HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Annexation of Area 7 - West Santa Ana Heights-Santa Ana Country Club-South of Mesa)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 18
March 11, 2003
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: Annexation of Area 7 (West Santa Ana Heights, Santa Ana Country
Club, and South of Mesa) -- Letter to OC LAFCO, Fiscal Impact and
Related Analyses
ISSUE:
Should the City apply to annex West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club,
and neighboring territories?
RECOMMENDATION:
Select either Alternative #1 or Alternative #2:
1. (A) Direct the City Manager to proceed with City- County discussions associated with
the transfer of redevelopment authority for Area 7 and East SAH and report back
to the Council on progress with the County prior to making any application to OC
LAFCO regarding any annexation of this area; and
(B) Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to LAFCO stating the City's interest in filing a
Resolution of Application to annex West Santa Ana Heights; the Santa Ana
Country Club; and /or the unincorporated areas south of Mesa Drive assuming
that the City can also assume redevelopment responsibilities for the area; and
(C) Direct the City Manager to work with stakeholders like the City of Costa Mesa,
the Santa Ana Heights Project Area Committee (PAC), the JWA Airport Director,
and interested residents and businesses on any annexation action.
Ce:
2. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Orange County Local Agency
Formation Commission stating the City's intent not to pursue any annexations at
this time.
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Background: State law (the Cortese - Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganiza-
tion Act of 2000 [Government Code §56000 et seq.j) 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.leainfo.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
monthly in Santa Ana, addresses local government boundary changes for our region
(www. oclafco. ca.gov ).
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
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 procWsed 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 for the Bannthg 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 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 SO[)
and a red line (Newport Beach's SOI) between these territories.
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 3
Exhibit A
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.
- -i
r
Santa Ana
�
Country Club
-
'�4
Wed Santa
I
+`
Ana Heights
+\
{
SOLO Of
Mem Drive
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.
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 4
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
SOI in anticipation of our annexing West SAH.
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, OC LAFCO asked Newport
Beach on January 14, 2003 to 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
Annexing Area 7 would change Newport Beach in these ways, among others:
Category
Population I
Acres
Acres of Park S ace
Street Miles
I 77,000 1 1.418 1 78.416 1 800 0 80,2181
Assessed Valuation $ 22,074,712,813 1 $ 174.423,678 1 $ 22.249,136,491 1.$ 106,429,532 1 $ 6,092,5671 $ 22361.658.590
All numbers are estimates
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 (called the "tax
increment ") are diverted to the Orange County Development Agency for infrastructure
projects that address "blight" in the area. By State law, 20% of the tax increment must
be used to increase the area's supply of low -and moderate - income housing. The West
SAH region is part of the Santa Ana Heights "redevelopment project area" (RDA). The
SACC /South of Mesa area is within the Back Bay RDA. See Exhibits C and D.
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Bay Knolls and East
Newport Beach
Area 7
Aker July 1, 2004
Today
SAH
July 1, 2003
(except SACC)
SACC
(d Area 7 t SACC
annexed)
I 77,000 1 1.418 1 78.416 1 800 0 80,2181
Assessed Valuation $ 22,074,712,813 1 $ 174.423,678 1 $ 22.249,136,491 1.$ 106,429,532 1 $ 6,092,5671 $ 22361.658.590
All numbers are estimates
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 (called the "tax
increment ") are diverted to the Orange County Development Agency for infrastructure
projects that address "blight" in the area. By State law, 20% of the tax increment must
be used to increase the area's supply of low -and moderate - income housing. The West
SAH region is part of the Santa Ana Heights "redevelopment project area" (RDA). The
SACC /South of Mesa area is within the Back Bay RDA. See Exhibits C and D.
Exhibit C
euxenr
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 5
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. 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.
Recent Actions. The City Council discussed annexing Area 7 at a Study Session on
December 17, 2002. We went away from that meeting intending to further analyze the
pros and cons of the annexation and to complete the data analysis required by Council
Policy D -2. D -2 tells us to examine a variety of issues -- including conducting a Fiscal
Impact Analysis -- before formally presenting a Resolution of Application to the City
Council. Attachment A to this report contains a report to the Council per Policy D -2.
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review. Should the Council later adopt a Resolution of
Application to annex Area 7, pre- zoning will require at least a Negative Declaration
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 6
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:
� . (r- r
Dave kill
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Attachment A -- D2 Report
Attachment B -- Map of Intersection between RPZ and Costa Mesa Sphere line
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 7
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. 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.
Exhibit E shows this information for Area 7 (West SAH, SACC, and South of Mesa):
Category
Po ulation
Acres
Acres of Park Space
Street Miles
Exhibit E
77,000 1 1,418 1 78,418 1 1.800 1 0 80,218
26,8151 m9i 27,064 1 144 1 114 1 27,322
478.2 ==OL 478 1 01 01 478
289.5 1 6.0 1 296 1 3.5 1 0 299
Assessed Valuation
It 22,074.712,913 1 $ 1]4,423,6]8 15 22.249,136,491 $ 106.429.532 1 $ 6,092.567 S 22.361659.590
All numbers are estimates
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.
Area 7 is similar in land use, topography, and natural features to East Santa Ana Heights and to
the Bay Knolls community. Most homes in the community were constructed between 1950 and
1969, with several new units in place. Zoning includes R -1 (single family residential), R -2 (multi-
family residential), commercial, and agricultural. Much of the West Santa Ana Heights portion of
Area 7 falls within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. See Exhibit F & G for two detailed
maps of the SAH Specific Plan's Land Use District map and its Community Profile.
Newport Beach.
Newport Beach
Bay Knolls and East
New Beach
Aran ]
��
A9er July 1;2004
Today
SAN
July 1, 2003
(except SAW)
(a Area 7 t SAW
annexed)
77,000 1 1,418 1 78,418 1 1.800 1 0 80,218
26,8151 m9i 27,064 1 144 1 114 1 27,322
478.2 ==OL 478 1 01 01 478
289.5 1 6.0 1 296 1 3.5 1 0 299
Assessed Valuation
It 22,074.712,913 1 $ 1]4,423,6]8 15 22.249,136,491 $ 106.429.532 1 $ 6,092.567 S 22.361659.590
All numbers are estimates
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.
Area 7 is similar in land use, topography, and natural features to East Santa Ana Heights and to
the Bay Knolls community. Most homes in the community were constructed between 1950 and
1969, with several new units in place. Zoning includes R -1 (single family residential), R -2 (multi-
family residential), commercial, and agricultural. Much of the West Santa Ana Heights portion of
Area 7 falls within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. See Exhibit F & G for two detailed
maps of the SAH Specific Plan's Land Use District map and its Community Profile.
LL
w_
;Q_
t
Ua
W U
_ LL
Z W
Q h
H
Z
h
Z
Q
J
F
OC
Q
Z
�q1w
80
8
3�
d
a
VIM
A
m
E
E
=1�1�1111=
�
,�IIIIIIIIII�►
oil
1111H
yc�
Y
0
j
C
A
.1
C
q
�
F
A 9
u <
�
C
EY
a
a
m
Z
m
U
ry
n
n
yyv 5
F3
EE
V m c
a`
tJ
U
OR
c
?�
E
E
u
W
e
�
Z
j
u�i Y
G
I
A
LY�
nom+• ...•wA
�
® ®®
®
®�
j
L
F
OC
Q
Z
=1�1�1111=
�
,�IIIIIIIIII�►
F
OC
Q
Z
The most significant differences between West SAH and the area to be annexed to the City on
July 1, 2003 are:
The presence of up to seven dog- boarding facilities or kennels on Riverside Drive in
West SAH. A kennel overlay within the Specific Plan allows such uses. When we
moved to annex East SAH, we adopted the Specific Plan as our zoning and planning for
East SAH -- the kennel operators will expect us to do the same for West SAH.
The deteriorated state of Old Kline Drive (also in West SAH), an unpaved road in need
of drainage improvements, realignment, and paving.
The apparent lack of County of Orange code enforcement in portions of West SAH
(relating to refuse, cars on lawns).
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.
If Newport Beach were to annex this territory, the Service Plan would be as shown in Exhibit H:
Exhibit H
Proposed Plan
2003 Area 7 (West SAH, South
February 25,
of
of Mesa, SACC)
Service
Current Provider
Proposed Provider
Public Safety
Police Protection
OC Sheriff
NBPD
Fire Protection
OCFA/NB FD
NBFD
Emergency Medical
OCFA/NB FD
NBFD
Animal Control
County of Orange
NBPD
Utilities
Wastewater
CM Sanitary District
CM Sanitary District
- Collection
CM Sanitary District
CM Sanitary District
- Disposal
CM Sanitary District
CM Sanitary District
- Treatment
OC Sanitation District
OC Sanitation District
- Reclamation
None
None
Water
IRWD
IRWD
Solid Waste
- Disposal
Waste Management Inc
Waste Management Inc
- Recycling
Waste Management Inc
Waste Management Inc
Public Works
Lighting and Landscaping
OCDA
City RDA
Flood Control
OCDA/OCFCD
OCFCD /City RDA
Street Maintenance
County of Orange
NB General Services
Community Development
Planning
County PDSD
NB Planning Dept
Building
County PDSD
NB Building Dept
Redevelopment
OCDA
City RDA
Community Services
Library
Costa Mesa /Newport
NB Library
Parks
N/A
N/A
Recreation
Costa Mesa/Newport
NB Rec & Sr Svcs
Senior S wices
Costa Mesa/Newpprt
NB Rec & Sr Svcs
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 11
D. Traffic and Circulation. Roadways and traffic volumes within the area and their
relation to those within the City.
Major roadways in Area 7 include:
Irvine Avenue
Mesa Drive
Newport Boulevard
Smaller residential streets in Area 7 include:
South of Mesa:
Cutter Way
Granada Way
La Canada Way
Mira Loma Place
Redlands Drive
Riverside Drive
Santo Tomas Street (East of Santa Ana)
Seawind Drive
Willo Lane
Santa Ana Avenue
University Drive
West Santa Ana Heights:
August Lane
Bruinbark Lane
Indus Street
Lange Drive
Kline Drive
Orchard Drive
Pegasus Street
Redlands Drive
Riverside Drive
We have not done any traffic volume analysis on these streets given that traffic on these streets
will impact Newport Beach without regard to our annexation of Area 7.
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.
Completing a fiscal impact analysis of Area 7's impacts on city government should the City
choose to annex it is a challenge because of:
• Uncertainty with the status of the vehicle license fee backfill;
• Uncertainty over the percentage of redevelopment revenue that may be diverted to
schools as a result of the State's budget crisis;
• Discussions between the City and the County over who might administer the
redevelopment project area should the City annex West SAH.
• Existing mutual aid and automatic aid agreements mean that our PD and the Fire
Department often are first responders on calls in Area 7 already.
That said, if we make the assumption that city fire and police are already in effect serving this
area, there are few additional expenses associated with annexing it. This is an easier
assumption for fire and emergency medical services, because we have an existing station at
Zenith Avenue in Santa Ana Heights.
The following Fiscal Impact Analysis (Exhibit I) is an estimate of the revenues and expenses
associated with annexing Area 7.
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 12
Exhibit I
56,000
Sales Taxes $ 120,353 $ 123,964 $ 127,683 $ 131,513 $ 135,459
Transient Occupancy Taxes
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Franchise Fees
$
32,400
$
33,372
$
34,373
$
35,404
$
36,466
Business License Taxes
$
3,000
$
3,000
$
3,000
$
3,000
$
3,000
Property Transfer Taxes
$
2,464
$
2,538
$
2,614
$
2,692
$
2,773
VLF
$
22,572
$
23,249
$
23,947
$
24,665
$
25,405
Redevelopment Proceeds
$
1,500,000
$
1,537,500
$
1,575,938
$
1,615,336
$
1,655,719
State Gas Tax
$
34,200
$
35,226
$
36,283
$
37,371
$
38,492
Other Misc Revenue
$
25,200
$
25,956
$
26,735
$
27,537
$
28,363
Revenue Subtotal (no RDA)
$
296,189
$
304,985
$
314,045
$
323,376
$
332,987
Revenue Subtotal (with RDA)
$
1,796,189
$
1,842,485
$
1,889,982
$
1,938,712
$
1,988,706
Police
$
103,450
$
107,588
$
111,892
$
116,367
$
121,022
Fire & Emergency Medical
$
36,000
$
37,440
$
38,938
$
40,495
$
42,115
General Administration
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Services
$
11,954
$
12,432
$
12,929
$
13,447
$
13,984
Planning
$
5,111
$
5,315
$
5,528
$
5,749
$
5,979
Building
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Rec & Senior Services
$
27,000
$
28,080
$
29,203
$
30,371
$
31,586
Library
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
CIP (Redevelopment Plan)
$
1,50,000
$
1,537,500
$
1,575,938
$
1,615,336
$
1,655,719
Additions to Reserves
$
22,022
$
22,903
$
23,819
%
24,772
$
25,762
Expense Subtotal (w/RDA)
$
1,705,537
$
1,751,258
$
1,798,246
$
1,846,537
$
1,896,168
Rev - Expenses (w/RDA)
$
90,652
$
91,227
$
91,736
$
92,175
$
92,538
"all numbers estimates
This FIA considers the impact of the City taking on the redevelopment project area in West SAH
(which includes East SAH). The remainder of Area 7 is also within an RDA project area, which
also could be taken over by the City if the County consents to our doing so. While this FIA
shows a small net gain associated with administering Area 7, the extent to which the City serves
the unincorporated area now without any compensation must be considered. Further, there is a
significant likelihood that the County of Orange will continue to be forced to reduce service to its
unincorporated islands as the County focuses its mission and resources on regional services
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 13
rather than municipal services -- doing so would only increase our uncompensated expenses in
this region, again due to mutual aid and automatic aid agreements.
F. Demographics. A quantitative description of the population as may be found in
census and other similar data.
Generally, the data shown below indicate that Area 7 is similar to East Santa Ana Heights
except for the fact that West SAH has a greater number of multi - family units.
G. Boundaries. Opportunity to realign boundaries that more closely approximate logical
man -made or natural physical barriers.
Annexing Area 7 does not align city boundaries with "logical man -made natural physical
barriers." The most logical boundaries from this standpoint would be to align the city's
boundaries along Irvine Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue, or Newport Boulevard.
H. Safety. Ability to better control fire, police, public health and safety oriented problems
that cross municipal boundaries.
Given the County of Orange's budget concerns and its stated intent to "get out of the municipal
services business," annexing Area 7 would allow the City to better control fire, police, public
'Demographics
Population
1,800
Ethnicity
White /Non- Hispanic
84%
Hispanic Origin
11%
African American
0%
Native American
1%
Asian /Pacific Islander
4%
Other
0%
Age
Under 18
14%
18 to 65
77%
66 and over
9%
Med House Income
$ 45,000
% Below Poverty
6%
Home Ownership
Owner Occupied
27%
Renter Occupied
68%
Vacant
5%
G. Boundaries. Opportunity to realign boundaries that more closely approximate logical
man -made or natural physical barriers.
Annexing Area 7 does not align city boundaries with "logical man -made natural physical
barriers." The most logical boundaries from this standpoint would be to align the city's
boundaries along Irvine Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue, or Newport Boulevard.
H. Safety. Ability to better control fire, police, public health and safety oriented problems
that cross municipal boundaries.
Given the County of Orange's budget concerns and its stated intent to "get out of the municipal
services business," annexing Area 7 would allow the City to better control fire, police, public
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 14
health, code enforcement, and safety- oriented problems in Area 7's neighborhoods and for
those problems that may be transmitted to neighborhoods within the city today.
I. Service. Ability to eliminate awkward and irregular boundaries causing difficulty and
inefficiencies in supplying utilities and City services.
As noted in Section G, Annexing Area 7 does not align city boundaries with "logical man -made
natural physical barriers." The most logical boundaries from this standpoint would be to align
the city's boundaries along Irvine Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue, or Newport
Boulevard. Annexation of Area 7 therefore does not give us an ability to eliminate awkward and
irregular boundaries causing difficulty and inefficiencies in supplying City services to this
community.
J. Control. Ability to protect City taxpayers against future costs incurred to correct prior
improper land development.
The City Attorney has determined, based on a preliminary analysis, that annexation of Area 7 in
general or the runway protection zone (RPZ) in particular would not increase the City's ability to
control or prevent some future physical expansion of John Wayne Airport. The Airport Director
has disavowed any intention to even consider an extension of the main air carrier runway to the
south and any such extension would require the County to acquire property in Newport Beach to
expand the RPZ — an acquisition the City would not support unless convinced that its
constituents would benefit.
Mr. Alan Murphy, the JWA Airport Director, has asked that the City not attempt to annex that
portion of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence that intersects with the RPZ. See Attachment B for
a map of this area.
K. Public Facilities. Ability to provide space for specialized public uses, which are
inappropriate in central locations.
The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan does not envision any sites within Area 7 for public
facilities.
L. Blight Elimination. Ability to eliminate existing or potential land uses and
improvements considered a blighting or deteriorating influence.
The SAH Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plans for Area 7 (which include the Back Bay
project area and the SAH project area) both provide that blighted areas within Area 7 will be
eliminated via the public improvements. The City has been concerned in recent months that the
County's implementation of the Plans has been too slow to effectively eliminate blight that
exists. While annexing Area 7 does not directly address blight in the neighborhood, we could do
so if the City were able to take over administration of the redevelopment project area AND if we
could expedite improvements in the project area.
Annexation of Area 7
March 11, 2003
Page 15
M. Incorporation. Likelihood of County areas to incorporate to the detriment of existing
cities.
It is highly unlikely that Area 7 could or would want to self - incorporate given today's laws.
N. Image. Ability to increase City stature by annexation of land and /or improvements
with exceptional characteristics.
While the community of West Santa Ana Heights and the area South of Mesa have
characteristics consistent with parts of Newport Beach (and with parts that will be annexed July
1, 2003), the characteristics are not exceptional. Some may argue that the community
presence and history of the Santa Ana Country Club are exceptional and therefore "increase
City stature."
MM
I attended the meeting on February 25's and planned to speak. However I realized at least part of what I
wanted to convey is better covered in a letter. I reside on Redlands Drive in area 7 south of Mesa Drive.
We bought the Redlands house soon after I came to UCI as one of the founding faculty members in the
Schools of Biological Sciences and Medicine. I believe that political activity is the duty of a citizen. This
time I chaired the group of about 20 volunteers who circulated the petitions that successfully protested the
annexation of Area 7 to Costa Mesa. I have enclosed the two key documents of the petition drive for your
examination. The first document is entitled, `Democracy in Action: Petition to Block the Annexation of
Area 7 to Costa Mesa "and explains the relatively complex procedure that has to be followed to
successfully protest an annexation. The second document, the actual petition, is entitled, `Written Protest
by Registered Voter'.' Both these documents clearly state that voters who want to be annexed to Newport
Beach should sign the petition while voters who want to be annexed to Costa Mesa need do nothing as
that is the default position.
Orange County LAFCO is composed of 7 commissioners, two from city government, two from special
districts, two members of the board of supervisors, and one public member. Their goal is to promote
orderly growth and development and discourage urban sprawl. They are not directly elected and have
broad powers to set city and service district boundaries, but in typical USA/California fashion there is an
escape clause from the will of this rather powerful group by which the will of the people can be directly
registered by means of a protest petition. This protest provision brings the power of LAFCO back into the
central context of American Government that is always to be a government of the people, by the people
and for the people. If 25% of the registered voters who reside in the area protest the action of LAFCO is
subject to an election at LAFCO § expense. If 50% of the registered voters protest then the LAFCO
directed annexation is set aside without an election. We had over 77% of the voters sign our petition
favoring annexation to Newport Beach. LAFCO certified a number in the high 60 % range, but when the
Registrar of Voters finally finished updating the voter list in the three precincts involved in Area 7 South
of Mesa we had 77% of the registered voters. Once we got above 50% LAFCO was not really concerned
with the exact number. We also kept track of the voters who preferred Costa Mesa so that we would not
waste volunteers 'time contacting them again. This group comprised 5% of the registered voters. Thus
the residents prefer Newport Beach by a 15 to I margin. In America it just does not get much better than
this. This is an overwhelming majority especially when you consider that few elected officials have 50%
—` of`la 1 registered voters voting for them even when they win by substantial 'The approximately -
15% unaccounted for are missing for various reasons unrelated to the issue at hand -long trips, school, do
not sign petitions, given up voting, signed the petition incorrectly etc. The important point is'that
successful protest petition drives are rare. This was the first one in Orange County in about 20 years.
Margins of 15 to I in petition drives are very rare and give a strong mandate for the annexation of Area 7,
to Newport Beach
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Date
Copies Sent To:
GYMayor
Mayor Bromberg and Members of the City Council
/Council Member
3300 Newport Blvd
J� Manager
•03 MAR -4 A 8 :51
Newport Beach, CA 92663
/
❑ Atttor.;Y
--
UFICIE1 -; I`<ESITiCLERK
RE: Annexation of Area 7
.,a-Fn1r
❑
CITY C - E_; PCRF76EtCii
'
Dear Mayor Bromberg and Councilmen,
I attended the meeting on February 25's and planned to speak. However I realized at least part of what I
wanted to convey is better covered in a letter. I reside on Redlands Drive in area 7 south of Mesa Drive.
We bought the Redlands house soon after I came to UCI as one of the founding faculty members in the
Schools of Biological Sciences and Medicine. I believe that political activity is the duty of a citizen. This
time I chaired the group of about 20 volunteers who circulated the petitions that successfully protested the
annexation of Area 7 to Costa Mesa. I have enclosed the two key documents of the petition drive for your
examination. The first document is entitled, `Democracy in Action: Petition to Block the Annexation of
Area 7 to Costa Mesa "and explains the relatively complex procedure that has to be followed to
successfully protest an annexation. The second document, the actual petition, is entitled, `Written Protest
by Registered Voter'.' Both these documents clearly state that voters who want to be annexed to Newport
Beach should sign the petition while voters who want to be annexed to Costa Mesa need do nothing as
that is the default position.
Orange County LAFCO is composed of 7 commissioners, two from city government, two from special
districts, two members of the board of supervisors, and one public member. Their goal is to promote
orderly growth and development and discourage urban sprawl. They are not directly elected and have
broad powers to set city and service district boundaries, but in typical USA/California fashion there is an
escape clause from the will of this rather powerful group by which the will of the people can be directly
registered by means of a protest petition. This protest provision brings the power of LAFCO back into the
central context of American Government that is always to be a government of the people, by the people
and for the people. If 25% of the registered voters who reside in the area protest the action of LAFCO is
subject to an election at LAFCO § expense. If 50% of the registered voters protest then the LAFCO
directed annexation is set aside without an election. We had over 77% of the voters sign our petition
favoring annexation to Newport Beach. LAFCO certified a number in the high 60 % range, but when the
Registrar of Voters finally finished updating the voter list in the three precincts involved in Area 7 South
of Mesa we had 77% of the registered voters. Once we got above 50% LAFCO was not really concerned
with the exact number. We also kept track of the voters who preferred Costa Mesa so that we would not
waste volunteers 'time contacting them again. This group comprised 5% of the registered voters. Thus
the residents prefer Newport Beach by a 15 to I margin. In America it just does not get much better than
this. This is an overwhelming majority especially when you consider that few elected officials have 50%
—` of`la 1 registered voters voting for them even when they win by substantial 'The approximately -
15% unaccounted for are missing for various reasons unrelated to the issue at hand -long trips, school, do
not sign petitions, given up voting, signed the petition incorrectly etc. The important point is'that
successful protest petition drives are rare. This was the first one in Orange County in about 20 years.
Margins of 15 to I in petition drives are very rare and give a strong mandate for the annexation of Area 7,
to Newport Beach
The second issue I want to address concerns Section G: Boundaries of the staff report It discusses
'logical man -made or natural physical barriers "which are often hard to come by on the great Southern
Califomia coastal plain. The boundaries of Newport Beach after annexation of Area 7 do make sense. At
its core I believe Newport Beach is defined by proximity to salt water as it spreads out from the beaches
and the bay. Area 7 passes this definition with flying colors because it is as close to salt water as 50% of
the area within Newport Beach. In any case the only significant physical barrier in this area is the 55
Freeway and Bristol Street that acts as the frontage road for the 73 Freeway. The other roads in this upper
bay area are almost entirely two lane roads. The 55 Freeway forms the Northwest border of the SACC.
Annexation of all of Area 7 extends Newport Beach in a compact manner towards the Northwest until it
reaches territory that is already Costa Mesa or the 55 Freeway or Bristol Street. See exhibit A_ The actual
protest area South of Mesa follows precinct maps. In any case modem global positioning satellite
technology.has made straight borders much less important. Fire and Police are dispatched to a precise
location automatically. Current water and garbage service in the area will be continued, and pose no
problem
The final reason for moving ahead with this annexation is that it completes Newport Beach b boundaries
with Costa Mesa. The voters in Area 7 are not willing to go to Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa devoted
considerable effort to wooing this area. It was unsuccessful. There are almost as many reasons for this as
there are voters. The voters are well informed on what this issue means to them, and we learned to allow
quite a bit of time for them to expound their views when we asked for their signature. We just did not
meet many people who were on the fence. The important point is that you are not carrying out an
adversarial annexation of areas in Costa Mesa b SOI. The successful protest took us out of that situation
and we look forward to working with you and LAFCO for the successfully annexation of all of Area 7 to
Newport Beach and demonstrating to the skeptics in Area 7 that their protest does matter and this is still a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Best regards,
Cal McLaughlin
2616 Redlands Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
PETITION TO BLOCK THE ANNEXATION OF AREA 7
TO COSTA MESA
Background: LAFCO has approved the annexation to Costa Mesa of Area 7 on their maps consisting of
the residential and commercial area south of Mesa Drive between Irvine and Santa Ana and north of
Monte Vista School. The law gives us the right to petition LAFCO not to be annexed to Costa Mesa. If
we gather signed petitions from 51 % of the registered voters the annexation to Costa Mesa will stop and
LAFCO will propose that this area be annexed to Newport Beach. The petition drive must conform to a
specific set of rules. Petitions must have a certain format and only signatures from registered voters
count The drive for petition signatures must start on October 17 and finish within 45 days. Everyone
we have talked to would rather be in Newport Beach than Costa Mesa. There does not seem to be any
controversy so our task seems simple —collect signed petitions from 51% of the register voters in this area
starting on October 17te and ending 45 days later. Nevertheless we must be very careful because the
registered voter list is not really uptodate. It contains the names of voters who have moved out of the
area. In this case we will have a separate letter for you to sign stating that these voters no longer reside at
your address. It is important that voters who have moved away not be counted. On the other hand a
number of people who would like to sign the petition are not registered to vote. We are prepared to help .
them fill out the form and register. These newly registered voters cannot vote in the November election,
but they can fill out the petition and decide between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach_
Petition Drive Procedures
1. If you are a registered voter all you need to do is sign and date the petition. You should print your
name and address just as it appears on the registered voter list and sign it the same way you signed the
voter registration card..
2. If you are not registered to vote and want to sign the petition you have to fill out a voter registration
card which will be available and then sign the petition. You can sign both documents on the same day.
3. If the registered voter list contains voters who have moved away still listed as residing at your address
we have a simple letter addressed to the Registrar of Voters for you to sign. The Registrar will remove
the voters who no longer reside in the area from the voter list This is very important because any
registered voter who does not sign the petition is counted as voting for annexation to Costa Mesa
4. If members of your family or neighbors who are registered voters are not present during the petition
drive we will leave a petition for you to get their signatures. The Irvine Ranch Market has agreed to
collect these petitions for us. The cashiers will take your petition and give it to the manager. We will
collect these petitions daily. It is important that you do not turn in your petitions directly to LAFCO.
When we get petitions from substantially more than 51% of the registered voters we will hand carry the
petitions to LAFCO. Until then the Committee for Annexation to Newport Beach needs to keep careful
track of who has sign petitions. Contact a member if you have any questions.
C. McLaughlin 949 646 5191
J. Fay 949 548 9811
J. Ching 949 645 5275
R. Campbell 949 646 3713
WRITTEN PROTEST BY REGISTERED VOTER
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 57026(g))
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WANT OUR RESIDENCES AND PROPERTIES TO BE
ANNEXED INTO NEWPORT BEACH. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN COSTA MESA.
ACCORDINGLY, WE (AS REGISTERED VOTERS) HEREBY FORMALLY PROTEST TEE
PROPOSAL TO ANNEX THE RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL AREA SOUTH OF MESA DRIVE
AND THE SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA (CA01 -20, AREA 7,
EXCLUDING WEST SANTA ANA HEIGHTS) AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2002.
THANK YOU FOR NOT REQUIRING US TO BE IN COSTA MESA WHEN WE WANT TO
BE IN NEWPORT BEACH.
2002
Signature
PRINTED NAME AS IT APPEARS ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
Telephone Number.
Date of Signature
ADDRESS AS IT APPEARS ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
2002
Signature
PRINTED NAME AS IT APPEARS ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
Telephone
Date of Signature
ADDRESS AS IT APPEARS ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
nx
Signature Date of Signature
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION ADDRESS AS IT APPEARS ON THE
Telephone Number AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
Revised 1010912002
PRINTED NAME AS IT APPEARS.ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
ADDRESS AS IT APPEARS ON THE
Telephone Number.
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
2002
Signature
Date of Signature
PRINTED NAME AS IT APPEARS ON THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION ADDRESS AS IT APPEARS ON THE
Telephone Number AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION
Revised 1010912002
■
=
V
V
Ea
U
o
a�
-s
C)
>
U
4-J
U
ri
�a
L
C X
2.4
X�
4
cn
C
Q
fo
fo
�J
c
U
U
fo
fo
4-J
fo
f
u
U
ro
C)
U
4-J
U
ri
m
i
(O
v /
i
M
fo
V
p
Q
Qz
^W
i
W
WDOE
[a
N
cv
E
O
O
N
O
.�
O
N
V
C)
N
'
O
rq
E
OV
fu
a—+
00
n
u
4—j
o
O
�
�
O
0)
[a
V
U
4-J
U
C
al
[a
O
[a
ate-+
[a
.21
C
m
2
m
O
—a
=
u
fu
Q
0
C
4-J
O
Q
Q
fu
V)
�
c
Z
_0
�
ru
o
D
cn
U)
O
V)
_
V
a_j
V
4-J
U)
U
L
n
[a
C
Q
H
W
Q
Q
OV
,-
■
■
■
W
L
4-J
0
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
L
�
\ CD co
� }
#
/
Aa ®/ ~°
)y} / \ \�\\
8 _
A 2
J _
\>
3f \
� § - - - - - -
f�
I -
a
ct 7 - - - - - \
ka w�
CO
K
00
M
$
45
C6
@
k
7
■
2
)
/
2
2
#
7
•
#
I
co
M
CD
00
Z.
00
Im
CD
CD
to
to
}
/
K
$
45
C6
@
k
7
■
2
)
/
2
2
#
7
•
#
}
/
K
$
45
C6
@
k
7
■
2
)
/
2
2
#
7
•
#
E E E E E E E I N Nj b
IN
FA
.1I
N
N
N
O
�-
T
O
Q
Q
(D Il
Q
Il Q
(7
W
O
N U
N
C X N
(7
�
X y 0 0
LL
0
O FT w
E
co
a O
5
EA
EA EA EA
fJ1 In
EA
EA JI
EA
EA
LLv)Ft LL
ma">
Wv)0
tD
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
EA
N W
W W
(7
of
W
W (7
N N
O
C7
W
N
N
M N
Q
N I�
r
C7
r
�
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
EA
W O
N N
O
O
M
W Q
(7
EA
EA EA EA
EA EA
EA
EA EA
EA
EA
O M
r
N
(7
N
N
Q
rD
' M
O tD
W N
I
O
O�
Il:
Q
(7 N
m
N �D
�D
Q
O M
r
N
O
N
�
r
N
�
EA
EA EA EA
EA EA
EA
EA EA
EA
EA
O
Q
N
O W
W
O tD
tD
N
W
tD
I�
O M
Q
O N
N
W
I�
C7
C7
C7 N
C7
I� N
N
Q
N
(7
EA
EA EA EA
EA EA
EA
EA EA
EA
EA
O
M
O
O Q
N
0 0
0
W
O
N
O
O tD
I�
O O
O
W
N
N
O V
N
�D
N
N
(7
N
O M
N
W
r
N
N
E E E E E E E I N Nj b
IN
FA
.1I
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
O M
N
�D N
EA EA
M r
N r
�D N
Q W
EA EA
O N
N I�
EA I EA
N N
N N
N W
r
EA EA
I� N
M N
N tD
N O
O W
r
a
U C
SUS O C
T G N N N CL
N .0 U _O W
° E g o i
E < ar c c m
E¢ v) m a N CL K
N
06 W
C C C
LLiL CD CD UQ
h
d
t0
E
N
m
N
N
N
O
�-
T
l9 X
U
W
t0
N
LL C
�
O
N U
N
C X N
(7
�
X y 0 0
LL
0
O FT w
E
co
a O
5
ON C C
C d LL
0 47
N
LLv)Ft LL
ma">
Wv)0
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
O M
N
�D N
EA EA
M r
N r
�D N
Q W
EA EA
O N
N I�
EA I EA
N N
N N
N W
r
EA EA
I� N
M N
N tD
N O
O W
r
a
U C
SUS O C
T G N N N CL
N .0 U _O W
° E g o i
E < ar c c m
E¢ v) m a N CL K
N
06 W
C C C
LLiL CD CD UQ
h
d
t0
E
N
m
r
tD
EA EA EA EA Vl In fA EA EA
EA
r
tD
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
EA
N W
W W
(7
of
W
W (7
N N
O
C7
W
N
C
N
cl
C4
r
�
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
EA
W O
N N
O
O
M
W Q
(7
of
O
O
O M
r
N
(7
N
N
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
EA
O M
r
N
O
N
�
N
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
O M
N
�D N
EA EA
M r
N r
�D N
Q W
EA EA
O N
N I�
EA I EA
N N
N N
N W
r
EA EA
I� N
M N
N tD
N O
O W
r
a
U C
SUS O C
T G N N N CL
N .0 U _O W
° E g o i
E < ar c c m
E¢ v) m a N CL K
N
06 W
C C C
LLiL CD CD UQ
h
d
t0
E
N
m
U
U
N
p
N
p
N
p
O
E
E
p
Coco
C
O
N
0
N
O
N
O
p L`
U
m
m
C
p
m
U
U
Q-
co
LL
Co
LL
Co
co
m
m
M
C�
Z
m
m
e
�c�
�
-jz
Z
m
m�
�
m
U
c
m
U
m
aa)
aa)
m
��
LL
a)
am
z
Ir
Ir
U
O
U
O
(')
m
Co
Z
Co
Z
m
z
m
z
U
U
U
0
Z
U
U
c
c
r
p
p
N
N
N
�'
aci
aci
p
°1
p
p
O
a
3
O
o.
3
O
o.
3
LL
LL
cO1
LL
0
1
L
Co
Z
m
Z
0`
O
m
C
0
a�
m
aE
m
Q
p U
0
d
d
Q
p
Z
m
Z
Z
w-
vi
Z
vmi
vmi
�•
0
c
Z
O
0
O
O
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
p
C
o
0
U
cn
a)
a
o
U
U
U
N
N
N
U
U
U
�
m
m
U
U
U
►
m
at
E
N
U
N
a7
O.
O
y
U
C
U
C
C
m
(
S
(D
O
0
O
Y
m
p
m
(D
C
O
fn
N
U
R
O
U
o
47
o
N
m
in
O
m
a
U
fO
o
m
f0
_�
m°
—°
m
cn
O
ac
v 3
o
mU
m
a7
.a+7
O
O
C
U
m
Y
•
7
0
- m
U
0
F
X
m
o
p
X
j
0) O
p
m
"�
a)
O
m
a)
a)
CL
d
LL
W
7
(n
d
J LL
U
U
d
m
Ir
U
J
d
Ir
U
W
H
W
U
m O
z �
U
0
Q� Q�
Q
O
Q
E Q
U
C -J
O
�O
O�
,O1 �
p 0 O
U �
� � O
� O
O �
� � O
O i
Q
u
cn
vi
JCf
a-J
o
+ ,
N
�
O
-0
CD
O
4-,
C
Q
C
�
a�0Lf
E
U
3
0)
:3
_O
O
c
L
ra
V)
Q)
L
I
•�
4_.7
O
E
X
O
0
ateJ
v
C
>
CD
N
-0
QQ
O
C
C:
O-
N
V
O �
O
E �
U �
Old
4�,
ru
I i
O
O
O
o � o
a�
i M
■
o
+ ,
N
�
O
Q
CD
0
10
V
O �
O
E �
U �
Old
4�,
ru
I i
O
O
O
o � o
a�
i M
■
E
E
U
fu
Q
U
.O
CL
ate-J
a-J
O
2
_O
O
fa
U
6
4-
O
i
fu
Q
Q ■
�
O
O
O
•
Cl
cn
O
-0
>
U
.0
-0
4-J
U
_0
O
N
CD
u
U
rn
��
�4r
•�
a�
O
=
�
O
4
._
40
Q
�
�
C
Q
O
E
a-J
O
4
Q
C
U
O
M
cn
-0
>
O
Q
•U
_0
Q ■
�
O
•
cn
-0
>
U
.0
U
_0
O
N
CD
rn
z
•�
a�
O
r-
4
._
40
Q
U
a-J
O
a--+
U
M
Q
•U
_0
c
O
O
�
U
■
a
0
E
Q �
Q
a-J N
•O
ate-J i
E 4-j
O C:
Q) .-
oC 3:
■
W
u')
O
fa
fu O
fu N
> cn
C N
fa
> Q
�U
L- 111
fa t-- oo�
�� fa
C �
.O
c �
CL
NQ=
O
0
ate-J
0)
C
fa
a)L-a)c.c �
No a
000�cZ�
0 0
Q °
c
Q)U
a)°
:3o o� o
U^ :3
O42) ]�
O N 0'
� � O
i O O c
N,C CIL
N O O
ors oQ)
U�Q.
O O N
0O4�.C��C
c N 00 .
°
°o3 �
U°
Q)
4 c�
Q
ae
CL
� o
O
O
O
Zj
C N
n 0
i c Z
c��C) oo °c c °°
N•�'' Ot� U
Ait,
LE
I T
all! 1 1
U.
41111,11114 1
Ik
.. ..............
....... ... .. .. .. ............ ...
T, T
E T-n
LIS,
co
ON
enu
I T
all! 1 1
U.
41111,11114 1
Ik
- �-IIUIIIFI
;;.7
WnnT e;
k
jITET
FM,
LIS,
co
- �-IIUIIIFI
;;.7
WnnT e;
k
jITET
FM,
ON
enu
I T
Tr
71�
...... V.W
- �-IIUIIIFI
;;.7
WnnT e;
k
jITET
FM,
0
X
z
ru
rm
NE
il-
_0 O U
L- O
ru 4-J
a-i
O _0
c
> O = U J
O > < 0 C -O C �
E C N
-0 cv �`• Ln 4-1
O
O0
00 O aj
U) 4-j 4-J � , N N C
ur) 4-+ a)
cn X ro 4-J =
cn a--+
+-+ N cn o 04-- O O
0. X 3:-a V 0 U O N C:
� c ? � �- � � O Dl
�, C -a CL c N O- -° c
cn ra
F- '�
k, N-V
ty
It A;:�Or
1* A.
S;P. I
4,
It
p.
lorq
4
1
ru
rM
M M M M I-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 N N N N N N
E fa M CO
rn E E n n
II II II 4-J
N N O
U) i
II II 4-J
O
c
aJ
_ -
O
u -0
LL C
O O 'E .
0) N o
cl C Q
O Q
a O
- J
Q o OU a Q) Q)
cn V) LL 41 c -O
ce a- cgCL Qce
O)-lz3 Q;
O O
�O
cz
qj i
O
U� U�
•�, W
00 rt
ru Q- Oo N
W moo^; a�
o M
O �� U qj
cz U
o
M� 0��, •
M ru O
V) O
O O�
qj
cz c°
Q: ooa
qj =q'�'�
m�ru Q�
CO
G
O
LL
■
O
•
N
O
O
- M
L-+ �
U
•
O
ca
U
O
•
rg-
O
U
ro
•
Ln
Ln
N
�
O
�
M
to
0
U
�
U
i
O
fa
(1)
O
�
n
■
O
•
N
O
O
- M
L-+ �
U
•
O
ca
U
O
•
rg-
O
U
ro
•
ui
C:
.0
4—)
��
�
�
�
C:
(1)
E
E
0
u
�
�
�
�
!
4-J
�
�
�
4-J
all
I
§/ /
722@
C/) -0 " C/)
�EO6
S 4-
e ¥ 0-o
U S 2 o
ƒk0\
� � m k
o
U0
C $ E
F=0 0)
(D 0
C) ȤO
0_�C)LL
3 "j-i
(D
7220
% 0r
f .$
(D
3623
�
/F0
3 /rte
j5 .2 k c
/) ƒ2J
6
k
� q2
r (D
C)
>
cm b(D
)o
q § k §
$ \ / q
0 0—
Q).2
% §
@� 2�
� U
/y��<
0 E @ ..
002@
\qQ��
0)
C/)
� t < F=
(D C/)
3 @ 2 C/5 6
q / m m 2
m >
X� 6 p f
<� 0)2 0-
�kƒo"
.
f\
U/
¥k
�2
�M
2ƒ
f
2
/tea
2 kd
fk§
< E
4 m §
±3Eo
o @
00- c
kk§
@.0) C/)
M�k
<
Q @
C/)�
§D/
6 %
�q2
U(D )
.
-
D
(D
7
O
U
$
U
O 6
m E
6�
3ƒ
cn
/2
0
kx
o k
>�
/ §
X §
.§ o
�k
qk