HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Annexation Issues - West Santa Ana Heights, Santa Ana Country Club, Unincorporated Area South of Mesa DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. SS2
Study Session
December 17, 2002
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Managers Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
949/644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Annexation Issues - West Santa Ana Heights, Santa Ana Country
Club, Unincorporated Area South of Mesa Drive
ISSUE:
Should the City apply to annex West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club,
and neighboring territories?
RECOMMENDATION:
None. Discussion only.
DISCUSSION:
Background: State law (the Cortese - Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganiza-
tion Act of 2000 [Government Code §56000 of seq.]) governs the way cities, counties,
and special districts address boundary issues like incorporations, annexations,
detachments, changes in "spheres of influence" ( "SOls "), mergers and consolidations,
and combinations of these actions called "reorganizations." Readers can access the
Act at www.leginfo.ca.00v, Boundaries for school districts are not set via this Act --
generally, county departments of education follow the California Education Code to set
school district boundaries.
The Act describes the membership and role of the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) in each county. Orange County LAFCO, a seven - member body that meets
monthly in Santa Ana, addresses local government boundary changes for our region
(_www. o cl afco. ca. q ov).
On September 26, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000 -81 directing City
staff to process a large annexation application for the Newport Coast, East Santa Ana
West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa
December 17, 2002
Page 2
Heights (East SAH), and the Bay Knolls community. In 2002, the City Council added a
small 9- parcel tract called "Emerson /Churchill" to its application. We filed our
application to annex these territories on March 19, 2001.
The Newport Coast portion of the City's annexation effort became effective January 1,
2002. Following the successful conclusion to the recent protest period (October 17 to
December 2, 2002), the East Santa Ana Heights and Bay Knolls communities will be
added to the City effective July 1, 2003. We have not processed Emerson /Churchill
because we have not yet completed the required pre- zoning associated with
Emerson /Churchill.
The annexation of East SAH means that Newport Beach's SOI (known as the ultimate
boundary for a city) is complete except forthe Banning Ranch area of West Newport.
Remaining Unincorporated Islands -- "Area 7"
The Knox - Cortese - Hertzberg Act suggests that cities ultimately annex territories within
their spheres of influence. The Act suggests that cities are generally more effective
providers of municipal services (like libraries, public safety, recreation, and street
sweeping) than counties or special districts. As such, the Act tells LAFCOs to adopt
spheres of influence for all cities within each LAFCO's jurisdiction. The adopted
spheres of influence for Costa Mesa and for Newport Beach (for the Santa Ana Heights
neighborhood) are in Attachment A.
The community of West Santa Ana Heights ( "West SAH "), the Santa Ana Country Club
( "SACC "), and several hundred parcels south of Mesa Drive ( "South of Mesa ") are all
within the City of Costa Mesa's SOL Exhibit A shows a blue line (Costa Mesa's SOI)
and a red line (Newport Beach's SOI) between these territories.
Exhibit A
.r
�r
Bards Ann
Country Club ... :. f
Wed Sants
` +
AnaHalghts f
south of
I1euOlive
Of
I
West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa
December 17, 2002
Page 3
Exhibit B shows the specific relationship of the Santa Ana Country Club to its
neighboring unincorporated area (West SAH and South of Mesa).
Exhibit B
As the City of Newport Beach processed its application to annex East SAH and Bay
Knolls, Costa Mesa processed an application to annex about 288 acres in what it called
"Area 7" — West SAH, the SACC, and the area South of Mesa Drive. During the
LAFCO process, OC LAFCO formally deleted West SAH because LAFCO staff believed
that residents there would quickly generate enough protest (more than 50% of the
area's registered voters) to stop an annexation application by Costa Mesa for that
territory.
As it pulled West SAH from Costa Mesa's application in September 2002, LAFCO then
suggested that the Newport Beach City Council consider adding West SAH to our city's
SO] in anticipation of our annexing West SAH. We have not asked your City Council to
discuss this issue until today.
As noted, Newport Beach was successful in its annexation process for East SAH. But
on December 2, 2002, more than 60% of registered voters within the remainder of Area
7 (South of Mesa and the SACC) protested Costa Mesa's annexation application,
effectively stopping the annexation for at least a year.
More about Area 7
With Area 7 protesting out of Costa Mesa's application, Newport Beach may consider
annexing West SAH, the SACC, and the area South of Mesa Drive. As noted, each of
these areas remains within the City of Costa Mesa's SOL Newport Beach has typically
avoided attempting to annex lands in other cities' SOls, because such an action can be
adversarial. The City of Costa Mesa has, in the past, indicated a strong resistance to
allowing the SACC to leave Costa Mesa's SOL
1
West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa
December 17, 2002
Page 4
Annexing Area 7 would change Newport Beach in these ways, among others:
TABLE TO BE ADDED FRIDAY
(population, acreage, dwelling units, park acreage, assessed valuation)
What About Redevelopment? _ - - -
Both West SAH and the SACC /South of Mesa areas are in redevelopment areas,
meaning that a significant portion of the areas' property taxes are diverted to the Orange
County Development Agency for infrastructure projects that address "blight" in the area.
The West SAH region is part of the Santa Ana Heights RDA. The SACC /South of Mesa
area is within the Back Bay RDA. See Exhibits C and D
Exhibit C
BMXUY
Exhibit D
Because these areas are within redevelopment areas, the City may have less
infrastructure costs (for street repair, sidewalks, etc.), but a significant amount of
undercompensated service costs (fire and police) if we are to annex the territory.
Sales tax is unaffected by redevelopment -- Area 7 contains a small neighborhood
shopping center (anchored by Irvine Ranch Market along Irvine Boulevard) and will
generate sales taxes from the SACC pro shop and restaurant. We have not yet
J
���►
wlllllll�'�:�
OR
Because these areas are within redevelopment areas, the City may have less
infrastructure costs (for street repair, sidewalks, etc.), but a significant amount of
undercompensated service costs (fire and police) if we are to annex the territory.
Sales tax is unaffected by redevelopment -- Area 7 contains a small neighborhood
shopping center (anchored by Irvine Ranch Market along Irvine Boulevard) and will
generate sales taxes from the SACC pro shop and restaurant. We have not yet
West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa
December 17, 2002
Page 5
completed a fiscal impact analysis of these territories, so we cannot determine today if
they will provide a net surplus to us following annexation. Because of redevelopment, it
is unlikely that revenues generated from the area will exceed our costs. However, in
some cases we are providing public safety services (completely uncompensated) to this
area already via mutual and automatic aid.
When the City considers an annexation, it must follow Council Policy D -2 (Attachment
B), which tells us to complete a variety of studies and actions before formally presenting
a Resolution of Application to the City Council.
Issues for the City Council:
1 -- Do the "pros" of annexation outweigh the "cons "?
PROS
NB PD & Fire are serving the area already
West SAH and East SAH share a common RDA
Fairly good sales tax generation from retail area
2 — If the City Council expresses an interest
Area 7):
CONS
Area has a limited property tax base
Odd "footprint" for City of NB
Significant code enforcement issues
in annexing Area 7 (or a smaller portion of
• We should follow Council Policy D -2, which directs us to complete a more
thorough fiscal impact analysis, especially to ascertain sales tax revenue from
the area given redevelopment's limits on property taxes.
• We should formally communicate our interest in this territory to the City of Costa
Mesa and to OC LAFCO.
• We should begin pre- zoning the area (pre- zoning is a prerequisite to LAFCO's
consideration of any annexation application).
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review. Pre - zoning of the area will require at least a Negative
Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Submitted by:
961-c2'ki-L
Dave Kiff
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Attachment A --Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Sphere Lines
Attachment B -- Council Policy D -2 (Annexation Guidelines)
F.
- _aa
n 5r
Attachment A
L)
Lu
M
M Lu
0
LU IL
U) Q LL,
LU M
U) w 0
LU LU
IL
U) LL,
w
. ...... cn en
0 <
CL
O U)
Lu 0
x L)
M
L)
LU
LU LU
...... .....
�X.
. ...... ..
Lu Z
.....
LU
LU
MO
j
M
CL j
U.
Cn z
U.
z
O—
w-
z U-
00
00
F.
- _aa
n 5r
Attachment A
L)
Lu
M
M Lu
0
LU IL
U) Q LL,
LU M
U) w 0
LU LU
IL
U) LL,
w
. ...... cn en
0 <
CL
O U)
Lu 0
x L)
M
L)
LU
LU LU
Cn L)
Co L)
Lu Z
z
LU
LU
MO
j
M
CL j
U.
Cn z
U.
z
O—
w-
z U-
00
00
z LU
M
z Lu
p M ;
W
Cn
Cn Lu
M
M
X CL
x CL
LU Cn
Lu Cn
Attachment B
COUNCIL POLICY D -2
ANNEXATION GUIDELINES
The City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence shows both City territory and the
unincorporated County territory that may be considered for annexation to the City.
In evaluating a proposed annexation, City staff shall present a report to the City Council
shall review several items which shall include the following information:
A. A Statistical Summary. All relevant data such as land area, population, dwelling units,
street miles, park and open space acreage, and assessed valuation, to provide a
summary of the area's characteristics.
B. Land Use and Planning. Boundaries, topography and natural features, existing land
use, general plans, and zoning to provide a detailed overview of the existing and
planned physical characteristics of the area and to provide a comparison to areas within
the City.
C. A Plan of Services. Administration and facilities for public services such as police,
fire, sewers, water, and schools, that exist today or are planned for the future. The Plan
should also show the level of services to be provided compared to levels provided within
the City.
D. Traffic and Circulation. Roadways and traffic volumes within the area and their
relation to those within the City.
E. A Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Analysis shall include initial "start-up" costs, other one-
time costs, and continuing annual expenses to the City by each Department to serve the
area. It shall also include one -time and continuing additional revenues by each budget
account to be received by the City as a result of annexation. The Analysis shall show
the costs and benefits associated with the proposed annexation.
F. Demographics. A quantitative description of the population as may be found in
census and other similar data.
G. Boundaries. Opportunity to realign boundaries that more closely approximate logical
man -made or natural physical barriers.
H. Safety. Ability to better control fire, police, public health and safety oriented problems
that cross municipal boundaries.
I. Service. Ability to eliminate awkward and irregular boundaries causing difficulty and
inefficiencies in supplying utilities and City services.
J. Control. Ability to protect City taxpayers against future costs incurred to correct prior
improper land development.
K. Public Facilities. Ability to provide space for specialized public uses, which are
inappropriate in central locations.
L. Blight Elimination. Ability to eliminate existing or potential land uses and
improvements considered a blighting or deteriorating influence.
M. Incorporation. Likelihood of County areas to incorporate to the detriment of existing
cities.
N. Image. Ability to increase City stature by annexation of land and /or improvements
with exceptional characteristics.
h O 4)
00 0)
N M
ora
s�
�a
in E
V U
c y
U
Q
Q
h
d
U
a-
w
LL
LL
Q
CO
CO
w
CO
CO
Z
Q
w
Z
z
Q
w
LL
Q
.4-
w
Q
d
Z
0
O
w
U
Z
w
w
w
LL
w
w
w
z
Q
w
N�
LL
Q
U
2
H
December 17, 2002
Study Session
Agenda Item No. SS2
M
N
M
0)
O
t
N
N
M
V
N
�_
r--
In
O
1�
C
0)
06
M
N
a
N
06
+
+
(D
to
M
N
N
f
69
O
M
O
O
r
000
N
Co
N
M
O
Co
69
0
O
LO
04
0
M
0
O
Co
r
MFF
CO
M
In
0)
N
V
Co
O
69
(D
I-
0)
O
M
�
01
V
O
V
N
1`7
1-
In
V
1
r-
N
V
N
M
1
M
V
N
N
N
60
M
0)
O
O
CO
CO
N
'7
V
N
O
LO
LO
f1
1
N
V
V
r
to
�
d
M
vl.
E
y
00
Ill
N
In
0
04
C
Cl)
d
O
CO
F-
w
0
r
a
N
W
r-:
c6
4
N
6
w
r
N
N
1.-
N
M
r
N
n
1
a
d
•_
0
0
E
Z4r. 2.
1 4Si./
_ o
0
rv'�•.
December 17, 2002
Study Session
Agenda Item No. SS2
w O 'IT
m o
2N
Q
:CL
N
a
u) E
V N
C U
U
U
Q
Q
y
U1
O
d
W
w
LL
LL
Q
W
CO
Z
O
W
Z
Z
Q
W
LL
O
W
Q
d
Z
O
O
W
U
Z
W
w
W
LL
W
w
W
Z
O
W
U)
�N
LL
Q
S
U
U)
f-
December 17, 2002
Studv Session
Agenda Item No. SS2
�.
CO
N
O
O
R
00
a.vi,
In
r
m
(O
O
•
N
Cl) M
R
1�
N
1((
NpJJ
Co
N
R
OCT
N
06
+
+
cc
c
ZEN
(l)
4
N
Z�y1
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
n
N
0
y
ui
N
rn
0
IA
0)00
N
M
(O
CO
Ol
N
R
O
O
x
m
E<3
'_ ••
N
R
N
(O
N
R
N
7•..
v
0
v
N°
n
v
ry
�
'
O
-t
N
O
1
.1
N
m
�
r
N
N
N
69
�.:�
O
m
O
O
(O
N
R
O
•
H
N
N
N
r "W
C
(O
N
o Nj,
•
n
y
m
69
•E
y
m
0
N
0
R
eM
N
00
(�
o
00
n
N
cp
v
(
o
m
n
(O
-t
N
O)
O
-
N
n
N
Cl)
-
N
n
y
0
•
N
G
Z
69
T
rAM
Vo
December 17, 2002
Studv Session
Agenda Item No. SS2
Annexation Issues
West Santa Ana Heights,
the Santa Ana Country Club, &
South of Mesa Area
n :xxt Beaty otV Ca mW se
o tx, 1I, 1001
What's left...
*,Remaining unincorporated islands left:
• Banning Ranch (within NB's sphere)
• West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa (in
Costa Mesa's sphere)
• LAFCO didn't even let Costa Mesa apply to
annex West SAH;
• South of Mesa protested out of CM's
application on December 2, 2002 with SACC
Included.
Area Summary (estimated)
L�•SSJ
Overview
® City Council directed us to annex the
Newport Coast, East Santa Ana Heights, and
Bay Knolls In October 1999.
+ We're about done...
• Newport Coast annexed January 1, 2002
• East SAH's effective date Is July 1, 2003
• Bay Knolls' effective date is July 1, 2003
About "Area 7"
Issues — Area 7
• Still In Costa Mesa's sphere of Influence. We
typically havent attempted to annex areas still
within our nelghbors'spheres.
. 9awiNenYa[Oitn by as wait »]CCSta Mesa bkrs an
a/SimaDYe aM1vr m nynorr Anv 7hMI Itr sphere a
7MltcntY?
• Area 7 Is In redevelopment. Redevelopment diverts
growth In property taxes to the Orange County
Development Agency to fund Infrastructure projects.
Ccuxr/ RNky D-1 �u /ms a mae tlera //a7 fisolimput
sntly Na! AVAY ar M6 awe dnOOfMrs..
. may bOrdr // ftnws Pe* i; SW RMnue hom Me ama
may be M9ner dnn pmpgry br.
Issues — Area 7
4 What If vile DONT annex the territory?
• Aryuab/y, Me area -N new be pad dfCOlb Mesa
wlbpur arroCCdrange M L4FCO bw -" wOrgyrbnue ro
ro.sevxe ods wRh m re(mblownent
* Does annexing the area give us any advantage over
JWA expansion?
• 052,tAlmy- ALUCMwadeadyrimior kv/agwoex'
abidry M dwW land uses am,nd adpcvm.
• Run"y AwMcWn Zan (RAF) notamcaab,@. in parr
damuse /rs rrof M any Sphe'e d lMlivxe. Ca n V sbN
hate Wto pow ota anneaaff. by refusdg to nwobat,
popery bar errbange radublym
Going Forward
>K East SAH and BK annexations take effect July 1,
2003 - that's done.
it City & County still attempting to nail down site for
permanent SAH Fire Station.
♦ PAC seeks City support fo r a plan to buy the YMCA,
renovate It. and operate It as a community center.
>
CC LAFCO has asked your council to formally
consider adding West SAH to NE s sphere. LAFCO
has not yet asked us about the rest of Area 7.
. Lri'ngm means Wr b5e Oq' wi / /Hate ro ampkte ov
write ft n,vllm and County Po 0pne, ae Me an a
Barretieritesandly Dan and roprzme bye area
BEPoRE we an apply ro annex bye area.
What's the Timing?
• Council Agenda Item
= January 2003
f D -Z and Fiscal Impact Analysis
= April 2003
Pre-zone the areas
= May 2003
- If appropriate, apply to LAFCO
= May 2003
• LAFCO hearing
= September 2003
6 Protest period ends
= December 2003
♦ Annexation effective date
= July ZOD4
Bemuse Of Aare &c w of Egwpaaocn pnVMdurk
a--v dbes gene agy dent get any ppe/ty pag ft.
an annw and area until Me J* 1 f0160tNr9 a Da berJ
awttrauandate be07mu;Mdtre Dk berl,20d?
SBOEdsadlMe. Sales fares, howere; ao'irm OUartary.
Issues — Area 7
+ Community Interest and Identity
• Sign /ftant community support - from West S4 H,
from the S4 CC and from South of Mesa - for
annevabon to Newport Beady.
• Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan /inks West SAH to
East 54H (but not SACC oY South of Mesa).
• Santa Ana Heights PmjectAma Committee (PAC)
acts as de facto community assdciataan for both
West 54H and Edst54H
Going Forward
k We'd like to bring you back an agenda item
directing us to:
• Communicate our Interest (or lack thereof) in
annexing Area 7 (all or part) to CC LAFCO, to
affected residents, and to Costa Mesa.
• If applicable, perform a fiscal Impact analysis and
the remainder of the Council Policy D -2
obligations & to return to you with the results of
the Analysis.
Find Out More...
Find out more at
• amm,oclafco.c
beach.ca us
• �w.leainfo.ra aov
• 949. 644-3002 (us)
• 714.834 -2556 (LAFCO)
� r � ,
West Santa Ana Heights
66 OG
F X
South of Mesa
West Santa Ana Heights
I
I
_r
Kline Drive (WSAH)