�,'�-.:,_ _.. "" �•a.,-6;"t':':.,si.'`.h..h;}, •.. •` �-a;t?'1�i'sYi- •L.:' Y•.r •Jri :.>^1�..:'1l V.K:a.'_.°_ 0 October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood !mown by its owners'as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature Date r / ' �Gn.�(.E-S c l>Yt.P� Ae,r�irr ea.L+(!'-(O ' � 77• Hirr..e � �i�o� ✓< � :2 �'1 /rF�/� r.�lr !)ri d/!3 ����.,.�.i�./�.�-!' //�/J/�3 FM k f�11 731 al ' •-'yµ ♦i.^.�w»l9'Si���'r._v-. -I..-• 5..4. i� {:a_ _ .�1'n�^ _�w •wi.., .�.e.�/.'.. 'i,�M; "-.j e ` }�Y�3: iy 4� YW.G.''I}x�..` �iy 'l�.i rT"+d �.ilL1 ,j i1.F:.,3 i... vC'� �ilT. • - ----- -- - • _ _ - --•- October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighborhood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor"'area of the County of Orafige. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature Date �z II M.4 October 29, 1973 We. the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Noma Address Signature Date , r ,. p ( / '�Xgmi f�v iSOwO(i 3p Z JG� r N��l• ( 73 Sr/ 0L7— S7- �1Pr..2-i � j ro - M &i oN 3%� i5izl 9 4 f7 - !C �-CI L/i , �4/ one �3 oZl52`c. � �.��7��S. f/G G L r (7 O t �y J /t7 /,/s/e/ Iq C 'k A C t `> .........,...-... �..��...w.,.. - . _..._i - -c.Y:i'c � {4�''--a,} :v •t - .�: Y "r,'li.�, moo+: b"t«;: ;Ar?yr;.h.� (•i .. October 29, 1973 u We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of'153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex. the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. / Er�nt�d Nam/%� Address Signature Date 7 r *Ai ���Pr1r�/ ,�ree lccr�� _ �� f✓E— `2'7 ��� �l o ,_ � _ ma ,9i. ivg4: Ntfs A .I ,I 9 October 29, 1973 i We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature Date _6-73 11Y�73. r n A� rA ti_/i/ - c �v.vl.ra�-.ram.. rrrri�ra� t `.�_.r .v.. •=.i�r.x..e:.✓ys.;. d.:. �i ,.sr...s.%ktL'-w_Ixi�:i�'�.iY.^.RYa�w:s�iT.3?:`,mac.-u��.s�....§" �`.ti'�s_a�...���.s...���n'�z.'o y'* ` �ra�n' ia,:;C `Y" A� kL�n','• i i_•_ _ - __.�`C • d� ��•lyy _, �,• _ - _ 2 October 29,,1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange, It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain, unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their beat interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay•Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. printed Name Address Signature Date v'ly_i2i %� ��./i/��i'.w1iY1./ ,� C(.,7 !!/✓�.�0/�-�l� • /1�,.-.-2..i U/ ' r� �l/ r l Piet .�`",�, .. ,�L r14'f.i r"'fr'•._'f .'M1. — — r F��.r,G. `k� V.V" ial{yyr'jA�}NY•„,�.�?.'S��:1 ,,��. r1: , r:4Fa: n1`;•. �� ��� .,���Y '.4r�.1�..'•4.1 .1.+i F�. ...- .;er �'S.Slat.Y:ii% _ .....,. _ r �.. ...- _ . ,. c r . , � ,}'r,..''�• ..•r T'�'i n7'r. r... r .. .... ... t''r., n � i. .:.56 respe Beach October 29, 1973 , the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls,. Lolly submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in y nincorporatod "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It.is comaof 153 lots and•is bounded onthe` north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on teast by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22hd\Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City,of Newport Beach. • Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature Date L TKAM-z.A t.vTarr 1/bl 73 i• ,�: ,—•;,,f','. -, 'shy:.' ^'Si p v.�' � x,�(.3•?Y.. .G 4, .,�'. � �..i:.� fib, i a .it;li''.. i `-y • �l �': October 29. 1973- We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, rospectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighborhood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated "corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north,by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by.22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls -feel that it is in their best interest as wen as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name' Address Signature Date G • �v>.�S 22k5 � . )0.6.73 K.f-P.i-- 4F tot IOWSF 22AD jj0Qj'r . QD, W-441 4•- if-10-73 // /Q .,7.r //_73 . �+'M `�'�j �: LY:. °.�5'. rvgA '4w'y•�� uFi r�J�f�:�,<ii V.;.a�e. .:�9.4Y �.'R' � �: October 29t 1973 Ne, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1, The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an 'unincorporated 'corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests.of the City -of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach.. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, by reference.. Printed Name AddressSignature Date ArJrJ Ri,fo rjyvj2 A October 29, 1973 We, the undersigned owners of real property in the area known as Bay Knolls, respectfully submit the following to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. The residential neighbornood known by its owners as Bay Knolls is situated in an unincorporated 'corridor" area of the County of Orange. It is comprised of 153 lots and is bounded on the north by Santa•Isabel Avenue, on the east by Tustin Avenue and the City of Newport Beach, on the south by 22nd Street, and on.the west by the City of Costa Mesa and certain unincorporated areas. 2. The residents of Bay Knolls feel that it is in their best interest as well as the best interests of the City of Newport Beach to become annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the undersigned homeowners in Bay Knolls, respectfully request • that the City of Newport Beach annex the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Printed Name Address Signature. Date. .12 -7Y 1 E-1 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT The Mayor and a second member of the City Council, in conjunction with the City Manager, is authorized to take any promotional steps necessary and advisable to encourage industrial development within the City of Newport Beach in a logical manner. L-1 r Adopted - March 14, 1966 it Reaffirmed - August 15, 1966 Amended - November 25, 1968 Reaffirmed - March 9, 1970 Reaffirmed - February 14,1972 C-2 ...,._.-, ': -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 171 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ,30 31 32 '0E0.10 By the CITY COUNCIL CITY OF t IFYYPORT HACH ra CITY COUN69 ^ I FW50ITU"TIOI•; OF T-D; LOCAL AGENCY FORMTIO Cam._ I-S='H'A°T 2 ACN OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORIM, June 25, 1969 On motion of Commissioner Allen, duly seoondea ==a carried, the -cilouin;; Resolution was adopted: r.'MRFAS, this Commission has made study purVz--'^t 'to Code Section 54774 of the Costa Yiesa-Pie�mport Beach city boundaries in order to determine the most logical future boundary el -'/:en the two cities; and 6FITREAS, said study included a public hearing of this Commission on June 25, 1969, at which representatives of the aforesaid cities and the general public presented information an,:'_ arguments with rasDect to said boundary. NOWT TBEFEEFO_RE, BE IT MESOTIVED that this Comm ission does hereb; determine that the common boundary between the cities of 'Tel�port -!a nh and Costa Mesa shall be Tustin Avenue beginning _1t a point . :art: erlY of T,rentieth Street and extending northerly vo palisades Road; ,)rovided, however, that area northwesterly of Tustin :' revue wad southerly Palisades Road now designated as the "Clear %1o?ie", zout'r- of the Orange Ccunt l,iroort, shall be excluded from future armPxatiarz to either city. S-YES. COi"fi'1ISSIONE,R.S ALTON E. ALLEN, FRIT-K P. "TOE, CFj�w. A. PE_4RSON, DAVID L. 131=A.ND ,7AILT;S T. NCZS: CO-X? SSIONERS NOND =_i UiT: COMISSIo'+EPS NON: ^T"iTE Or CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I. RICH�.RD T. TURNER, Executive Offle:")r7ormptioInch agency '} Commission of Orange Co1L"?t— Calij'rtt':i•'� _•?S'�FJy ^`'rtify that y�ri- _mop red by •?-' ^-.Ot)':8 ':Ii.1, wOrf 'O;^m 2--solution tlf^ Elul;,% 't 7.': i`' J - .'iii t>>L1iLl::a^iG= ^'Gr_�P, r� g-vlar .T1e':t1'�?> t_ier�Or' �,`•! I=..0"• 1•�'`': �J,.1 day of 25th day T :<, .. �,< rr<. ) 30 E_LeL'a:1' Local�CL'IFS SENT 39: aI-: `� of Or,-'-i... ,u . .., e 0 `t lsor wer nev a5'� _ �'�` - q —� • J". W ark+ Dire 1--on No. I '' ,Aber Li t�ouoCilse;, -�LG I/ 7• IT -SOLUTION NO. 69-43 aUN 19 1969 :rIA0 T. ruerJER A I:TiSOL.Uf lO\ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THU CYTY OF COST.'t r i.E�yOErt; EXECUTIVE OFFIC JUIPPi) UN`G YHE BOLN-DARY I:r;°CO: "fEMJ:\Tl0\S OF Till' IN1'L'I:-C: _ i ^r10jV COMMISSI0r1 RELATIONS C0',P4(T E1:S Or 1111E COS1_F1 MiS_:\ AM, ) NE!,rPO1U B 1l MY. COUIXILS. 11tIE1ZEA5, the inter -city relations couunittees of the cities of Costa i:4esa and Nc port Beach have heretofore been requested by the Orange County Local. Agency Formation Cm-mittee to attempt to determine a mutually satisfactory soluti.6n to conflicting, controversial and overlapping annexation proposals; and 1VUEREAS, the joint committees have held a series of meetings Fuld prepared ` certain proposals as guidelines for the establishment of more logical existing city boundaries and for future annexations of adjacent unincorporated areas; and WH13REAS, this Council has reviewed these proposals and believes their approval to be in the best interest of the City; NW3 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, that the following boundary reco;mnendations proposed by the inter -city relations comm'ttees be, and tine smile are hereby accepted and approved: 1. SOUTHEMLY BOU:NIDARIES BETIIrEEN Tiff SANTA .AMA RIVER AND IRVINE AVENUE Z. a. That the area of Newport Beach sout'neastexly of the fonnor Newport Beach City Dump property in the currently projected Buccola sub- division should be de -annexed by Newport Beach and annexed to Costa Mesa. with the proviso that the subdivider agree to dedicate and improve the southerly half of 19th Street along the northerly line of the tract. b. That the administrative staffs of the two cities work together to -establish a common boundary line along 16th Street, by proposing annexations and de -annexations westerly from the intersection of Pomona Avenue sine% Superior Avenue,to a point, westerly of Momovia Avenue, joining the diagonal boundary between the two cities. c. That the staffs also work together to develop a common boundary along Industrial Nay and 1 th Street easterly from Superior Avenue. to 'Tustin ..%venue. FORMER NDTORT BEACH CITY DUNEP SITE That the City of Newport Beach consider the de -annexation of the former City Dmp Site after the use of the area has been established. 3. NOlZ HERLY AREA ALONG TUSTIN AVENUE PROS f BAY STREET TO P.PJ,ISADES ROAD The joint committees recognize that various possibilities exist for a future common boundary in this area and that more titan one Dale ;..... ^�,-„„r,��,,,"„" can be defended on the grounds of sound plan, ing principles. The CONES SENT T0: objective is to select a boLnidary that is logical in terms of ❑ ++ ^r land use, compatibility of neighborhoods, and the ultimate render- +t.., ,,,r inQ of municipal services to the residents. - T.,e 'expressed prefer- ' ence of petitioners in the three pending anne_.ations should be a o,k- Ufrecto^ taken into account, but should not control t;_= determination of .rnntng Mrwor a logical boundary. Examples of alteir_ative _ Aure boundaries are ocher s110i+ri1 o71 tile accompanying drawing. =- Li r .r COL +CIL• -z- It is suggested that the Local Agency Formati.c. --onrni.ssion'evaluate the three pending aiuuexation prt�posals tritr I;... icul.ar regard for the alternative boundaries on the acconaxw- -na dra.Ving. In so doing, various options becomeapparent uaiuic_. would require either the denial or modification of one or mo_ of the pending proposals. a. Northerly of: Mesa Drive East and Rest Santa Ana Heights are logically separable neighborhoods because of the airport clear zone and either Tustin Avenue or the flood control channel to a southerly projection of the western boundary of the Airport property become the possible boundaries. The City of Costa Mesa feels however, that Tustin Avenue is logically the most desirable. b. Southerly of Mesa Drive Tustin Avenue or the rear property lines westerly thereof appear to represent a more logical boundary than Santa Ana Avenue. The precise boundary in relation to Tustin Avenue should be detennined after examination of the alternatives by the staffs of the two cities. The joint committees recommend that the City Councils of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach request the Local agency Formation Couunission to evaluate the alternatives and to approve a Holding Boundary based on the above considerations; and further that the two councils agree to withdraw or adjust pending annexation proposals as necessary to conform to the Holding Boundary. PASSED AaN9D ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1969. Mayor of the ity of osta iiesa ATTEST- -City Clerk ot tjie ty OX LOTMu iesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COLnn'Y OF ORANGE ) SS. CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, C. K. PRIEST, City Clerk of the City of Costa ;mesa and ex-officio Clerk of the'City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 69-43 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June, 1969. IN WITNESS 10 EREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17th day of June, 1969. City Clerk and ex-olficroClerd—o it—oe City Council of the City of Costa Mesa RECISTCL:ED VOTE'S IN PRECINCTS BY DISTRICTS DISIEICT I - Balboa Peninsula, Central. Newport, McFadden area and L__o Isle 1 (999) 2 (715) 3 (913) 4 Portion (669) 5 (948) 6 (530) DISTRICT 2 - West Newport, Lido Peninsula, Versailles, Newport Crest and Park Lido 4 (-) 7 (845) 8 (527) 9 (542) 10 (953) 11 (989) 12 Portion (526) DISTRICT 3 - Newport Heights, Cliff Haven and Bayshores 12 (-) 13 (973) 14 .(790) 15 (571) 16 (892) 17 Portion (910) DISTRICT 4 - Bayside Village, Linda Isle, Beacon Bay, Dover Shores, blestcliff, Baycrest and westerly side of Upper Bay 18 (835) 19 (573) 20 (769) 21 (533) 22 (517) 23 (501) 24 (838) 25 (782) DISTRICT 5 - Eastbluff, Park Newport and Balboa Island (except Little Island) 26 (979) 27 (1039) 28 (898) 29 (1290) 30 (983) 31 (526} 32 (-) DISTRICT 6 - Newport Center, Big Canyon, Little Island, Irvine Terrace and portions of Corona del liar below 5th Avenue to Narcissus 32 Portion (742) 33 (453) 34 (1033) 35 (1014) 36 (963) 37 (870) DISTRICT 7 - Corona del Mar southeast of Narcissus, Harbor View Hills, Upper Harbor View Hills, and Spyglass Hill 38 (816) 39 (707) 40 (559) 41 (1014) 42 (935) 43 (842) 44 (656) 49 (553) Precinct # (f of registered voters) 1 2 4 OCT ' ;G- 511 - y7?? - `�i1i7°ly.:i''-' was i�ao-,rer: 6 ��a-r_,-�,;;,•,� �'tw r,:acuw A.t,•tin'^� "r�-�::_-_� : s'a_-i•��-.c::�k��» ,<:iaa+„�:>~i 9 .�;-tea r• ... •1 .i + ;-�•�.,; r':s;�• t��: .�..+?:: ': L"�.i"1,;J� .'.�:}t1iZ •_,� r..i>3. i.�ip aim 911 '7. i.....1J s.v.=i:i:_.•-•SC -U'.1:.. ti. S..C:.. �..) the 10 Al 2slCy �02TJ1tjoij CommiG31 a:�! shallr:' i?!L'P --,j :•3i,�1.P.' �-1� uD.i•�5�. A$ 11 ih.il',zl?st.:e +1f e.x._:: ;_Kst.si 'rv`u'C'%Zi..nt:-mil 12 J'.ly i3 1973, t, _ tl,_ �,i.Ti .. ,itl_ J.. r•^'fl.vtn "�1'Y.: j .L ±� J j 14 _t Uri •�l^..n �.??� t:,. .-=J"Y. '�'. .. is �+.'a s>i U� .... .. %i.... 5' :rvi:. lrv_ �LIC. rJ_L.1 FJL:MpbVi' 15 naach: 4L�a 16 ';... :�. >�_� ,s. _.. .. -- ::. '"G�:s:Y•a'. of ' 17 ,'t l S'_Si:' 7 3 tee: S :C :....A , A' :es. rifl as 18 :J �i l? ' 7•' i::'., F »!:� !U3 L'Ut it 'tl ! 174iX2t-S Of 19 •:ti 1 C: .3.+ c i•� D�. � �?c`S .::� � '. • _ - _....i�__1=. w- iS.�e.:S;i•'$� :..Yi 20 L Ity `7i. iila::'yO TaG.�': }ii :i� Sii. yl: S:F1 �:.i .....L.•,..f'.: v ... 21 cc-l::tiiwad c a -v,; 22 47> :=t i �� f'J/ � S:.� _i__ 5 :� _r3-,"9K1X Eesc1 aa::is�'a on •Ii =yj 23 -tip 24 3 t1, i e i•- ____—ax, ����, �:ae i 25,1•lcz Era ite n 26 :terOn L'a•2 2831 29 30 Doc MPIIS S=_iii ia: 5:••Hrt 32 e,.:. J':' T '. ; - ;�'� K'1 veer "Vey Mrt-lr rl 3' ' �" i .l%x i:'i '1..5 • 73-1 "t.7 1 . I,::Im:X I)7=rrlvi 5. 1 111(IYr `) 0 �c _ 1 nuauL[nmj r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 'Lg :iQ iiL�Sfdi Y . t{i ?.?\a L'.td ll�i Vs Ci Cai 4 R:Y Oi the }..i3c I A'g II3ey sJ1��3�:`Lii r�%isGiSa3t7T2 0' Cz'ei_l'yc' ::Li7L"?%a 31i._S'�: a 7v_dY.=vj CeZ--fy tti3t ' r_± , , "',� . . vv wag+ziar y adapts d by :3lTOa4' ii.+ :isJrck.03_i2t\ ,'s71L4:.:.v'Ti Jt33 1'sil�l) co zAstiuii n #At F ri,.-'eulLzz rr YUnG tYPare,U1y bc?yii on the l2tll Liay of 712 :� �..'4L3.3 7j:j.�.1'1�.�� y .'1. Pi;:2V� i'd4T:a'�T3Ya'S 5.�.2: m�i 1".2iiC� a':'523.5 12th dy a l: .ie��a:3�era i. i 3. a iviii �lL :. sVi�11:�R a' the ocu1 r�, ''iM; Formation Commifscion t yr• •ram rL r: r� f U I La\ \t _ / "p+�\\C\� `� • / .jL ♦ �' � r �{ 'f ate:/ � °. a\ � %n. J •' S ...�•'�� J`r� C--`iG'/ , \ . •r 1 tartf / ` _,t' i\.yr — + af� (/ pit \` �\V,p�,('�•��`{('$� � ` •� I ly�f Pfi LL�t'/%f/3n A. \� a j�'Y�j •'S y�`�\�•,•"i`1% \ _ ate. J' .✓" f. y ♦ \ ♦ i . � i �,'`I�S� ♦ />" ,�f� A^i• ^J •.i —.i. I �.� C, p0 +�r✓' w...W � \ � w -'.\� � /�f`J /J. � r .Y >'. ♦� O i`�1 Srn� q° a .' Y . '\ ,C.l. \ \ �`i, - _ ''T:-S" T. � f��, t�} � Q ( ♦ '� I t .4\ �•i} •.. �` \lR✓♦ '\ %c�.' • ' .�' . { r ( �^ t }�-t �n"""=�. �..� \\� � \ � �S I �\ /� - r/�/ ` (��•_ _. r,`°.ham. �'�•\.°��� j� vJli \���j�/ � ��. _—. -.Sfl ���.f; l.`11.:i��r'�. '+��T • / I CENTERLINE OF SANTA ANA RIVER 2 BANNING AREA 3 SUPERIOR AVENUE — 15 STREET AREA SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (PARTIAL) FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTED 6Y THE COZ-MSSION' ON SE!"PIPM.@ 12, 1973 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 13 1973 August 13, 1973 COUNCIL AGENDA NO. G-b STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 10 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: If desired, adopt the Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach and authorize the Mayor to transmit the report to the Local Agency Formation Commission. DISCUSSION: On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) notified the City that LAFCO was beginning a series of public hearings to officially determine the spheres of influence for each local governmental agency within the County. In June, 1973, Costa Mesa's Sphere of.Influence was reviewed by LAFCO and it was noted that there were a number of conflicts with Newport Beach's. LAFCO took no action on the areas in dispute - the airport and Banning Property, but requested their staff to schedule a hear- ing on the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City has now been noti- fied that the hearing date will be September 12, 1973, and that the City's submittal should be received by August 15, 1973. Attached is a Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City. It is hoped that the material is adequate to permit the Council's review, modi- fication if necessary, and approval for submittal to LAFCO. RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment August 13, 1973 Mr. Richard T. Turner, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission County of Orange Post Office Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: Proposed Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Turner: Attached you will find material being submitted in support of the Sphere of Influence for the City of Newport Beach. It is the City's understanding that this material will be considered at a hearing on September 12, 1973, and at that time the City will be happy to clarify the material and answer questions of your Commission. We appreciate this opportunity to relay our concern for those areas that have a physical, social, and eco- nomic relationship to Newport Beach. It is our belief.that the major benefit both to the City and the property owners in these areas, is that planning for over- all comprehensive and coordinated development can be commenced. The continued high quality living environment for the City�and the areas that are physically or economically a part of Newport Beach can be maintained. Very truly yours, DONALD A. 14CINNIS Mayor DAMc:a an Attachment PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Background On January 23, 1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)' requested the City to review the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence map submitted to LAFCO on August 20, 1970. On July 17, 1973, Richard Turner, Executive Officer, LAFCO, notified the City that a public hearing is set for September 12, 1973, to "review and determine a sphere of influence for the City of Newport Beach". Mr. Turner requested the City to review and submit material in support of its proposed sphere of influence. On August 13, 1973, the City Council approved the Sphere of Influence report and map for the City of Newport Beach. where of Influence Map The attached Sphere of Influence map identifies the City of Newport Beach sphere of influence as the present City boundaries and the following unincor- porated areas: 1. From the existing City limits to the center line of the Santa Ana River, and from the westerly extension of 19th Street to the three mile limit (Area "A"); 2. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B"); 3. "The County Triangle" adjacent to Superior Avenue (Area "C"); 4. Santa Ana,Heights (Area "D"); 5. Orange County Airport (Area "E"); 6. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F"); 7. Irvine Coast (Area "G"). Santa Ana River Center Line (Area "A" on attached map) In 1970 it was suggested by LAFCO that the four cities bordering the Santa Ana River from Harbor Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean consider the possibility of annexing adjacent portions of the flood control channel'right-of-way to eliminate the existing strip of unincorporated territory comprising the river channel. Representatives from the four cities bordering this portion of the Santa Ana River have reached tentative agreement that annexation of this unincorporated strip would be desirable in the interests of providing clear lines of juris- dictional responsibility, particularly with respect to public safety and emergency services, and the center line of the river channel would represent the most logical boundary line. LAFCO was notified by the four cities of this agreement on February 10, 1971. Beeco Ltd. (Banning) Property (Area "B" on attached map) The Banning property is a "County island" located in West Newport Beach and is presently leased for petroleum production. Due to the close interrelationship of this property to the incorporated West Newport Beach area, the City has been working with the property owner to plan for the ultimate use of this area, future City services, and the incorporation of the area into Newport Beach. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, states the following major proposals for the Beeco, - 2 - Ltd. (Banning) property: This area, north of "Newport Shores" and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a "Specific'Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan. This will permit the ieveTopment of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. (This Feasibility Study is currently being conducted by Moffat and Nichol, engineers under contract to the City.) Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the County -wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project._ The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element", modified, if necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, in- cluding residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. The property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval,by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan. The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan states the following proposals for the area: In this area, it is proposed that the Residential Growth Limit be equal to the number of dwelling units that would result if the entire area were zoned for single-family units at a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves feasible, the same number of units would be permitted, but the housing type and density would change. However, no individual development would be permitted to exceed 15 dwelling units per gross acre. - 3 - 0 Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area Al Since all of this area, except the City -owned parcels, is unincorporated, no City,action is possible at this time to assure maintenance of the Residential Growth Limit. However, this Residential Growth Element indicates the City's intent and the zoning at the time of annexation will reflect this adopted limit. This entire area has been designated as a "Specific Area Plan" on the Land Use Plan and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that Specific Area Plan. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Al (Banning Area) Based on the Residential Zoning Policy Total No. Estimated Housing Type,Breakdown of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as --- --- --- --- --- of 1-1-73) Residential Growth Limit based on the Residential Zoning Policy 2,994 1,497 --- 1,497 --- 6,886 The City of Newport Beach contracted with the consulting firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. to perform a Traffic Study leading to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The consultant has submitted a report entitled, "Newport Beach Traffic Study Phase II Summary Report - Alternative Plan Development", and recommendations are included for the area. The City of Newport Beach is a full -service city, providing all of the major municipal services, i.e., water and sewer, fire and police protection, - 4 - library service and park and recreations service to residents of the City. Existing services in the area are minimal due to lack of development; however, the City has planned for the extension of services to this area as development and incorporation take place. A report entitled, "Engineering Report on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for West Newport Area - City of Newport", was prepared by Boyle Engineering in July of 1972. It was the desire of the City to investigate needs for domestic water supply system for the West Newport area including the Banning property. The report includes recommendations for facilities to satisfy water demands in the entire area. It would also be logical to extend all other municipal services into this area. The entire area is within County Sanitation District No. 6 and the Newport - Mesa Unified School District. County Triangle (Area "C" on attached map) This area is a County island within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach. This area lies principally west of Superior Avenue, in the vicinity of 15th Street. It contains a mixture of commercial, industrial and resi- dential (apartment and mobilehome park) development and zoning. In 1970 the City annexed adjacent property to the south designated Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74. In recommending approval of Annexation No. 74, •the staff report to LAFCO dated November 6, 1970, stated that: - 5 - "This proposal (Annexation No. 74) is a part of a large unincorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. Although it is creating a smaller island of unincorporated-' territory immediately to the south of the subject property, it is felt that annexation is a logical extension of City boundaries and is a step toward eventual inclusion of all unincorporated properties in this area into the adjoining city." The City is prepared to provide all municipal services to this area. Santa Ana Heights (Area "D" on attached map) In June, 1969, the Local Agency Formation Commission engaged in a study with the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to determine, the most logical future boundaries between the two cities, particularly in the Santa Ana Heights area. The result of this study was that the common boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa shall be Irvine/Tustin Avenue beginning at a point northerly of Twentieth Street and extending northerly to Bristol Street; provided, however, that area northwesterly of Irvine Avenue and southerly of Bristol Street, now designated the "clear zone", south of the Orange County Airport, should be excluded from future annexations to either City (see "Area P below). Orange County Airport (Area "E" on attached map) This area comprises the Orange County Airport property, between Bristol Street on the south and the San Diego Freeway on the north. Orange County has not yet chosen to annex the County Airport to any of the existing cities in the vicinity. However, on July 20, 1970, the City Council of Newport Beach -took the position that if and when the Orange County Airport and the adjacent clear zone south of Bristol Street is annexed to any city, that city should be Newport Beach. The airport terminal and the principal buildings are located along the east side of the field, adjacent to the present City limit,'and Newport Beach would be in the best position to provide municipal services to the airport. Furthermore, the normal flight pattern on take -off extends directly over Newport Beach; therefore, the City receives the major impact from airport operations. Pacific View Memorial Park (Area "F" on attached map) This "uninhabited" County island consists•of developed and undeveloped ceme- tery property owned by Pacific View Memorial Park, a California cemetery corporation. The'cemetery presently receives both water and sewer service from the City of Newport Beach. An existing agreement (City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 7265, adopted August 24, 1970) provides that: "Pacific View agrees to commence proceedings by January 1, 1973, for the annexation to the City of Newport Beach of the balance of the cemetery property consisting of 126.68 acres . . . and to diligently pursue said annexation and to cooperate in all respects with the City to the end that the annexation shall be completed expeditiously." - 7 - Annexation of this County island is currently being processed. Irvine Coast (Area "G" on attached map) The coastal area between the present city limits of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach is currently under study by several public agencies and The Irvine Company, which owns all of the land in question. The recommendations of this study are expected to include general plan elements for future develop- ment of the area and future jurisdictional responsibilities and city boundaries. Under these circumstances it would be premature to attempt precise and• permanent boundaries between municipalities at this time. However, the City of Newport Beach has established a general Sphere of Influence -boundary for this area pending future studies and support data for establishing logical service areas. The boundary is as follows: From the existing City limits at the San Joaquin Reservoir following in an easterly direction along and including the top of the San Joaquin Hills to and including Signal Peak; then preceding in a southerly direction along the easterly ridge of Los Trancos Canyon to and including Crystal Cove. The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Fill leasehold is expected to accommodate not more than seven years of future dumping before its capacity is exhausted. After this it can become a highly -desirable golf course or park. However, the extremely deep fills in the canyons cannot be expected to support streets or utility lines. For this reason, and because the sanitary fill lies immediately north of the crest of the San Joaquin Hills, it could form a logical future municipal boundary. The proposed Irvine Company General Plan for this area indicates that San Joaquin Hills Road will be the center and focus of a series of hilltop villages. In this vicinity the hilltop has the character of a mesa rather than a ridge. It would be a mistake to divide these villages and the mesa on which they are located in to two municipalities. The natural physical features of the downcoast area (including the beaches, coastal cliffs, hillsides and coastal canyons) and the several major vista points naturally tie the area to the ocean and in part to Newport Bay and the City of Newport Beach. Los Trancos Canyon topographically seems to be a transition area between the more gradual hills oriented towards Newport Bay and the steeper hills of Laguna Beach. Los Trancos Canyon is proposed as a major state park that would form a logical future municipal boundary. Both the Irvine Company (land owner) and the City of Laguna Beach have given indication that they favor this boundary. Part of the area within the proposed sphere of influence is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District. However, an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Ranch Water District executed in September, 1972, (copy attached) states in part: "It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, _g_ City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit 'A' to this Agreement or their successors" desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and' sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question." The area could be served by IRWD or the City of Newport Beach and,if properly planned in advance, would eliminate any possible duplication of services or overlap in taxation to the future residents. The whole purpose of the agree- ment with IRWD is to assure coordination of planning to eliminate duplication of services and taxation. Representatives of the Irvine Company participated in the preparation of the subject agreement and, therefore, approve the conditions imposed by it. If annexed to Newport Beach, the area would be served by City water services in conformance with current City policy. The present Newport Beach water system is fully adequate and capable of being extended to serve the area. The City has had engineering studies prepared to determine the water system expansion needed to serve the area; and the administrative and funding vehicles to provide for such expansion have been established. Although no major sewer improvements are presently provided within the area, a portion of the area now lies within Orange County'Sanitation District No. 5, the district which encompasses most of Newport Beach. MUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP AREA ORANOa- 1 `\��A �..:�,•K / \/rt`li lJr�� 1 'q�t�a{�:_`_ ✓ I' `J''Y`_'`_' �Jf`', -i\ + , ,\\` Y. I { rlt\- `•`� -t,l•^a �� >' dry'{ �R��•' r� 13` .'� /p a' r r / \ _..... / 1 ll" .P'`' ,! •jf • J.. ' \ r' \xwl ITA A A/.HEIG IT�s �'— i �.w,g � :•`•' j ; ;1 -\' .._-ram' ```°.�"-+ �;J..• • ); i 7l .: _ E9A _ . �,� -�-�,. •:,-���� 1;�, � ..:- k-�4�f � `,i,r�'..�'..'a.. s� ;�-', �;,SIGNAL PEAK t- 'Y -% \ _ `-mil/ t_. '\,l ��-y�,V;S'y min,•/• I i. � fa'.' � _ ,�'n ',1 r' , ,,•:'F�`�, . % - :!_\l _ ' � •X•i-. +� ti��:x3 �1'`nr, : 'I h� '='', tlti}f,,t� -`�''- U' '\`' ;�i ` �:•/ •. - l; `�\'c g`pk ��I �...�• i)�^LE V�r�.i' 't ' \ �•- y� `? , 1 '`.--_ __ �- t • t. `.:�; , I .-. .:_`y � - � (� � � " ' 14t1;°:;y'' • �g °>� COYOTE I //�i\\,:. �11\;.6>' •._;'�"--.L' _%` , :t":1_�0. 1,4 .� �•.a:, \:� ' TypL9��%-F, :.; "h ' .��' CANYON <• ` > , } . �. „" 1 r ,s:?, RESIT E Ada • '}` '\` Ji'A.1/ .'dj. 1_r .:_•., i� �_�� �_,.... 4 ..,�• :~'� .�-,.sa'::� rf V'_.`+-.; E ''(! '7�i,-��' ''�l>t'..i%�,V„\: \ I.{c'- _`_'.i.�_��s_'.I' ~.`k�. ti\'�L.l! +:�\�i�"_i%"I. •_��iik~ 1 i'yt7II/ill0Cinn•'14' 1 1' ,i 'ri ',�.\`'� V ;.Y": Y., 1•) l+�st-e._ :'� ! bf s�i ._�� ..... �_ _ � _- _ l'+.. �I .y_ �� W� / ' �' / i '� , . 1. `'r`:% 5 \ I '{� �;.-r"•_` H� ` JsC' ..••i;t'�: �<<__ __ R A F„• _ SAREA B $ECCO .•,; .;•�<.._: „ �\ �tP, .. �1;r,.� ���: �,;-_ �-_ 1>c.-�:�''s.c�°..:.. ., r ,; ACE , 14' .-<��y�- aI � '�',J s,� d ,v ( ., d <i. -•; 1 'Z ' r _ f._ ti•.' �'+ s �,1: 1. I ".^+__� } 6� \ice. .�, .�.., ;\l l}'1 .:�•-,t��� <:_. ':F. 1a � ./ , �- a' _` i. /' V(;�• 0W.'�''. 'r• I- . ! nil �I•�'�_�� : - �J�I a71'�I yv.. , I' .,^ `l It '> , t z %% �'..'�.?Y,�$ {_J Y i `i 0✓i Gii» r Z %'S-..I .,'r r a .:; '- `/ .. �N:Fi .,:%`\ + '!i�r11 Tom_. •'.} �'„f, In ytt AREA A " ,� �a� - ;ii.5epry''?� !, a`' 1 ;,•,l- = ti4p!tiY c:1 AREA G Ou n ' aJ'6�yd -'ir '•) jr � � � • Q6p - 1 11`;: �l i-+' It � "`.t ... t7 ��N+�aro4� .vaW t:_,,i4i.... ''1:._ .'c:i.. Y.�° ;( y Fl.z i —_ i' �- ! IRVINE Z A -A A = - _ v ` rr= �- _i < /, %. COAST I RIVER�3yc Lr.r.r. z}� .Y+` �• %d 11 GL.' \ '. ,, •(::✓ J yy,� la.., I•LL1 $Si.� y q y Y 1 \ .• •''J,� _ ,.... : ii - L"ei:=;`r iir'i l' _. �.' +,�•,^ t J t�1-t 1'!\Y .. _ l �'� y li _ .��;^. � �..I�J �a=_ __�1. =`y�� � � lf;l •4aa�ar.z �'� .�'-e.=S�r''� l`: ""'� J' �"J,�:,, '-.y aC.=hi tL;%Q:�" � ' .=rvC.•._ r{`'{V: i'.,yt�r'~�, +:..�. �o.-!I I�I•.' J' �4�+„,>,' ,.h/��. lu.•_lY.l '��JI' ice'" DiII•• O , --• _ ,_,`••tro',`LTAI'•;`%'. J?,Y ,>,�^..�iin��N�L1. �)>�;i a k,� 111 � '� a• V -' JY _ � III .II:. � l\:o :. ....:. :it �,� c„7.w (�� .I /�i ;_.•..�';%i T.^r-�G "--t : (' I / Jf,- r•. ,;Ilr"" a�a[U•, " - CITY or BLVPORT DE CN COUNTY F js(yCdfst'":� • — - CRYSTAL COVE s�s:ct ti�o�i� AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRVINE RANCH WA=ZR DISTRICT AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC::- -- RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE FUTURE ADJUS`1ENT OF SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this j///? day of i 1 J T , 1972, by and between the IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "District", and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City";'. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District has heretofore undertaken investigations relative to how and in what manner the area now situated within. District and area immediately adjacent thereto, southerly of the existing southerly boundary line of District, might be provided with water and sewer facilities in a timely, efficient, and economic manner, and WHEREAS, a proposal relative to Annexation No. 16 to District has been submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commis•- sion of Orange County for consideration, and WHEREAS, accomplishment of such annexation at this time is necessary in order to permit District to establish and commence implementation of a program for financing and constructing the necessary facilities for the area depicted in.Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, and WHEREAS, it has been determined by District and City that it would be in the best interests of both parties to execute an agreement relative to certain matters of mutual interest and benefit to both District and City, which matters are hereinafter specifically set forth; -1- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mub--__ promises and covenants herein contained, the parties to this Agreement do agree as follows: 1. District agrees that as to the area designated in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement, which document is by this refer- ence made a part hereof, it will initiate annexation proceedings upon approval of the proposed annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and thereafter initiate and diligently pursue to completion annexation proceedings as well as proceedings to establish an authorization of bonds to be issued, if, as and when needed. The proceeds of the bonds so authorized shall be used to construct facilities for transmission, storage, and dis- tribution of water, as well as collection, treatment, reclamation, or disposal of sewage and waste water; which proceedings shall include the area designated on the portion of Exhibit "A" as the area of possible service boundary adjustments between City and District. It is further agreed that in the event that such water and sewer facilities are constructed in this area by District and, if at a later date, City and the owners of the property depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement or their successors desire to and do in fact accomplish the annexation of such territory in whole or in part to City, that District will convey to City such water and sewer facilities or capacities in such water and sewer facilities to the extent necessary to provide for water and sewer service to the area in question. The determination as to which water and sewer facilities or the extent of the capacity in such water and sewer facilities to be conveyed to City by District -2- shall be determined on the basis of sound engineerin•.- practices as well as existing practices of good utility manage.-.ent. It is acknowledged that in such instances a facility may be conveyed in its entirety or that only capacity in an existing facility may be conveyed. It is the intent of both parties that sufficient water . and sewer facilities, or capacity in water and sewer facilities will be maintained by District to serve any adjacent property or portion of the area described in Exhibit "A" which are not annexed to City. The foregoing proviso is subject to and in furtherance of the authority of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County or its successor to make such a decision as part of any such proceedings referred to hereinabove pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code and any other applicable provisions of law. It is acknowledged and agreed that such may occur either as one annexation or as a series of annexations. It is further acknowledged and agreed that said boundary adjustments may require detachment of territory from District. District agrees that in such event it shall execute and deliver to City such docu- ments as are reasonably necessary to convey the above described water and sewer facilities or capacity in the above described water and sewer facilities to City. Further, District, at the request of City, shall execute and deliver to City such documents as are reason- ably necessary to undertake detachment proceedings relative to detachment of territory from District to the extent necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. Such areas of possible detachment from District shall be only to the extent described on Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. It is agreed as a condition of any such requisite boundary adjustment and transfer of water and sewer -3- facilities or capacity in water and sewer facilities -at pursuant to the provisions of Section 56470 of the Covernmenz --de a portion of the District Reorganization Act of 1965 there sha:_ be an appor- tionment of liability for payment of an appropriate portion of the prinr.ipal and interest on bonds that have been issued, the proceeds of which have been used to construct water and sewer facilities affected by this Agreement. As an alternative means of accomplish- ing this purpose, City may pay to District an annual amount equal to what the territory in question would have paid in tax assess - meets or other charges had it remained part of the District to the extent that such are required for debt service on outstanding bonds issued pursuant to the proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of this Agreement. 2. Interconnection of Facilities. It is agreed by District and City that a system of interconnections between the water facili-, ties of City and District shall be established consistent with sound utility management principals to provide safeguards against the possible failure of either the system of City or District. It is the intent of this provision that each of the entities agree to provide water in such instances at its cost in the event of a failure on the part of the facilities of either City or District. 3. In regard to the eighteen (18") inch water transmission line initially constructed to provide service to the commercial development in City known as Newport Center, City agrees that Dis- trict may utilize existing surplus capacity therein as an initial interim transmission line to the areas described in Exhibit "A" as the area of possible future service area adjustments, provided that District shall furnish all water, transmitted for use by District. -4- This, as well as the other rights of District set fo_:n herein, is in consideration of the commitments and obligations h_relhabovd set forth of District. It is agreed, however, that use cf the eighteen (18") inch water transmission line by District, to the extent here- inabove referred to is subject to the requirement that an emergency alternative means of transmission be established simultaneously with the connection of District's facilities to the hereinabove described facilities of City. It is acknowledged that such surplus capacity was previously constructed at no cost to City. Such initial use by District shall be terminated by District upon receipt of -twelve (12) months' prior written notice from City. 4. It is further agreed that in the event at a future date City determines that it does not need capacity that it now owns in a certain water transmission facility located within the public highway known as Pacific Coast Highway, it agrees to extend to District the opportunity to purchase such facility based on the replacement costs less depreciation or such other terms and condi- tions as are mutually agreed upon. It is contemplated that District, in such event, may acquire such facility with bond proceeds proposed to be issued by District. In the event that City makes such deter- mination, it shall give notice of such determination to District, and District, upon receipt of such notice shall within ninety (90) days thereafter advise City of its election to purchase the facility in question. The notice of District shall specify the purchase price together with sufficient information to verify the manner in which the purchase price is determined. 5. It is further agreed that City, in consideration of the matters hereinabove set forth, shall not oppose proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District and shall cooperate in any reasonable manner -5- necessary in order that District might accomplish proposed Annexa- tion No. 16 to District at the earliest possible da_e. 6. District hereby acknowledges that based on Section 4730 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California it is not entitled by reason of the accomplishment of proposed Annexation No. 16 to District to have representation on the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5. 7. Notice. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the addresses of the parties hereto as follows: TO DISTRICT: Irvine Ranch water District P.O, Box D•-I Irvine, California 92664 TO CITY: City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660, and shall be deemed to have been received by the party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy-two (72)'hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 8. It is further agreed by City and District that in the event Annexation No. 16 to District is not completed on or before October 1, 1972, this Agreement, without further act of either party, shall terminate and be of no further effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have e.;ecuted these presents the day and year first hereinabove sec forth. IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT By President-, By Secretary CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor - By u O - i� l� '� . � _ �v! `� �C•• ' � � �,E` �'� 1 • is MATURN1....DRAINAGE:•. BOUNDARY.- / • �, ' ` _ /: /' : •' '- '� � a ,:. � • 4 ••,\ x\ •ram•.,. /: `\' -•��- ��' a4w' °Maly: "`..`���'< 'T,',,f `•'� ,� Nl t�•. - ' AREAr 0� F74`iSI$G�'. ,POSSIBLE NEWPORT '.. 'mot; �. f:yJ; �. , ',•;,. RdICE BAUNnARY CITY.. BOUNDARY . . �` : , r • '1 ADUSTMENT I"RV.INE• 'RANCH'-' :::.;i:':; ....... a ..- I/ — . ,0' ,ono,/':A. ; fwrEv 3.B00�000 '_-FY. SEWEdP ^' 3, 4O0/ q?Q SEJvFR : ^'tf .:�-V0Q,QaQ : f J77 N3 5 EXIST. BOUNDARY- 4-CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' I G?.�ST.�' a`h/OlYrV ff.PE AP,u�20K/�4'T�' COST IN /97/ Y :1- ,,,,'� '�. !� . t• ice'. 'elf � `fie •d. .P LOWRY & ASSOCIATES POTENTIAL FUTURE SERVICE BOUNDARIES, FOR COASTAL AREAS R 44 O r DAILY PILOT Thursday, November 29, 1973 'Gaza Str " ' Property - 'Sparks -New City- Rift Newport Beach and Costa Mesa locked The Orange County Local Agency 6'horns again Wednesday over a strip Formation Commission approved an °qE property between Irvine Avenue and p'Santa Ana Avenue known as the Gaza ' agreement between the two communities strip. ' in 1969 placing all properties west of a The unincorporated corridor has been Irvine Avenue in the Costa Mesa sphere 4 the subject of countless squabbles over of influence. I j the past decade. Wednesday a large group of people living in the strip area between Santa Isabel Avenue and 22nd Street asked the commission to place them in the NewportBeach sphere. They said they were ready to petition that city for annexation. "There are 132 homes in the area and we contacted 114 owners," explained j Mrs: Valerie Avilar. "Of the 114, 107 want to annex to Newport, four want to stay in the coanty and three want i to 'oin�s to 9Gsa '. he Then ;q(fer a ,list qf fkares ppl�yy At& "ltie 3t�lz b3 tt�e 'ge�ltreti Vf tfie' arch know,, a Bay 1Cnoils: " 6fty 'Percent of us work in Newport Beach while only 22 percent Work in, Costa i Mesa. Ninety percent shop in Newport' J p and we belong to social and civic clubs in that area." She listed at least-50 various organiza- ' i flons ,ranging from the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce to, school groups that she said Bay Knolls residents were members of. Following a one hour debate, the LAFC + " commissioners refused to take action on the request. Commission chairman Ralph Diedrich adWs A � to move forward with then ryi YVewporf $each and j then come c to a commission. BOUNDARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTER -CITY RELATIONS COMMITTEES OF THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILS June 16, 1969 Acting upon the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission that the inter -city relations committees of the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach should meet with the staff of the LAFC to attempt to determine a mutually satisfactory solution to the conflicting controversial and overlapping annexa- tion proposals which have strained relations between the two cities, the committees submit the following report and recommendations. The joint committees have held a series of meetings, the latest of which was attended by the Executive Officer of the LAFC. As a result of these meetings the committees submit the following proposals as guidelines for the estdblishment of more logical present city boundaries and for future annexations of adjacent un- incorporated areas. These proposals are recommehded for joint approval by the respective city councils: 1. SOUTHERLY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND IRVIN•E AVENUE a. That the area of Newport Beach southeasterly of the former Newport Beach City Dump property in the currently projected Buccola subdivision should be de -annexed by Newport Beach and annexed to Costa Mesa, with the proviso that the subdivider agree to dedi- cate and improve the southerly half of 19th Street along the northerly line of the tract. .r e - 2 - b. That the administrative staffs of the two cities work together. to establish a common boundary line•.along 16th Street, by proposing annexations and de -annexations, westerly from the intersection of Pomona Avenue and Superior.Avenue, to a point westerly of, Monrovia Avenue,.jo•ining the diagonal boundary 'between,the two cities. c. That the staffs also work together to develop a common boundary 'along Industrial Way and 15th Street easterly from Superior Avenue to Tustin Avenue. 2. FORMER NEWPORT BEACH CITY DUMP SITE That the Lity of Newport Beach consider the de - annexation of the former City Dump Site after the use of the ,area has been established. 3. NORTHERLY AREA ALONG TUSTIN AVENUE FROM BAY STREET TO PALISADES ROAD The joint committees recognize that various possi- bilities exist for a future common boundary in this area and that more than one can be defended on the grounds of sound planning principles. The objective is to select a boundary that is logical in terms of land use, compatibility of neighborhoods, and the ultimate rendering of municipal services to the residents. The expressed preference of petitioners in the three pending annexations should be taken into account, but should not control the final deter- mination of a logical boundary. Examples of alter- native future boundaries are shown on the accompany- - 3 - ing drawing. It is suggested that the LAFC evaluate the three pending annexation proposals with particular regard for the alternative boundaries shown on the accompany- ing drawing (Exhibit "A"). In so doing various options become apparent which would require either the denial or modification of one or more of the pending proposals. a. Northerly of Mesa Drive. If the east and west Santa Ana Heights neigh- borhoods should be treated as one community, Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue become logical boundaries. If those neighborhoods are logi- cally separable, then either Tustin Avenue or the flood control channel become possible boundaries. b. Southerly of Mesa Drive. Tustin Avenue or the rear property lines westerly thereof appear to represent a more logical boundary than Santa Ana Avenue. The precise boundary in relation to Tustin Avenue should be determined after examination of the alternatives by the staffs of the two cities. The joint committees recommend that the City Councils of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach request -the LAFC to evaluate the alternatives and to approve a Holding - 4 - Boundary based on the above considerations; and further that the two councils agree to withdraw or adjust pending annexation proposals as necessary to conform to the Holding Boundary. For Costa Mesa For Newport Beach Vice Mayor Robert Wilson Vice Mayor Lindsley Parsons Councilman Willard T. Jordan Councilman Robert Shelton I E� � �.• F :- Y rt' R 2A ->� 221 � 23t i �-�} 4- . i' �� 261� r-.'�....=«.L...-., ..e _ � I ..� ..� 4 I e FrJ _ n>t' , - v - - L J- k" _ I h I• I �' � i w1aL M aKE t L. I a s> t fuze ..a`iC ... - F �GE.V ✓�->.—,.�'-,-�'-s<ad 'A la 1_' k 2 - d i� ] ^t a � -B v ri•, - i 91 I. i - . ! . - . r=a2 252 - P 3 n,cs 1 22 t o._ 2 2 {k[[ I 2 _ _ _ 1_ __ _ '.k - i � h i � %2 I . it � — J,r`--•!'.-r-- li .�-- .: ♦v:5.•r� N vi X _t� t I t , i.' I- fi - 1 •� F I ' -{ rv. 1 )-71 `f L IjI • I _ t _.1 Y _ 1' l t I - t AVENUE •, w I I 7 1 1 t� I -w I rn 0 r- rn a o a Z > 1 I i `• AVENUE �) .�r: L�W� I�� � SGMT>�NX1 COUNTk( L>-11B fAl: :p{IPSE - r cs ^ iJ •1 B r.� f' I a Z i olR 1 1 e�[ f + E !r I • aJ ljI l� r _>F-J •9 -•_. ' L _ ••• �--_ Q'2'-�! 1'.••,e aJ3< 1r c,l% -- - 5 �f•1_ ' _ - {f�'' :I.rrl' '�' I� rl: _ W cSTM_ IM3rlTes-I<.. ri,I�_'i -. •.�__ -�I - '- __.- - IAA•N ' �f �i^[ 3w6'^'Y•�CI ^71V�A_T39,ViOa1 �,'°' FAIaw,. A•v S0. v > ;s.owIVE ,.1,>I,> uuRw♦v, - lu'owrv•JE '<`�'� �6uB _K>isa.>i ePSIJA - _ i _.,.8 _- (-1. - Y -...- � •, - —.' _... -1'_ - - __ - :}:- _. - 5�as rE _ f I. -, r I rl. �,•,��! '�I �t .4,.:.r „olr Lrl,,...'i R,.= 'i �• - _ y D I -,r-� �_ `S- 1. F` �- F-- - -!] !F'R I>LK•E I BfSlalaStF1 SVfIY"f S - - WESYMIN iEi wVENUE v>TG R1KE t p R - } r- F-" £ [� _ _ ^L r l ! l a a a f x�o it sre vl y,• _ _ I-S s l - N� Irn a zl - YZSce - O rl ' G. J - z - _ --[ - �• IZ TgA<h NO I 1 1 I wl> .'. It J >-.. •_{ I ,. < - , 's F _ r76 _ 1[• � __ _JJ 24 jf[L, - - t 2 �' 254 "r wLq: Iv 284 .304 _ I 314 3214.: , . d . 1 _.,.i .._ - •�" • WF IF - uft' N I~ f I { ' G Q . a E2>' !-Tl' Ir _ I _ I S' \ _ I _ It: IT - - - f - db ,I_1 �--I'1" ••i F' e 8 -1.. ', ,� � Yy� 1 � i y 1 1 I I _ _ t' I "� T�y •,; ^ }I's - - -v _ AVE ••• J 'R�1 SANT4 ANA AVENUE eta SAxia Ij�' AyI h .jr Ii I �1 r 1. }_ t I I AZ 1O r 1 'n ' a -� ]>r'E 9' w 'n l hz tj A . j4 , n r- -� `` �'•I 1 � II 1 Ivs� _ 12 �'♦ � 'B °..�: mi w.zr ..._. �I 1 H -� ' � I .{ �;: t , i _ •+=- Z I ?I� 7iF:..' •s 1� x •26 _-c 245 'r- ~255 285 295 L.>- i, j .� at rrracr - e _ 1 c "' _ o racer -_ r-F----^ ., --�' n 1'�' -d jS_• > RAGT '_�- o 11 1 1 's. _ _ - A:9/SER ._ _ s ` ��. 1> _ ' _r 1 .,.{ • _ ^ '4 _ w. Q _ m.- i !E•. tI R',.13 EDLANO P w T "O + _ `_ _II _ _ y •vs I> a -- SCHOOL `.0 i I\l s: ✓ vsti�i- «s` IO :PL - �J wm�uws�oslrre N O ,. ! K F , •W U t7�°a V NO. - .n- - - n¢e^.W VaO -- 1 _ -D "Rat- 1 --Ales a zmf-._.--- - Q F�448{0_!__ _ •_. NO 3725 ��.'a�s .I. 1 s�LANDS OR. O J lam_ [1'�-`� ✓ 6. I n° rr° r--j I I f=1= i�' — l'--J�`t'�a„• .j i< My ^ '>q. %. ELANDS OF T=R• A�� .. it-i-•' • 5 ,�a{�. i "�,[ qo.0 �� \/-3+.� ] _ �, N•u0®'> ^� 0.LT�'^ RrvEwslOfr ewwe T '1 � BrvEX51cE tlnvE t, R[YERSIO ' 359- _ 0 347E -. '.I- �J r— i�F. 1' 3 •J,: .I r- .2: '• _ 2919 __ rkAc-'J :,.• .,, I.r n ''' ice. 7 I¢ 216a - . 246 286 .rr - $ 326__ 1j(" �I--, �t�,' �_ .{!"` _ .I.}ra .r•,<:.--i J W yL -_ CC FAf� - !f ierB� � r .s 'Fe �tTa4cT I ,}� *`rv' . . 'i 4�Z 1 Y _._{ I� l °gg •2. Q - ]'e �;_� _ Qy _ ! p i I `,•t �'1•(1 _ '•�"d .RAR rT4 '- E I' 'L..- �t hQ ! _. t•%�-j z.a - _ _-. 2>,0 - 1 0 s -•YG` - s. 'Ia - I i I =- -,1 •I• `. �'i dl °. a• y (-1 `l� - - �f. pr :;"- ' _ _-_ - _ ._ _-- I•1. sLInF wILk ANA AN 7 1 TIN _ _ - im E :ell_ .rl IF .[♦ _ e ,« 47 j, �f Irsli { �,.>.<<...'. r �I '�i - s�' +I 1• rs/ i - '.Iu .-r''>`./ �, I_ ..-..: ... .. 1 F r, •I'k' ,kk�,97�^( a '>I IP 1 •LI. T. •s"r„Q{{ '6'[„ :i: .. .. ... 1 .M•, f 13 b� - I_ I F I-•.lu !e • - aj xr.- i 3 f B E 1 B_ a vA E A eo a r;,lN-f I q•' "I _ I; . I � G 3i { .'I '} C ,- � } t ""`_ '.': ! . IOt ' 4 .. ... ( 1 { i { l .WAY WAY Cl P m Z F' _ •a.9 1 'i V 297 II _ •i -,.fF i'1 20 _ I � l le - e c'•� s�(ry�f (,��/l+�a {}(��aq gw��q•yap�� i �'-'-•-s 7�� a — -e. - ,. -� .'< n } t \ r?T, i 1 IF{1r�•- w�'t � �e � ai qY� V3ad V.1 � _ _- �S. IOI+ 1 EI .. ._... .. �. 1 _ I .. )I �W , + -r« _ [ _ 1 `•�_ : 3'.'a�:" r - � ---'CLE�AEF: - �> rr k a�aar•aN r. ,o �`="• 6e _ - _- ®.$�.�� _TRA costa mesa PACT .. t 9�1't �DL'a`ls °2 :Z.. .e: - Avz • .� zwmu wRs O t i uA I ' VE � - •i,e �` _ t _ a , - < � . i AEa.a: ' 1 Cz E k( I , \ll - - - �,'s"'. . 3379' I a ! lzR. ` o .-. ....... L rsrn. asn[' •�:�^ 'i' n'av 278 2e8 ?/` 328 .�(�y.�, yq� {p� p� •$qT�j[ +'��Ty�qr;�Iip��� "Bony. ���}pLg��yg{�}�e�A��@Ly> yp� 'Ar>,a { -� ..- .. �'�_ •�_ II i� IW a: tlf2 Zr-"`� �• .)�I ) ,> iY �Y �`I� FUTURE 1 1v � 33'Y11i ffi� LINES l I 5] \ - 'fit. v�� I 1. .1 •. �: .(.. I..�:. ,, zt. t y :{:::r: .l• �-{� �� � i .\ �U�S � Si}„Iaf l-,5 (,2-lb -:y' ;Asi:{:; •L. ,)� �2,3.." -- streets aGies"'#� fat � °r a9. I' k i` " I „ urr T m I• ro. vorr z ry ^ A` ._ _ .J s� - \ • - \ \ \ - - a� aACACIA I-i�4 - rvyi - •az°- 1 J4'/,',• I /OI C 1 pS'B per �i■a�� \\ Q�\ - _ l �Y [.K',•l A� 109 :a } I LLL fill \Qf!`lyu u as N lNis,.N �oI ,z' ;T C -�;_ ,✓* i •.+ `' _= �e?[�•7 J ! G iTRGCT INO 06 _L ' j/),1i' .�e ����i _I��-' I•I:' _ I � _ _ _ - _ s I _ r `� / Ioa' a9�AA S2 _BIBCX '_ _ STPEET \ - �! .<•arz e 2. ,� •. �. _ , I - �. { - - 1 s.,\ - 1 M� Ixs z, q ! f r ( { . _ r• \ �� 9 - ll__.,,_\ ''l - - _ - - - I �`\ - v ' £ ' . • .. 1 �zs n ixe }Ica t so ral I raz' i ss A. rs5 rA. j/f/ RS// A r. ;J•` '' e`er [ I 1{I{ III u //// 3 • • / ` - ;t l „' r - - Tyf / '.f IF '' e0 }1>9' lac >I >f �, 153 I N i OS 4 I Y r3i 9 I..' r1a i - ' ,`�,.SI _ '• +�'i. - - - 1 Y` -�` n -- J _Yy-•�_CTif E95T T I` •-T ._T --- _ �gEET • /< ..1/ ` / , ` ' ., •• a•• _ _ _ - � � - - - I (`.� 'j � �' � `a5 l IM I NT N IN � IAi h 11R� INIAP OF 'll. Ir3.16 1, r]9 r90 - - a %�. "/. �•a• - - 1 �/ - _ - - - - i 1. . , _ fix± (. . rn ><o OXCtc E ESaBCEA GE COUN, CALIFORNIA A AND VICINITY t9 rest. ,P«.=vP•>I(B ... - c^.-..a. t' - �Ir$�1'di IYJy; k • I.n^ ^ .. i -�♦� '...T' - )-„ 1 tzNi, A. t��v:Qach Pl+amninl. Ds�i _ E• .,x . �'•�. . ,:,...._... :.,...�, -> ..., .. Fw. .. -,. .:-.>e �a. c*r ..�y�. rw.Stt��A+sl'iY,uiaUsi t7'tt `` f r,• } z' I 1 .I a I r f 1 < <i ^I { iI 1 -1- I� I I i w, ..I r, ^I Lj t I I AVE / 1 —_ Fes;. ^ - - - k _ _- y k '• �j - _ _ - :.FS n ._. _ ; I h . Vi E ;[ >N L i = - +ifl I _ ..a s.. - o ' •_, -I Y'-. r-�-I I. A I ( T} O r - - - J i ~1+ T � zIYr. C��f : ' HAY 2 .•i 14 T C .Y' 2 - - 3 317 2`y: 323 Po 04 1t �I c• ` I -I t F—=- f I F •I. .i . •,F -4- - -I I I 9I r I 1 I k I — s•E -- �> •CI F. 1]ENn t� f , _ I �•' ORANGE f r r Sft' U 1 r 7 3 l 1 1 7> 1 _ f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THE TRUE CALIF,ORNIA FACTS regarding annexation to Newport City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd Area Code 714 673-2110 On January 22, 1968, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach considered a request for annexation by a large number of property owners in the Santa Ana Heights area. The Santa Ana Heights Area is defined as the unincorporated section of Orange County bounded on the north by Palisades Road, Santa Ana Avenue on the west, Mesa Drive and the northerly City limits of Newport Beach on the south'and the westerly bound- ary of Newport Beach on the east. As is customary, the City Council referred the request to the Planning Commission for study and report. It is a commonly -held v residents of an area sh boundary changes that d jurisdiction over them City policy -makers have that boundary changes s citizens in the absence In the final analysis, you, the residents and alue in the United States that the ould have the authority to approve etermine the local government having and their property. Newport Beach been sympathetic to the proposition hould not be forced upon the affected of a majority .support for the change. the decision rests in the hands of property owners. Annexation of an inhabited area involves many legal steps and takes at least a year to complete. These steps are intended to protect the property owners. In summary, the steps involved are as follows: Request for annexation received by the City Council and referred to the Planning Commission for study. Planning Commission recommendation is reviewed by the City Council who, if they wish to pursue the annexation, approve it. I 3. If conceptually approved by the City Council, the annexation request is submitted to and reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion, a county -level agency which considers the logic of the annexation boundaries and the ability of the municipality to serve the area. If the Commission disapproves the annexation, further proceedings to annex shall terminate. 4. 'Upon Local Agency Formation Commission approval, the City Council then passes a resolution authorizing the circulation of an official petition for annexation. This petition must be signed by not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors residing in the annexation area. This petition is presented to the City Clerk of the annexing municipality. 5. The City Council must then hold at least two protest hearings. If protests filed by the owners of one-half of the value of the terri- tory proposed to be annexed, exclusive of improvements, the proceedings shall be termina- ted. 6. Fin,ally, an election held to determine the desires of those residing in the area being considered for annexation. It is easy to see by the foregoing legally required procedure that the property owner and resident of any proposed annexa- tion is continually recognized and'heard throughout the annexation process. What does becoming a part of Newport Beach mean to you? The following questions are typical of what your neighbors are asking. It is hoped that the answers will correct some of the erroneous information and rumors which appear to be circulating throughout the Santa Ana Heights Area. * What will the effect be on your taxes ? The Newport Beach municipal tax rate for 1967-68 is set at $1.172 per $100 of assessed valuation. In the Santa Ana Heights Area the total tax rate varies now between $7.7037 and $8.5450 per $100 of assessed valuation. Through annexa- tion this present taxing structure can be reduced 50¢ to 60t by the City assuming responsibility for such things as fire protection, library service and street maintenance districts. Now to this reduced figure, add the City tax rate of $1.17z and the new total tax rate will vary be- tween $8.2741 and $9.0954. This means you will experience an actual increase of only approximately 55¢ per $100 of assessed valuation as a result of annexation to Newport Beach. �k What about police service ? How will it compare to what you have now ? As you are aware, your area is presently served by the Orange County Sheriff's Department which operates out of Santa Ana. The ratio of deputy to population is set by the Board of Supervisors at one deputy for every 1500 persons. According to their records, the Santa Ana Heights Area is a very small part of a large patrol area which extends from the Santa Ana Freeway -Newport Freeway Inter- change south to Laguna Beach. This huge area is served by one patrol car and, therefore, regular police patrol of the Santa Ana Heights Area is virtually impossible. Routine calls are handled on a first come, first served basis and police response time can take up to two hours. Emer- gency calls are given priority but if the deputy's car is in South Laguna, his travel time can be as much as forty- five minutes to reach the crisis. In the event back-up units are needed for additional help, they must come from another patrol area or from the Sheriff's Station in down- town Santa Ana. The Newport Beach Police Department has the highest ratio of sworn police personnel to population, 3.3 policemen for every 1500 persons, of any city in Orange County and one of• the higg est in the State of California. If annexed, the Santa Ana Heights Area would be incorporated into an exist- ing patrol area and would be regularly patrolled at least three times per eight hour watch. Routine calls would be answered within fifteen minutes and emergency calls would have a response time of between two and seven minutes. A recent survey by the Newport Beach Police Department shows a 3.7 minute average response time for emergency calls within the City. Unlike the County's first come, first served system, for all Newport Beach calls, routine or emergency, a car is immediately dispatched to respond to the situation. If the regular patrol in the neighbor- hood is busy, the car from the adjacent patrol area is contacted to respond. These adjacent patrol areas also serve to provide immediate back-up of additional personne for crisis situations. At present, traffic accidents in the Santa Ana Heights Area must be reported to the California Highway Patrol in Anaheim for subsequent investigation. If annexed, the Newport Beach Police Department would handle all traffic control and provide prompt investigation for the area. Another feature offered by the Newport Beach Police Depart- ment is its animal control section. Animal protection is not a separate function as is the case in the County. There would no longer be the need for a separate call to the County Animal Shelter in Orange or to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Laguna Beach in situations requiring this type of aid. * What about adequate fire protection ? Your area is presently served by the County facility at the Orange County Airport, and the response time to a fire call is within three minutes. Newport Beach's nearest facility is, at this time, the Mariners' Fire Station composed of one engine company which is approximately 4 to 5 minutes response distance from the Santa Ana Heights Area. The fire insurance rate is currently Class 6 for all types of development in the Santa Ana ,Heights Area. Newport Beach enjoys a Class 4 rate for all single-family resi- dential development, and this rate would be applicable to all of the homes in the Santa Ana Heights Area if annexed to Newport Beach. Consequently, fire insurance rates for single-family construction in the annexed area could be reduced by 10% to 15%. Presently being planned is a new fire station facility to provide service to the northern sectors of the City of Newport Beach. A site has been identified north of Pali- sades Road on Birch Street, and funds for architectural design services are being included in this year's prelim- inary budget for recommendation to the City Council. This station is expected to be in operation within two years and is a necessary facility to Newport Beach even if the Santa Ana Heights Area is not annexed. Additional engine companies and ladder companies for back- up are available from other stations within the City. In case of a large fire the City has mutual aid agreements with both the County of Orange and Costa Mesa for back-up equipment and personnel. What about sidewalks, curbs, and gutters ? Who pays for them ? Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, adequate .street lights and a host of other improvements are available'to you through the crea- tion of improvement districts. This is accomplished by a vote of the people in the area involved. For example, if of the people who live on Acacia Street decide that they would like to upgrade their property through such improve- ments, the City may then act as a catalyst through the creation of special assessment districts to finance the construction costs. It is important, however, to note that only those people included in the improvement district are financially obligated. Will the city provide any services which you do not enjoy already ? Yes, the City of Newport Beach provides mechanized street and curb sweeping once a week, trash pick-up at least twice per week and street repair and striping as the need occurs. Where there are street lights, the City assumes general maintenance and operating costs for them. The Library Department conducts book discussion groups and art exhibits continually throughout the year. Of course the privileges of using the library facilities completely free are available for your family after annexation. The Newport Beach Parks, Beaches and Recreational Department operates a wide variety of leisure -time activities for all age groups including youth, teenager and adult. Instruction and participation in tennis, swimming, sailing, baseball, surfing, golf, bridge, fishing and many more activities designed to fulfill recreation requirements of citizens are offered. What will happen to the Santa Ana Heights Water Company ? Absolutely nothing. Annexation to the City of Newport Beach will not affect the operation or ownership of the water company. In fact, there are some areas in the City of New- port Beach which are being currently provided water service from the Santa Ana Heights Water Company and the Costa Mesa County Water District even though the City has its own water utility. What does a Newport Beach address mean to you ? By becoming a part of Newport Beach a property seems to experi- ence tangible benefit in terms of desirability. Newport Beach has a fine reputation to many people throughout California and the rest of the United States. This is most frequently demonstrated when a person is about to sell his property or apply for a loan through a bank or savings and loan associa- tion. He will often find that the real estate value of his property has increased substantially simply because it is a part of Newport Beach. Since this area is now served by the Santa Ana Post Office, it has a confused identity which would be corrected upon assuming a Newport Beach address. What about the dog kennels and horses being kept in the area ? There are those residents in Santa Ana Heights who desire to keep horses and their dog kennels. On the other hand, there are residents who desire that these types of uses be cur- tailed or even removed. This type of situation forces neighbor against neighbor and conflict arises which results in no one ever being satisfied with the results. Upon annexation, any land uses which are not permitted under zoning law within the City of Newport Beach, fall into the category of legal nonconforming uses. Legal nonconforming uses may be continued for an indefinite period of time but may not be expanded nor new ones created. Any elimination of legal nonconforming uses would be subject to determination by the_ City Cou-ncil. Will the annexation affect the school your children attend ? No, your area is included in the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Annexation will not interfere with the school your child attends or your present school tax obligations. These are only preliminary facts which pertain to the Santa Ana Heights Area. An in-depth study is presently being conducted by Newport Beach which, when concluded, will provide information for both the Newport Beach City Council and you, the residents of the area, to make an intelligent decision when the final annexation vote is cast. G a,,, �,* � �� 'aul E. Stroup T. Robert•Carolan 1066 Redlands Drive 2309 Fairhill ,Drive :,ewp,.rt Beach, Cal. 92660 Newport Beach,= Ca. George N. Holmes 2304 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. Joseph Mihordin , 2302 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. David;S,,-Orrison 92660 2306 F`jDrive Hazel, C, Fortin 92660 2311 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 William R. Hanke 92660 2313 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca: 92660 Rainer Zuleeg 10312 Niagara Drive Huntington Beach, Ca.92646 Dept. of Vets Affairs of State of Cal. :Hiller, Leo S. 370 E. 23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca, Urson E. Allingham 378 E. 23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 3ladys Watson 2303 Fairhill 'i Newport88H$ch, 92660 92660 Drive Calif.92660 Joseph W. Wood LR305 Fairhill Drive VewportBBeach, Ca. 92660 I'Zendra M. Barker 2307 Fairhill Dri've Vewport Beach, Ca. 92660 P., Robert C o an V09 Fairhill y. Gary Leel�ad Leeland-F, Gray 2318 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca.92660 John B. Schoonover ET AL 2316 Fairhill, Drive Newport -Beach,, Ca. 92660 Donald J. Regan 2583 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 John H, Hayes 2312 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Eve Hamilton 2310 Fairhill-Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Thomas D;.Redmond 2308 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 Newport Beach„ Ca. 92660 James P. Broyles 2304 Fairhill Drive 0800ort Beach, Ca. 92660 David S. Harrison 2306 Fairhill 'Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 926GO Paul A. Dosier 2302 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Betty J. Archibald c/o Baldwin, W. M. -75a Juanita Avenue Santa Barbara, Ca. 92660 Angelo N. Gatti 1407 Santiago Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Monte L. Hoskins 2311 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca: 92660 Keith 0. Van Holt 2315 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Thomas LA. Baume 2319 [Istin Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 Carl L. Martin 2327 Tustin Avenue - Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 _0 //e-agxi-/9 i19—.291—v'7 j 5—.21 a3-3y,3n,3$ William C. Gardner 6841 Abbotswood Drive Palos Verdes Pen, Ca. 90274 Cowley, James et al (MV) 327 Santa Isabel Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Lee F. Riley 333 Santa Isabel Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Roddy D. Boswell 341 Santa Isabt'i Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Harold V. Drage (9f) 2399 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Lee Perrin 342 Peach Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Ammon F. Robinson 340 Peach Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Joseph V. Cherry, Jr. 338 Peach Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Nancy Evans 336 Peach Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dorlene A. Marsh 339 Peach Tree Lane Newport'Beach, Ca. 92660 Peter Landi 341 Peach Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca: 92660 Wolfgang-E. Jurinek 238'5 Redland's Drive Newport''Beach, Ca. 92660 Alan L.-Saviy'er 2375'Redlands'Drive Newport Beach, Ca, 92'660 Emil S. Avell`ae * 340 Cherry Tree Lane Newport Beach,'CA. 92660 Richbrd Lawrence 338 Cherry Tree Lane Newport`Beach, Ca. 92660 Anthony L. T xviel i 336 Che'rry llva' Lane Newport Beach, CA. 9`2'660 Aage Braatheo 910 Joann' Street Costa Mesa; Ca: 92627 Charle's H', Dorchester 339 Cherry Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Erwin De Mocskonyi 345 Cherry Tree Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Paul I. Brecht 1989 Harbor Blvd. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 Paul I. Brecht 1989 Harbor Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 James 'Todd 2390 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Leland E. Jensen 2398 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Giles J. Harmes 2396 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Ernestine R. Hagele 2392 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 James E. Todd 2390 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Donald E. Valdez 2384 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Thomas R..Denigan 337 Peach Tree Lane John B. Stephenson John B. Coleman Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 341 Cherry Tree Lane 2364 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 John H, Coleman 2364 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca, 92660 Delbert L, Warwick 2356 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Nicholas A, Elefther 1648 Sunset Lane Fullerton, Ca, 92633 Nicholas A. 1.648 Sunset Ful lert'on, Elefther Lane Fullerton, Ca. 92633 Mark Lambert 2397 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. William G, Vinson 2395 Tustin Avenue Newport•Aeach, Ca. Frank A. Lutge 2389 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. Arthur C. Wahlstedt Jr, Donald E. Wolfe 2325 Heather Lance 2307 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 -Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Frank V, Bianchi,ni 16 Li-nda•I-s1, Drive Newport Beach, Ca: 92660 Arthur A. Braves, Jr, 2315 Heather Lane Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 Vincent Bartolone 2309 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 George L. Endres 2311 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 6arles Kelley R. Denis Russell rn,209U&I:C Park Lane 2313 Rddlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92661 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Joseph,Y. Acone Rodger T. Powers 2306 Tustin Avenue 2318 Redlands Avenue 92660 Newport Beach, Calif.92660 NewpoettBeach, Ca. 92660 Felix Beauregard Glenn W. Phillips 92660 2300 Tustin Avenue 2316 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca: 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92609 92660 Richaed N, Wagenseller 2393 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca.92660 John F. ,Grundhofer 2331 Heather Lane Newport Beach, Ca., Douglas L. Ostman 2522 23rd Street Newport Beach, Cal. Norma C. Dusley 9T Walter L. Goilahon 2301 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. Shigeru Hira;hara 2303 Redlands Drive 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. Bernard Burry 2314 Redlands Drive 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 AL Herbert E. HMlholland 2332 Redlands Beach, Ca. 92660 92660 ,Newport Ralph L. Rahm ,2310 Redlands Drive 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Arthur Ct WstYstedt, Jr!. Giti'a'rles B. Lamperts Thomas P. Clark, Jr. Frank„yy,�k,Dia ini 2305 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Newport B each Drive ,�, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 -dward J. Bechtel Harry�ll. Wr�q_"ht, Fr. John W. Scholz ?235 Tustine Avenue 356 V-isl 382 Vista Gaya jgewpart Beach, Ca. 92660 Newport Y aGh;_-:Ca: 92660 Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 Catherine S.. Humphrey 2245 Tustine Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 James D. Cunningham 2249 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Alton Lee, Jr. P. 0,. Box 1634 Newport Beach, John A 11fan Donald W., Carr 364 Vis ya- Circle 386 Vista Baya Circle Newport B ac Ca. 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dale W. Wullner David W. Gibson 355 Vista Baya 392 Vista Baya Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Norman M. Hodgkin 363 Vista-Baya Ca, 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92600 Paul i.ne S. Fagan 31561 Table Rock South Laguna, Ca.. Clarice B.MEissman 393 Vista Baya Newport Beach, Ca George E. Regan 387 Vista Baya Newport Beach, Larry U. OB•onnell Drive 3133 Limerick Lane 92677 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Et Al Fred R. Walter 350 Vista Baya 92660 Newport -Beach, Ca. 92660 Harry 11, Wright Jr. 356 Vista Baya Ca. 92660 -Newport-Beach, Ca. 92660 Dept. of Vets Affairs of State of California John S. Killian William C. Macy 364.Vista Baya Circle 381 Vista Baya Newport.Beach, Ca. 9'2660 j Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Raymond X. Lund 375 Vista Baya Newport Beach, Ca.. 92660 Robert F. Gragg, Jr. 370 Vista Baya Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Hans C. Hoglind 398 VistaBBaya NeIgport Beach, Ca. 92660 Howard B. Cagle 2291 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Ougo P. Norr 2285 Tustin Avenue Nep port Beach, Ca. 92660 Theodore L. Petersen 2279 Tustin.Avenue -Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Bernard G. Beaird 997 23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92660' J.-Merle Caihoun 383 E. 23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 9266Q Bruce C. Johnson Richard C. Sharp Clyde L. Allee 369 Vista Baya Street 376''Vista Be a, 379 E. 23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Newport Bea,cfl,, Ca.�92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 80660 ana E. Moseley Franklyn .L....Gulick John 41. West 331 Tustin Avenue 2246 Donnie.Roa.d 382 E. 22nd Street iewport Beach, Ca. 92660- Newport_Beach,. Ca. 92660 Nepivort Beach, Ca. 92660 ialph J. Irwin J_.. Rex Smith Thomas F. Gowen 354 E. 22nd Street 224.2 D.annie Road Isabella M. Gowen Vewport Beach, Ca-92660 Newport .Beach ,. Ca.•92660 2350 Hugo Road Merlin, Oregon 97532 Elder V. Ortberg Karl -Heinz Lohse James E. Forshay 2213 Donnie Road 2230 Donnie -Road 2211 Tustin Avenue Vewport Beach, Ca. 92660 -Newport Beach-, Ca, 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 926UO 3erald A. Fults 2215 Donnie Road Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Donald E. Julian 2227 Donnie Road Newport Beach, Ca. Donald R. Ilo-naldson 126 _E. 16th .Street Costa..Mesa,. Ca... 926.60. Felix, Van Beek 2220 Donnie .Road 92660 New.por.t.B.each-,. Ca,. 92660 Albert E. Rottmann P.O. Box 986 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 Robert W. Krone 2237 Donnie Road Newport Beach, Ca.. Gerald L. Wilks 2241 Donnie Road Newport Beach, Ca.. Edward S. Gilbert-, 2247 Donn-ie Road Newport Beach, Ca. Thomas P.. Ga-rvey 221.6..Donn.ie Road Newpant.-Bea.ch,..Ca. Jack. 11. Trestraii 2212..Do.nnte Road 92660 Newport. B.e.a.ch., Ca.. Leonard .Renda 2204 Donnie Road 92660 - Newport. Beach-, Ca.. Jr.. James. H...Iverson 376 E, 22nd, Street 92660 Newport.Beach, Ca. Franklyn V. Gulick 2246 Do le Road Newport B ach, Ca. 92660 John Mc Manus 395 Meadow Lane Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Ewald Hilmer P.O. Box 10'374 Glendale, Ca. 91209 Ida S. Moerman 385 Meadow Lane 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Robert A. Peckham 384 Meadow Lane 02660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Emil Neeme 386 Meadow Lane 9.2660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Orma 0. Crank 388 Meadow Lane 92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Charles G. Lauderbaugh 380 E.•2—nd Street Newport -Beach -,-Ca. 92660 Ellis N. Porter 1963 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92027 Paul F. Troegner Elmo M. Gregory 2555 Vista Baya 389 E..23rd Street Newport Beach, Ca.92660 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Edmond M. Perron 2298 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca, 92660 Hazel G. Penfold 2290 Redlands Drive NewportBeach, Ca. 92660 Paul H. Hamilton 2284 Redlands Drive' Newport Beach, Ca, 92660 Ronald S,SStanzak 2282 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca 92600 Grace G, Hopla 2281 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Joseph W. Mu#an 2283 Redlands DRive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Leo F. Desmond 2289 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 -- - James if. Leeg 2297 Redlands Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 3or 3890reE. 23Street Newport B NIO I .. ..\•\... t I,II .. A-.1 ♦ -v a I I l\Ia l\\•. Y.......... \. l I n. I... I I.\... ♦. t I. I � 9Y"I •. .. ♦1. V �3;� GOC:� • _ - -- ------------------------ --- . r5..y�; .'�L`r� ��r ��'iyyr"•y_ ,--ri .j... i�" 'iaiIt r��s� J�YI— , r •• t - !� - .. a „� +.:. � �• _ eeunOYl t ,?!�'`Y.. J• a+•S. .•✓�. •�'1'jyj'e_! �'��D.;�'Yd Lrr:~..v� 4.4 tY � �`' V +cur: J. r '72 . 3f• �1�' 71` �, a•aw '.I � `+R° aL •_Y ;tiG i �T •'.^l+�!al'1." 1 �M • IYx wY� . J JM K5 � .r '� �rC>•y�!SR�.?a�a_ � ". J Y1'q". (,, WR UTF�I�f/lK� .�yFr j■jT,t 'fix �:� �`j�T,' o'� .• �' Y "y��Y r ILI�� "•i T e' 1 'll'y'n Xsw �ti� ./ �li a�•�}�[ +� � �i 4 y++ l t Y� 1 "i 'Tim ` Y J. It i 14 e At INN KLO � �.,.471f, ^t 4R •6, ^T1 r�f� Y•YVH.li.� Y.1� e- • J � �M!!M ` .. J � � � •ijy�1 YI� 4 i^�^4 �r-.... JY corm CEN'tEL LA PL.J N15WPORT BE E. 64Y IRO LANE AE.WAR WAY ,PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Bay KnolIS ANNEXATION B I sJfm—F I •llao-1? 3 Z.1069 I r, l , o-0 i - ,3 2: � g1k9 i j 2-j170 I i f ({�;,�f`tq � I ( 7,9 ti j I f 00 3,`Ias I b Poy 3 ! 12S- 1 ob t 2 L (q ,f)NWn NaT I, b5 a ----------------------------- �v SAP.• � �-�--° �r � G� -- ----- -�-• - �'`�-cam ��- = �-b�+--,�----- - -- --- - - -------- -- -- I 0 �] CID- - - ---- ---- - P / ---- I' �� 1 � • - _�_.- __.___�._ _�-__h._________-.________ __-__ - -1 __ __-_-____ _____-__________ ___ __________-_ ____________ __-- _-__ � _-____ __-______._ ____-_T_,____.___ __ ___-____ __I_ __-_ _______ _ _ __ _ __ ___ .-- __-______1_ ' _ ___________________._ __._ I _ __.__.__._ _ 1 L___ __ __ _ _�__. __ 1 - --__� .__ ____._ __- _ ___ ___ _ ____�_ i ►j §' 35107 CITY GOVERNMENT Title 4 § 35107. Limitations on annexation of subdivided territory Subdivided territory shall not be annexed to a city without prior consent of its legislative body, if the design of the subdivision and the construction of buildings or public improvements within it are inferior to standards required by the city ordinances and regulations. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p.117, § 1.) Derivation: See Derivation under § 35106. Library References Municipal Corporations C=29 (4). C.J.S, Municipal Corporations § 46, § 35108. Planning commission recommendations on annexation In cities having a planning commission, consent shall not be given by the legislative body pursuant to Sections 35106 and 35107 until it has received a report or recommendations from the commission. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p.117, § 1, as amended Stats.1961, c.1988, p, 4181, § 7.) Historical Note The 1961 amendment inserted the words Derivation: See Derivation undor, § "pursuant to Sections 35106 and 35107." 35105. Cross References Approval of local agency commission, see § 35002. Imcal planning agencies, see § 65300 of seq. Notes of Decisions I. Jurisdiction Action of city council seeking to annex certain territory in approving circulation of petition for consent to commence pro- ceedings for annexation gave that body, exclusive control over such territory, and county board of supervisors had no power to proceed with subsequent petition for Incorporation of city including part of ter. ritory involved. BorghI v. Board of Sup'rs or Alameda County (1055) 284 P. 2d 537, 133 C.A.2d.463. When city council approves circulation of petition for consent to commence pro. ceedings for annexation, exclusive jurisdic- tion is obtained by such city. Id. § 35109. Recommendation unnecessary if not filed within 10 days of referral i If, within forty (40) days from the date the matter is referred to the commission, the report or recommendation is not filed with the leg- islative body, it may act without such report or recommendations, (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 117, § 1.) Derivation: See Derivation under § 35105 190 I. INTRODUCTION WHAT IS AN ANNEXATION? The ability of municipal corporations to expand, alter and adjust their boundaries is vital to the solution of many problems which exist between local city government and the larger metropolitan or county complex. Indeed, the preservation of our traditions of local self-government is related directly to ef- fecting necessary solutions without abdicating local authority to higher levels of government. Annexa- tions constitute the most'direct means whereby politically responsible local governments effective- ly may provide services to the people. It is through this means whereby a single local government may obtain the authority needed -to meet the service pro- blems of an area, be they water supply, police pro- tection, fire protection or on a larger scale, air pollution. Annexation defined is simply the addition of territory to a municipal corporation as an integral part. Generally it involves joining all or part of the terri- tory of an unincorporated, less populous, or subordinate local unit to that of a larger unit, usually incorpor. ated, offering a more complete array of municipal services. The major purpose of annexation is to promote orderly urban growth. Annexation permits an urban society to conduct its affairs in an economic and comprehensive fashion, and it is the best single solution to the political, social and economic problems caused by fragmented and overlapping local governments in urban areas. The central theme in annexation is to provide a sound base for area -wide action,'orderly growth and es- sential governmental services to the inhabitants of the area to be annexed. There is an honest recogni- tion of the inevitable degree of interdependence which exists between a city and its environs - some call this the sphere of influence which is felt by the residents of an area'and their identity with the city. At the same time there is an implicit acknow- ledgment that municipal boundaries are no guarantee against the spread of such evils as crime, disease, deterioration of neighborhoods and blighting land uses. Annexation brings the unincorporated fringe - 2 - within the city and thus widens the application of standardized services and faciltiies, minimizes the creation of additional special districts and permits area -wide planning. Residents of any fringe area benefit from many of the services and facilities provided by city govern ment, and it is right that they should bear their full share of the costs. HISTORY OF STUDY AREA Between October 30, 1961 and December 11, 1961, the City Council received three petitions from various property owners in the County Corridor, including one from William R. Moden, requesting annexation to the City of Newport Beach. The City Council referred the petitions to the Plan- ning Commission and directed it to study the County Corridor. The Planning Commission Annexation Committee met January 17, 1961, with the Public Works Department, the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Depart- ment. A report was made including data pertaining to the following: Land Use; Substandard Structures; - 3 - majority support for the change. In the final analysis, the decision rests in the hands of the residents and property owners. MW I. INTRODUCTION 8 o e City of N e-w p o-rt o n y a 1 a rig e-number -o f-p ne•p•e ray-ew•n e r s--i-n-tq e-S a n i g s' -A•r"T.h e $A n t a A n a H e i gll s .A.r-e a_.i s_d e..f_i-n.e d,a•s t-h•e-u-n- i-n.c•o-r-p•o.r-at.e4 section of Orange County bounded on the north by Palisades Road, Santa Ana Avenue on the west, Mesa Drive and the northerly City limits of Newport Beach on the south and the westerly boundary of Newport Beach on the east. As is customary, the City Council referred th-e request to.the Planning Commission for study and report. T h e ,P-1-a-n-n i-n-g-Gomm i-s-s-i-&n—i-n i t-s-f-i-n-di-n•gs-, -d-e-t-e_r_a i-n e d t h a t at this time it was ne-ithnN nna4.t4-ca_1 n�asible to u n d e r t a k e a.nn_ex a ti-o-n-o-f-t-h-s—l--S-a-n to -A nzH P i gltt_s Area . This decision was reached because of the uncertainty of property owner des i-.res-, i-n_ th-e-e-a-s-te-wly_pa-r-t_of the Study Area, t-o-consider annexation to any municipality. How- ever, _i_t_ap-pe-a-red--th-at_ the" western--portion-o-f-• the Study - 1 - Area represented what as eked to be a logical extension of the City`s nor eat boundaries and consistent with orderly planninpcact- ices, This finding was made in recognition of the fact thaw ere appears to be 'an ex- cellent response for-lafnnexation from the residents and property o Heights. . s of the westerly portion of Santa•Ana On March 4, 1968, the�p�lanning Commission, after care- fully consi Ting the facts, recommended by minute order to the Ci y ouncil, the submittal of an a exation re- quest to'the Lo'call A'g`� e.Fo- ation Commission covering the wester one e-third of the Santa Ana Heights Area. It 'is this area - the West Santa_An.a—H•erig'h s Annexation - which is thh will ana"Ivz •cct of this report. A future report rrg—Ve easterly portion's of the Santa Ana Heights Area. It is a commonly -held value in the United States that thet e residents of an area should have the autho.ri ty to approve boundary changes that determine the local govern- ment h-aving jurisdiction over them and their property. Newport Beach City policy -makers have been sympathetic to the proposition that boundary changes should not be forced upon the affected citizens in the absence of a• - 2 - J r r m m 2 � G m D b 300 L u t�➢ o s o p o G o G D i9 SANTA ANA AVENUE f3aoo 000 �000 �3 oov o o 0 s i�, a u N /E RD. ' o s 0 O O /0 000 D r000U ll a 9d yv �ioo l9 �00 H50) i9�oo ��0 0 £SoOp O ° /0S7, 9y5o 9yso — �9 Soo 00 �F>o o O da w; oo° �° u M qys o i9�oo 1 x gysv �yso (0 O a J i «� o 1' n�Sa ' L? ? so 0 0 O TUS i iN AVENUE 0 i� N uv U v ' N REDLANDS DR. U) �1 N J N J N N vJa w ai p 11 `�yY 1-�yl RED 0 F ' I J -;;'yoo O DR. 0 0 o c a c G o N-o ;' ".00 -� 6 s Qn o N rj ° DR. GN jj 'kJ v FAlVkV'iLL .J v J d� , U -� i11 G 4' L L oo O Ui to cn � s _ p v� �� w a ro O a O J J `'' O o G TUSiIi\ kcH 9600 9`rcp/ flS'oi AVE. r- I 55-009 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 .0007 - 55-009 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY .0027 56.009 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA PESO GENERAL FUND - 4.4337 55-009 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND IIR FUND .1451 55-009 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND IIR FUND .1048 55-009 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND .1361 55-009 DEVELOPMENT CENTEP TAX .0168• 55-009 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND .9347 • 55-009 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX - .0450 5.3196 55-009 COUNTY FUNDS 1.6050 55-009 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT .2044 55-009 ORANGE CO CEMETEPY DIST 11 .0010 55-009 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION .3991 55-009 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. .0450 55-004 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CCNTPOL CIST .2222 55-009 ORANGE CO. PARK B HARBOR DIST .1043 55-OGQ ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST .0082 55-009 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND .2300 55-OOq ROAD DISTRICT /5 .0000 59-009 METRO WATER DIST-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA .1400 55-009 COAST MUM WATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA .0000 8.6568C 55-00q ORANGE CC SANITATION DIST 16 55-009 ORANGE CO ST LIGHTING MAINT DIST /12 55-009 ORANGE CO WATER DIST 55-009-ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE -55-019 COUNTY SCHOCL BLDG AID ED COCE 19683.5 55-019 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 35-019 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND 55-019 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND IIR FUND 55-019 NEWPORT HARDOR HS-CH EL -BASIC -BOND IIR FUND 55-019 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND Ilk FUND 55-019 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-019 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-019 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-019 COU14TY FUNDS 55-019 COUNTY L18PARY DISTRICT 55-019 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST /1 55-019 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-019 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-019 ORANGF COUN7Y FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-019 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-019 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 55-019 COSTA MESA SANITARY OIST-GENERAL FUND 55-019 POAD DISTRICT IS 55-Olq METRO WATER DIST-CMWO-ORIGINAL AREA • 55-Oln COAST RUN VATER DIST ORIGINAL AREA 55-019 ORANGE CC SANITATION GIST 16 55-019 ORANGE CC WATER DIST 55-019 ORANGE CC WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE 55-026 COUNTY SCHOOL OLOG AID _EDT 19663.5 55-026 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAPITAL'OUTLAY 55-026 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUND -55=02-6-COSTUNESa' -- - 55-026 NEWPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL -BASIC -BOND I/A FUND -55-026 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND Ilk FUND 55-026 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-026 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-026 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-026 COUNTY FUNDS 55-026 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT 55-026 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST 11 55-026 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST �55-026 ORANGE CO.'DARK C HARBOR DIST 55-026 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST • 55-026 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-026 ROAD DISTRICT /5 55-026 METRO WATER DIST-MUN ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA 55-026 MUNICIPAL WATER DIST. OF ORANGE CC -ORIGINAL ARE 55-026 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST /6 55-026 ORANGE CO WATER DIST 55-026 ORANGE CO WATER DIST-WATER RESERVE .2275 .2570 .0700 .5545A .000OR 9.413364 -- 07 �_--00 . .0027 4.4337 .1451 .1048 .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 5.8196 1.6050 ' .2044 .0010 .3991 .0450 .2222 .1043 .0082 .2300 .0000 .1400 .0000 0.8588C .2275 .0700 .2975A .0000R 9.1563t* e .0027 4.4337 •`• .17451 .1048 .1361 .0160 9347 .0450 5.5196 1.6050 .2044 .0010 .3991 .0450 .2222 , .1843 .0002 .2300 .0000 .1600 .0000 8.8780C .2275 .0700 .2975A .00009 9.17634• 55-042 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19683.5 55-042 DEPAPTMENT CF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 55-042 NEWPORT MESA UNIF-COSTA MESA GENERAL FUNS 55-042 COSTA MESA EL -BASIC -BOND TIP FUND 55-042 NERPORT HARBOR HS-CM EL-BASIC-BGNP 1/9-FUND 55-042 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND I/R FUND 55-042 DEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-042 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-042 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITICN TAX 55-042 COUNTY FUNDS 55-042 COUNTY LIBRAPY DISTRICT _ 55-042 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST /l 5S-042 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-042 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-042 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-042 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-042 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST _ 55-042 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-642 ROAD DISTRICT 15 55-042 METRO RATER DIST-MUN GRANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA 55-042 MUNICIPAL RATER DIST. OF ORANGE CO -ORIGINAL AREA 55-042 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 46 55-042 ORANGE CO S1 LIGHTING MAINT DIST 012 55-042 ORANGE CO RATER DIST 55-042 ORANGE CO RATER DIST-RATER RESERVE 55-062 COUNTY SCHOOL BLDG AID ED CODE 19653.5 55-062 DEPARTMENT CF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY 55-D62 NEWP09T HARBOR HS-NPT BCH EL -BOND I/P FUND 55-062 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF.-NEWPORT BEACH -GENERAL FUND 55-062 COSTA MESA EL-NPT BCH CM /7 ANX-90N0 1/R FUND 55-062 NEWPORT MESA UNIF BOND t/R 55-062 OEVELOPMENT CENTER TAX 55-062 COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE -GENERAL FUND 55-062 SCHOOL INSTITUTION TUITION TAX 55-062 COUNTY FUNDS 55-062 COUNTY LIBRARY DISTPICT 55-062 ORANGE CO CEMETERY DIST R1 55-062 COUNTY STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION 55-062 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DIST. 55-062 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 55-062 ORANGE CO. PARK C HARBOR DIST 55-062 ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DIST 55-062 COSTA MESA SANITARY DIST-GENERAL FUND 55-062 ROAD DISTRICT R5 597062 METRO RATER DIST-MUN ORANQE_CO-Op IGINAL AREA 55-062 MUNICIPAL RATER DIST. OF'ORANGE CC-OPIGINAL AREA 55-062 ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST 06 55-062 ORANGE CO RATER DIST 55-062 ORANGE CO RATER DIST-RATER RESERVE _- .0007� _ .0027 4.4337 .1451 .1048 .1361 .0168 .9347 .0450 .2275 .2570 .0700 5.8196 1.6050 .2044 .0010 .3991 .0450 .2222 .1843 .0082 .2300 .0000 .1600 .0000 8.6788C .5545A .0000R 9.433344 .0007 .0027 . . T040' .. 4. 1961 _ .0640 .1361 , .0168 .9341 .D430 ` S."5av- 1.6050 ..2D44 .0016 aa9r- .0450 .2222 .1343 .0082 2300 , .0000 .0000 .0000 B.56QIC_ .2275 .0700 .2975A-_ .000OR 8.8576A0 J u antr oqlzo 18Ga Ll���®®��■■�titrf�lll��■I�rf�®ON 0 Q 0 lull ��Illlll •aa soNa-taaa 0 t-71cdWl tIV Z anN3AV WNW VJLNVS i lull ��Illlll •aa soNa-taaa 0 t-71cdWl tIV Z anN3AV WNW VJLNVS i mom III I