HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Annexation Application to LAFCOCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 14
February 14, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
949/644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport - beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Resolution 2006 - —:A Resolution of Application to
Reorganize Territory known as West Santa Ana Heights, the
Emerson /Churchill Tract, and the Corporate Yard Fueling Parcel
ISSUE:
Should the City Council adopt a formal Council Resolution directing City staff to work
through Orange County LAFCO to reorganize three areas adjacent to the city, including
West Santa Ana Heights, the "Emerson /Churchill" tract, and a parcel containing the
Corporate Yard's fueling area?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2006 -_ serving as the Resolution of Application to the Orange
County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) regarding the reorganization of
territory along the city's western borders. The following territory shall be included in the
Resolution:
• West Santa Ana Heights ( "Section K);
• The Emerson /Churchill Tract ( "Section D "); and
• A portion of the General Services Department's Corporation Yard ( "Section E ")
DISCUSSION:
Background: State law (the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000 [Government Code §56000 et 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.gov. 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
Resolution 2006 -_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 2
monthly in Santa Ana, addresses local government boundary changes for our region
(www.oclafco.ca slov).
Newport Beach and Orange County LAFCO have followed the Act to annex the
following territory to Newport Beach in recent years:
• The Newport Coast (on January 1, 2002);
• Eastern Santa Ana Heights (on July 1, 2003); and
• Bay Knolls (also on July 1, 2003).
The annexation of these lands meant that almost all properties within Newport Beach's
SOI (considered to be the ultimate boundary for a city) had been annexed into the city
except for (generally) the Emerson /Churchill tract and the Banning Ranch area of
western Newport Beach. The unincorporated area of Banning Ranch, within the City's
SOI, is also bounded by a 1' strip of the City's limits.
Remaining Unincorporated Islands
LAFCO law suggests that cities should ultimately annex territories within spheres of
influence. The law 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 law tells LAFCOs to adopt spheres of
influence for all cities within each LAFCO's jurisdiction.
These proposed annexation areas are unincorporated islands between Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach — one is within Newport Beach's Sphere and three are within Costa
Mesa's Sphere (see attached map at the end of this staff report):
The community of West Santa Ana Heights ( "Section A" — within the Costa Mesa SOI);
• The Santa Ana Country Club ( "SACC" or "Section B" — within the CM SOI);
Several hundred parcels South of Mesa Drive ( "Section C" — within the CM SOI), and a
• Small 9- parcel neighborhood called the "Emerson /Churchill Tract" (called "Section W —
within Newport Beach's SOI).
As the City of Newport Beach processed its application to annex East SAH and Bay
Knolls in 2001 -2002, the City of Costa Mesa processed an application to annex about
288 acres in what the city called "Area 7" — roughly what this staff report calls Sections
A, B, and C. During the LAFCO process, OC LAFCO formally deleted Section A from
Costa Mesa's application 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 Section A from Costa Mesa's application, LAFCO then suggested that the
Newport Beach City Council consider adding Section A to our city's SOI in anticipation
of our annexing Section A. Council never formally acted on this request, but it
discussed the matter several times prior to today's Council meeting.
Resolution 2006_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 3
LAFCO did, however, vote to annex both South of Mesa (Section C) and the Santa Ana
Country Club (SACC - Section B) to Costa Mesa. When it came time for the residents of
South of Mesa to weigh in, about 70% of the registered voters within Section C
protested Costa Mesa's annexation application for Section C. The 70% protest vote
terminated both the South of Mesa annexation and the SACC annexation to Costa
Mesa.
As noted, Newport Beach was successful in its annexation process for East SAH.
During the same period when Costa Mesa applied to annex Sections B and C, the
SACC and residents of West SAH both filed applications with LAFCO asking that they
be removed from Costa Mesa's SOL LAFCO denied the SACC's request and continued
indefinitely West SAH's request.
With Section C protesting out of Costa Mesa's application, OC LAFCO staff asked
Newport Beach on January 14, 2003 if it would consider annexing these sections. As
noted, these areas are within the City of Costa Mesa's SOL Newport Beach has
typically avoided attempting to annex lands in other cities' SOls, because such actions
can be adversarial. The City of Costa Mesa has, in the past, indicated a strong
resistance to allowing Section B or C to leave Costa Mesa's SOL
Subsequent meetings of the "Newport Beach -Costa Mesa Borders Committee"
(consisting of Mayor Webb, Mayor pro Tern Rosansky, and Council Member Daigle
from Newport Beach along with Council Members Foley and Bever from Costa Mesa)
again exhibited Costa Mesa's concern about any annexation by Newport Beach of
Sections A, B or C. Regarding Sections B and C, Costa Mesa asserts that:
• The SACC's major entrance is off of Newport Boulevard;
• Costa Mesa's emergency services are less than a mile from the SACC;
• Costa Mesa surrounds the SACC along three sides; and
• The area South of Mesa has more in common with Costa Mesa than with Newport
Beach and is unlike the West Santa Ana Heights area (the latter being linked to East
Santa Ana Heights due to the existing redevelopment project area).
On January 13, 2004, the City Council approved pre- zoning and the environmental
review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for Sections A,
B, C, and D. Pre - zoning is required before LAFCO can consider any application. We
pre -zoned all four areas instead of limiting pre- zoning to A, C, and D, because pre -
zoning is a time - consuming and costly effort that we did not want to replicate if your
Council chose to add Sections B or C into the application. Pre - zoning has no effect on
the territory in question if such pre- zoning isn't followed by an annexation.
Section D. Section D is a small nine - parcel neighborhood to the north (inland) side of
Churchill Street called "the Emerson /Churchill tract." This area is within Newport
Beach's SOI but has not been annexed. LAFCO came to the City a few years ago and
asked that we consider annexing these parcels to Newport Beach as a part of any
Resolution 2006 -_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 4
island annexation we would consider. LAFCO believes that this community should be a
part of the city, and Costa Mesa has not argued otherwise. Adding Section D to the city
limits does not require an SOI change.
Section E. Lastly, staff recommends Council consider one additional parcel in any
resolution to reorganize territory — the site upon which a portion of Newport Beach's
General Services Department Corporation Yard now sits (called Section E for the
purposes of this staff report). Today, this parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number 425 -352-
01) is within the city limits of Costa Mesa. Detaching the parcel from Costa Mesa and
annexing it to Newport Beach may make it more straightforward for our City to
administer the property, especially in the event that the fueling station on the site today
is changed or amended to include a facility to fuel compressed natural gas (CNG)
vehicles.
Unlike Sections A, B. C, and D, this parcel has not been pre - zoned. City staff will need
to move forward with pre- zoning of Section E if Council selects this parcel for
detachment from Costa Mesa. An aerial photograph of Section E follows:
For more details about the proposed annexation areas, readers should review staff
reports (at www. city. newport- beach. ca. us) dated January 13, 2004 and March 3, 2003.
Resolution 2006 -_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 5
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review. Annexation itself DOES require CEQA documentation —
a negative declaration was prepared and approved on January 13, 2004 for all of the
noted areas except the small General Services yard parcel.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours
in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). The
resolution and staff report was mailed to affected property owners in the
Emerson /Churchill tract, announced via the SAH PAC website in the West Santa Ana
Heights area, and transmitted via mail and e-mail to affected agencies in the region
(including the City of Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Irvine Ranch Water
District, OC LAFCO, the County of Orange, and others.
Submitted by:
2 C��Dav6 -kill
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Resolution 2006 -_ (Resolution of Application, with Exhibit A)
Resolution 2006 -_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 200&
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY
AT WEST SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, THE EMERSOWCHURCHILL TRACT,
AND THE GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATE YARD FUELING PARCEL
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the
Cortese - Knox - Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with
Section 56000 of the CA Govemment Code, for a reorganization which would concurrently:
(1) Annex territory to the City of Newport Beach;
(2) Detach territory from the Sphere of Influence of the City of
Costa Mesa; and
(3) Detach territory from the City of Costa Mesa.
WHEREAS, this reorganization shall be known as the "Western Borders Reorganization"
and shall include three distinct "sections" that shall be known as follows:
Section A- West Santa Ana Heights
Section D - Emerson/Churchill Tract
Section E - GS Yard Fueling Area
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this Resolution of Application has been given by
mail to affected and interested agencies; and
WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows:
(a) The City anticipates that it can provide more efficient municipal services, especially in
the areas of law enforcement and community recreational services, to the sections
than currently provided;
(b) The City seeks to assist the County of Orange, the City of Costa Mesa, and Orange
County LAFCO in improving and simplifying the service delivery, jurisdiction, and
governance of several unincorporated "islands" adjacent to the City;
(c) The City seeks to improve the administration of the Santa Ana Heights
redevelopment project area and its planned projects; and
(d) The City seeks to consolidate administration of its General Services Corporation
Yard by placing the entire Yard in the corporate limits of Newport Beach.
WHEREAS, the following agencies would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional
changes:
AGENCY
City of Newport Beach
City of Costa Mesa
County of Orange
NATURE OF CHANGE
Annexation
Detachment from sphere
and detachment from
corporate city limits
Annexation of
unincorporated territory
Resolution 2006 -_: A Resolution of Application
February 14, 2006
Page 7
WHEREAS, the territory included within the boundaries of the reorganization - which
may be completed in separate and distinct phases — is inhabited and an approximate
description of the ultimate boundaries of the territory after all phases are complete is set forth in
Exhibit A and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, spheres of influence will be concurrently amended for the City of Newport
Beach and the City of Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, it is desired that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and
conditions established by the Local Agency Formation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared and approved (on January 13,
2004) a Negative Declaration for the majority of the reorganization in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines in conjunction with,
where applicable, the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and Pre - zoning for the Sections;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts and
approves this Resolution of Application, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of
Orange County is hereby requested to begin proceedings for the Reorganization of Territory as
illustrated in Exhibit A (the "Western Borders Reorganization "), according to the terms and
conditions established by LAFCO and in the manner provided by the Cortese - Knox - Herzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000; and be it further
RESOLVED that this Reorganization of Territory shall include: (1) the detachment of the
area known as West Santa Ana Heights (Section A) from Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence; (2)
the annexation of Section A to the corporate boundaries of Newport Beach; (3) the annexation of
the area known as the Emerson/Churchill Tract (Section D) to the corporate boundaries of
Newport Beach; (4) the detachment of a portion of the General Services Yard (Section E) from
Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and from Costa Mesa's corporate boundaries; and (5) the
annexation of Section E to the corporate boundaries of Newport Beach; and be it further
RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby seeks the
concurrence of the City of Costa Mesa to detach Section E from the City of Costa Mesa's
Sphere of Influence and corporate limits.
ADOPTED this 14`h Day of February, 2006
DON WEBB
Mayor of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
LaVONNE HARKLESS
Newport Beach City Clerk
r1
a
x
W
FEB -10 -2006 11116
"RE. ^,EIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" 11 d I `I' D (a
P.02
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200
FROM THE 09FICE 0= THE CITY COUNCIL •CIS -�(i I �') 1 _')7
February 10, 2006
Honorable Mayor Don Webb and City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
1821 Mariners Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WESTERN BORDERS
REORGANIZATION
Dear Honorable Mayor Webb and Council Members,
On your February 14, 2006 agenda is a request to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to reorganize the City of Newport Beach's western borders
in respect to territory that is currently within the City of Costa Mesa's corporate
boundaries and sphere of influence. We wish to express our strong opposition to
this request given that the Costa Mesa City Council, as recently as of January 5,
2005, supported retention of Costa Mesa's current sphere of influence, including
West Santa Ana Heights.
Additionally, we have met twice with members of the Newport Beach Borders
Committee, including Mayor Webb, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, and Council
Member Daigle. In both meetings, we expressed the need for an equitable
solution between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in respect to each City's
corporate boundaries and sphere of influence. Specifically, if territory is to be
removed from the City of Costa Mesa and added to the City of Newport Beach
then an equal amount of Newport Beach territory should be added to Costa
Mesa.
We believe that Newport Beach's proposed request to LAFCO is premature and
ignores the interests of the City of Costa Mesa. We have offered a range of
options in the spirit of cooperation, yet to date, we have received no such
reciprocation from the City of Newport Beach. It has been made very clear on a
number of occasions by Orange County 2 I District Supervisor James Silva and
the Board and staff of LAFCO that they desire applications which reflect the
collaboration of our two cities. fiherefore, we respectfully request that this
agenda item be continued so that the Borders Committee may thoroughly
explore the exchange of territories between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and
77 FAIR OWVE
PHONE: (7141754.5265 - FAX; (7te) 7545330 • TOO: (714) 754S244 w.vW.G.cOSIa- m65a -ra -us
FEE -10 -2006 11:1S P.03
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2006
Page 2
determine a solution that meets the objectives of LAFCO and the County of
Orange and is equitable to both cities.
Sincerely,
d�
ERIC BEVER
Mayor Pro Tern
KATR A F Y
Council Member
C: City of Costa Mesa City Council
Ms. Joyce Crosthwaite
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 235
Santa Ana, CA 92701
4
TOTAL P.03
Page 1 of 1
"REC!IVFn AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:"
a-
Malkemus, Cathy
From: Harkless, LaVonne on behalf of City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Malkemus, Cathy
Subject: FW: Please copy and distribute to city council for tonight's meeting
Flease Print forcjistribution at tonight's meeting. Thanks.
From: Janet Rosener [mailto:janet @janetrosener.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:34 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Please copy and distribute to city council for tonight's meeting
Dear Lavonne Harkless,
I am a homeowner in Area 7 and want it to be noted that I favor annexation of All of Area 7 to Newport
Beach.
For reference purposes, my home address is 2657 Riverside Drive, Costa Mesa, Ca 92627.
Could you please confirm receipt of this email so i know my "voice" has been heard?
Feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Kind Regards,
Janet Rosener
949.574.9995
02/14/2006